Dr Vladimir Radevski Ohrid, 4 April 2012

1. Dr Vladimir Radevski Ohrid, 4 April 2012 National Frameworks and their associated Quality Assurance

2. The plan • Quality Assurance in relation with National Qualification Framework (NQF) • Institutional Quality Assurance in relation wit NQF – SEE University experiences • Quality Assurance on National Level – Next steps

3. Part one Quality Assurance in relation with National Qualification Framework (NQF)

4. Quality outcomes of NQFs – • Recognized and well utilized NQFs/Learning outcomes • Driver for educational reform • Improvement in employability and mobility • Empowerment of students with skills, knowledge, and attitudes that enable them to live and work in a knowledge society • Informed decision making by students and stakeholders • Increased student involvement in learning processes • Student centred teaching and assessment • Qualified, competent and well-supported academic staff • Transparent, consistent and evidence-based monitoring structures and transparency tools which recognise and share achievement, support and demonstrate improvement • Effective, well defined educational cooperation • Increased transparency, accountability, public confidence • International recognition and comparability

5. NQFs and Quality – • Quality as stakeholder satisfaction – what a ‘reasonable person’ would regard as acceptable • Quality as fitness for purpose – Fulfilment of specified goals; conformity to sectoral standards Vlãsceanu et al., (2007, pp. 71–72) or meeting a stated mission which allows for diversity (Davies and Brailsford (undated)) • Quality as fitness for use – effectiveness of design, implementation methodologies and support processes, which fits stakeholders defined need under specific conditions (to ensure that the product not only performs to specification but also satisfies the customer’s - students, employers, stakeholders) - need for any reasonable use) but which stakeholders needs take priority – students? Government? Employers? Need agreement of purpose of NQF and how this supports quality between national government, agencies and institutions

6. Examining Quality Culture, Part 11Processes and Tools – Participation, Ownership and Bureaucracy, Andree Sursock, EUA, 2011 Five conditions that lead to an effective quality culture: • Use a variety of quality assurance mechanism;s • Develop and maintain effective internal decision making; • Ensure processes and structures have clear accountability lines and defined responsibilities at all levels;  • Ensure that processes are not imposed or ‘bolted on’ - facilitate internal debate - even tolerate dissent; • Invest in people through staff development to avoid internal quality assurance arrangements becoming punitive; • Encourage institutional autonomy and self-confidence – define our quality norms with clear purpose, in line with our specific profile, strategies and organizational culture.

7. Part two Institutional Quality Assurance in relation wit NQF – SEE University experiences

8. Institutional Quality Assurance in relation with NQF – SEE University experiences • Legal and formal monitoring –institutional webpage, course syllabi check, moderation of academic programmes in accreditation process • Quality structure involving stakeholders – staff, students, employers, alumni, Quality Champion • Regular, planned and moderated reviews, reports, benchmarking – institutional and Faculty • External evaluation – eg EUA Institutional Review Programme, Programme Review with international expertise • Student induction Programme – learning to learn • Student evaluation surveys, focus groups with follow-up • Evaluating use of LOs in the classroom - teaching observation • Monitoring and improving assessment methodologies • Development of effective outcome based learning/PBL/Practical and Clinical Teaching • Active Staff Appraisal Procedure with focus on L&T • Use of Staff reward and promotion processes

9. Part three Criteria and Procedures for verification of National Framework Compatibility

10. Criteria for verification of NF compatibility • 1. The national framework for HE qualifications and the body or bodies responsible for its development are designated by the national ministry with responsibility for HE; • 2. There is a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications in the NFand the cycle qualification descriptors of the European framework; • 3. The NF and its qualifications are demonstrably based on learning outcomes and the qualifications are linked to ECTS; • 4. The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in the national framework are transparent; • 5. The national QA system for HE refer to the NFQ and are consistent with the Berlin Communiqué and any subsequent communiqué agreed by ministers in the Bologna Process; • 6. The NF, and any alignment with the European framework, is referenced in all Diploma Supplements; • 7. The responsibilities of the domestic parties to the NF are clearly determined and published.

11. 1. The competent national body/bodies shall certify the compatibility of the NF with the European framework; 2. The self-certification process shall include the stated agreement of the quality assurance bodies in the country in question recognised through the Bologna Process; 3. The self-certification process shall involve international experts; 4. The self-certification and the evidence supporting it shall be published and shall address separately each of the criteria set out; 5. The ENIC and NARIC networks shall maintain a public listing of States that have confirmed that they have completed the self-certification process [www.enicnaric.net]; 6. The completion of the self-certification process shall be noted on Diploma Supplements issued subsequently by showing the link between the NF and the European framework. Procedures for verifying that NF are compatible with Bologna framework

12. Thank you