1 / 25

Joint Programmes: a challenge with a future

Joint Programmes: a challenge with a future. Content. I. EUA-guidelines for Joint Programmes II. Experiences from ‘the field’: Master in Euroculture III. Manual for Joint Programmes (Flemish case) IV. Questions. I. EUA guidelines for Joint Programmes. Basis assumptions and starting point

justin
Download Presentation

Joint Programmes: a challenge with a future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Joint Programmes: a challenge with a future Luc François

  2. Content I. EUA-guidelines for Joint Programmes II. Experiences from ‘the field’: Master in Euroculture III. Manual for Joint Programmes (Flemish case) IV. Questions Luc François

  3. I. EUA guidelines for Joint Programmes • Basis assumptions and starting point ↓ • From planning to action ↓ • Quality Assurance for JP ↓ • Overview of steps to be taken Luc François

  4. 1. Basic assumptions and starting points (1/2) • Bear in mind: JP is a highly complex, coordinated activity of partners • Cooperation and coordination are crucial for realisation of a JP • Central coordination structure of JP: mostly happens alongside ‘own’ institutional structures • Good coordination on different levels is necessary and should be considered • Identify preconditions in order to ensure support of partnerinstitutions  See From Planning to Action Luc François

  5. 1. Basic assumptions and starting points (1/2) • Maintain and enrich the cultural heritage and diversity in a coherently structured programme • Cooperation on the principles of transparency and honesty • Permanent dialogue between all partners involved • Sense of ‘common ownership’ of JP • Will to work together in international context (institutional mission statement) • Broad involvement and participation of all relevant stakeholders (students, staff,…) • Quality assurance: shared and integrated responsibility Luc François

  6. 2. From Planning to Action (1/2) • Shared understanding • Language issues • Technical terminology • Decision-making and levels of responsibility • Decision-making structures: clear strategies and communication policies • Levels of responsibility: Luc François

  7. 2. From Planning to Action (2/2) • Quality Assurance: coordination needed among the three levels (network-subject-institution) • Appointment of ‘agent’ at each level (competent, trained and responsible person) to assure coherent overall programme • Involvement of students • In QA mechanisms • Transport of information on good (and less good) practices Luc François

  8. 3. Quality Assurance for JP (1/2) • Key questions should be posed: • Have Learning Outcomes been defined? • Is the curriculum coherent, target oriented and sustainable? • Has a consistent and suitable implementation of the programme at all partnerinstitutions been ensured? • Does (or will) improvement take place in order to ameliorate the programme? Luc François

  9. 3. Quality Assurance for JP (2/2) • Because of broad ambition and complexity of JP, three additional elements must be considered: 5. Explicit unique dimension of the JP 6. Different organisational cultures and values need to be balanced 7. Recognition issues need to be solved Luc François

  10. 4. Overview of steps to be taken • Setting up a new Joint Programme: • Idea • Concept (outline) • Planning (in detail) • Agreement • DOING the programme • Evaluation of a running Joint Programme • Joint Analysis • Action plan for improvement • External evaluation Luc François

  11. II. Experiences from the ‘field’: Master in Euroculture • ° 1999 • Aim: provide students good comprehension of overall aspects in the European integration process • Partners in the Network: • Groningen (Nl): coordinator • Göttingen (G) • Krakow (Pl) • Olomouc (Cz.R) • Strasbourg (F) • Udine (I) • Uppsala (Se) Luc François

  12. Master in Euroculture • Structure of the Programme • 90 ECTS • 1st semester: home university • Intensive Programme: organising partner • 2nd semester: host university • 3rd semester: internship-training and Master thesis • Language: English • Selected as Erasmus Mundus Programme Luc François

  13. Master in Euroculture: advantages and disadvantages + Partners ‘in crime’: same goal + Interesting structure for students and staff: international experience + Selected as Erasmus Mundus • Ghent University left the network due to different credits • Different legal regulations: difficult to find the golden mean • Different tuition fees • Keeping up communication between all partners Luc François

  14. III. Manual for Joint Programmes • Why a manual? • Concept of the manual • Partners involved • Framework of the manual • State of affairs Luc François

  15. 1. Why a manual? (1/2) • EU: promotion of structural cooperation between European institutions (and beyond) • Focus on different means of cooperation: • Questions are raised: • Organisation: how to handle? • Quality: how to assure? • Legal framework: differences per countries • Civil effect of diploma’s Luc François

  16. 2. Why a manual? (2/2) • Confusion of concepts: joint degree ≠ joint programme ≠ joint degree programme • Flanders: No manual available yet (only the EUA guidelines)  Task for the Flemish Bologna Experts! Luc François

  17. 2. Concept • Idea: • website with hyperlinks • Hard copy • Translation in English (for interested partners) • Manual for interested teachers, staffmembers, …who have to start from scratch • Recommendations for the Flemish Ministry of Education regarding changes in Higher Education Act. Luc François

  18. 3. Partners involved • Small working group (led by Bologna-experts) but with large support from • International Relations Offices • Quality Assurance Offices • Legal Affairs Offices • Student Administration Offices Luc François

  19. 4. Framework of the Manual (1/5) • Legal framework: explanation on: • ≠ forms of diploma’s and ≠ forms of collaboration • Specific legal framework in Flanders on education • Specific laws on profession (if applicable) • Specific linguistic regulations in Flanders • Erasmus Mundus: specific legal elements to be concerned Luc François

  20. 4. Framework of the Manual (2/5) • Choice of partners: possible ‘traps’: • ≠ number of credits (60 vs 90 vs 120) • ≠ organisational structure (profession-oriented vs academic) • Quality Assurance Structure of partners • Programme: does it fit into the ≠ missions of the institutions involved? Luc François

  21. 4. Framework of the Manual (3/5) • Development of a JP: steps to be taken • Ideas and expectation of JP • Set up of a steering committee and support • Set up of joint educational frame of reference • Development of the programme: name, goals, programme, organisational structure, admission requirements, financial matters, infrastructure, scholarships, diploma and diplomasupplement, … Luc François

  22. 4. Framework of the Manual (4/5) • Quality Assurance • Basis = shared vision on QA, transparancy on decision-making level, open communication and engagement • One model of QA for alle partners (incl. PDCA-cycle) • Consolidation of JP • Evaluation and improvement of JP • External QA (visitation-accreditation process) Luc François

  23. 5. Framework of the Manual (5/5) • Cooperation Agreement • Financial and legal implications • On the institutional level • Preferable: co-signed by the ‘agents’ (responsible persons) of the programme • Definitions and glossary • Recommendations Luc François

  24. 5. State of Affairs • Draft has been read by external experts from • VLIR (Flemish Interuniversitary Council) • VLIR-UOS (University Development Cooperation) • VLHORA (Council of Flemish Unversity Colleges) • NVAO (Dutch-Flemish Accrediaton Organisation) • Department of Education, Flemish Ministry of Education • Adjustment of the Manual based on recommandations of the external experts • Translation of the Manual: foreseen in the near future • Public Presentation: April 2008 Luc François

  25. Thank you for your attention! Luc François

More Related