Gemma Rauret Director

1. INQAAHE Conference 2009 30st March – 2nd April 2009 Abu Dhabi, UnitedArabEmirates Quality Assurance for Enhancement: a case study of ANECA (Spain) Gemma Rauret Director

2. Table of contents Tensions and challenges in the evaluation process Simple vs. diversified models for assuring quality The Spanish model for quality assurance The new quality assurance approach

3. 1.Tensions and challenges in the evaluation process in QA

4. Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges • Is it feasible the evaluation enhancement-oriented model? • Is it possible to harmonize an evaluation enhancement-oriented to another accreditation-oriented? • How to integrate an evaluation for accreditation with an evaluation for enhancement?

5. Accountability vs. Quality Enhancement Governmental Regulation vs. Self-regulation Performance Indicators vs. Expert Opinion Accreditation vs. On-going Quality Enhancement Can both approaches be integrated? Purist perspective vs. Practical position Stakeholders’ claims Accreditation legitimacy Integration in a supra-national framework : the EHEA Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges Tensions in the two approaches in the evaluation

6. Higher Education Institutions: HEIs are responsible for the quality of their educational offer HEIs must be able to show quality both at the national and International level A quality culture within HEIs must be promoted Quality of academic programmes for students must be developed and enhanced Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges Basic principles that rule the ESG • Society: • Society’s interests concerning quality of higher education must be assured and safeguarded

7. Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges Process: • Quality assurance accountability-oriented is compatible with enhancement • Processes should be compatible with diversity and innovation • Transparency and external experts are significant within the quality assurance processes • Processes allowing HEIs can show their responsibility concerning accountability for both public and private funds received should be developed Scope and Goals of the Evaluation: • National Higher Education Academic Rules • Programme and/or institutional accreditation • Users’ protection • Public access to the information about programmes and institutions • Quality improvement and enhancement

8. 2.Simple versus diversified models for assuring quality

9. Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges Simple or different evaluation models? • External and internal determining factors • Reality and evaluation culture of the system • Complexity, volume, tradition and legal frameworks • Problems to be undertaken • Potential of the organization to accomplish the evaluation • Internal quality units in the HEIs and • quality assurance agencies involved in the process • Common aspects of both models • An agency that co-ordinates the process • A self-evaluation report • A peer site-visit • A public final report

10. Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges Stages where different problems will be undertaken/ the role played by the quality assurance/nature of the external review • Doubts regarding educational standards/ identification of programs placed under that threshold/ accreditation • Doubts regarding the efficiency of either the Higher Education system or the HEIs / Public accountability and creating awareness in institutions/ranking or report to state

11. Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges • Doubts regarding Innovation capacity and QA capacity / stimulate self-regulation capacity of institutions. Public accountability/Audit to the institution • Need to stimulate sustainable Quality Culture in Institutions/ Improvement based on self regulation or public accountability /audit report to the institution • Decreasing Comparative Transparency across HE Systems/stakeholder information/ publication of performance indicators

12. What kind of agency can provide responses to the challenges set up? The nature of an agency : learning organization shared know-how critical and independent thought The technology of the agency: Guides, standards and benchmarks The process Interaction with the HEI: moment and type of interaction Ensuring the presence of different stakeholders Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges

13. Experts Highly qualified Trained on the evaluation model to be applied International experience Agency’s staff Highly qualified staff On-going training: networking with other agencies’ staff Network of collaborating experts Evaluation Process in QA: tensions and challenges • What kind of profile, training and role place the experts and agency’s staff in evaluation?

14. 3.The Spanish model for quality assurance

15. Spanish Higher Education System Universities 75 universities all over Spain (50 public – 25 private) Total number of students enrolled 1.461.477 Public universities – 1.326.734 Private universities – 134.743

16. The Spanish model for QA The Spanish Setting • Programme evaluation for improvement was introduced but without consequences (1985-2005). • The initial reaction was very stimulated although due to the lack of consequences the impact was rather unequal. • A stage without consequences is useful but cannot be extended for an indefinite period. • This stage led to the creation of QA agencies at the regional and the national level and QA units in HEIs.

17. The Spanish model for QA The Spanish Setting (2) • The EHEA and the quality assurance (2007 onwards). Problem to be undertaken and evaluation model • Ensuring that all official programs fulfilled the standards established in the legal framework. • Adopting the accreditation model with a few elements enhance-oriented • Adopting a national evaluation model for the teaching staff • Mandatory for bachelor and master programs • Implies funding and recognition of degrees for the public service • ANECA and other regional agencies are responsible for the external evaluation

18. The Spanish model for QA The programme accreditation process Implementation Fulfilment evaluation Programme design Ex – ante Evaluation Design Verification Follow-up Accreditation UNIVERSItY UNIVERSITY Council Univ. Council Univ. ANECA ANECA and regional Agencies

19. The Spanish model for QA • How ANECA has undertaken the new challenge? • ANECA as a learning organisation • Innovation Area • Involvement at the International level • ENQA, ECA, RIACES and INQAAHE • Taking part in innovative projects • ANECA’s technology • What Tools? • Guide for universities • Guide for evaluation • Methodology, standards and benchmarks • How are they created? • Innovation Unit • Technical Committee for validation • Approval by the Board of Directors

20. The Spanish model for QA • The methodology: An evaluation procedure in three stages • Provisional Report oriented towards the fulfilment of the standards and improvement • Response of universities and enhancement • Final Report on the fulfilment of the standards • ESG Fulfilment • External reviewed in 2007: ENQA full membership • Included in the European Register for Quality Assurance Agencies (EQAR): December 2008

21. The Spanish model for QA Profile and training of the agents involved in the evaluation Experts profile • Academic peers: expertise in QA, in programme evaluation, in International teams and members of the university staff • Professional Experts in the discipline specific field • Students coming from the discipline specific field at the suggestion of student unions • Experts in quality assurance Training • Specific training sessions in the agency • On the university system of Spain • On the running of the evaluation procedure

22. The Spanish model for QA Profile, training and role of the technical staff • Profile • Expert in quality assurance • Young academic staff with experience in quality assurance of higher education • Training subjects • On the university system of Spain • On the running of the evaluation procedure • On quality assurance Systems and the application of standards • Data processing • Role played by the technical staff of ANECA • Secretary of the committee • Improve the reference book to be used by the Experts in the committees • Co-ordinates the organisation of the meetings

23. 4.The new quality assurance approach

24. The main features: Strengthening the internal QA systemof HEI A public information system To give importance to improvement plans Evaluation agencies should adopt a consultancy role Funding as an incentive for on-going improvement The new QA approach

25. The new QA approach The internal QA Systems of the institution • Internal systems of the HEI are the only element really sustainable • Based on on-going improvement • Towards international quality levels • Best practices for benchmarking • Reporting on progresses • Improvement of teaching quality • Quality system core • Staff involvement at all levels Public information system • Characteristics of the programs • Planning and implementation of the learning process • Performance indicators

26. The new QA approach Quality improvement plan • Characteristics • Focused on learning quality enhancement • Built up from self assessment • Relevant actions for achieving the improvement goals • Feasible: human and material resources • Adequate time • Institutional commitment • Accountability of results

27. Conclusions Conclusions remarks • The evaluation approach improvement- and voluntary-oriented creates COMMITMENT • The evaluation approach accountability- and mandatory-oriented only creates FULFILMENT • Both are necessary components for generating a quality culture

28. Thanksforyourattention www.aneca.es