1 / 12

Ossi V. Lindqvist (FINHEEC):

Ossi V. Lindqvist (FINHEEC):. Towards a Shared Conception of Internal Quality Assurance Internal Quality Assurance at HE Institutions Bern, December 2, 2005.

rocco
Download Presentation

Ossi V. Lindqvist (FINHEEC):

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. Ossi V. Lindqvist (FINHEEC): Towards a Shared Conception of Internal Quality Assurance Internal Quality Assurance at HE Institutions Bern, December 2, 2005

  2. ‘Towards a shared conception of internal Quality Assurance’ describes the nature of the working method with the aim of creating a common and shared understanding of the HEI’s internal QA present state and current challenges, also in relation to the European standards. This method has been in use by FINHEEC in the development and execution of the Finnish audit system, and in its introduction to the Finnish HEI’s, both the universities and the polytechnics.

  3. Remember the ‘homework’: Representatives of the HEI’s (incl. students): Come up with one sentence that captures the current state of internal QA in your home institution; Representatives of QA agencies and others: Come up with one sentence that captures the current state of internal QA in your region/country. This group work should not be ‘deadly serious’, please do enjoy it and be creative and innovative! At the end, this is all a ‘secret ballot’.

  4. Something about FINHEEC • The starting point of evaluations is TRUST in the quality of higher education: the aim of evaluations is towards development; • FINHEEC evaluations are mainly qualitative; the quantitative performane of HEI’s is monitored in annual contract negotiations between the HEI’s and the Ministry of Education (MoE).

  5. FINHEEC is independent from the MoE and the HEI’s for the methods of evaluations; FINHEEC serves as a buffer organisation between the HEI’s and the MoE. • The main responsibility of quality lies within the HEI’s themselves.

  6. Aims of audits • Evaluation of the HEI’s QA systems as a quality management and development tool; • Supporting the development of the HEI’s by providing feedback on the strengths and challenges of their QA systems; • To prove, through desciption and evaluation of the HEI’s QA systems, the functioning and credibility of the QA system to their cooperative partners.

  7. Starting points of audits • The HEI’s themselves are responsible for their own quality; • Diverse HEI profiles – diverse QA systems (EFQM, ISO, BSC, EQUIS, etc.) – no need for harmonisation! • Different developmental phases – audit schedule based on the registration of the HEI’s; evidence-based.

  8. Audit will target on the QA processes, not the operative results as such; • In addition to direct feedback, the audit reports also aim towards dissemination of good practices; • The Bologna-Prague-Berlin-Bergen process as background: ▪ increased student/staff and workforce mobility; ▪ ENQA Standards and Guidelines for QA in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)

  9. QA systems • Comprehensiveness of QA • Effectiveness of QA • Transparency of QA • Planning of education • Delivery of education • Evaluation and improvement of education

  10. Quality relative to Higher Education • Quality meaning the exceptional, where quality is related to the conception of excellence; • Quality meaning perfection, where quality has consistent and error-free attributes; • Quality meaning fit for purpose, where quality fulfills the perceived requirements of stakeholders;

  11. Quality meaning value, where a governmental agency, subsidizing employer, or agency find optimum benefit relative to cost; • Quality meaning transformation, where quality necessarily involves a change from a current to an ideal end state. (L. Harvey 1997. In: Tertiary Education andManagement 3(1):25-35.

  12. More info: About the Finnish HE and innovation system: www.research.fi FINHEEC: www.kka.fi The Academy of Finland: www.aka.fi

More Related