1 / 23

Quality Assurance in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities

Quality Assurance in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities. Maria Helena Nazaré EUA President Former Rector Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal. Structure of the presentation. EUA. Short overview on the development of European quality assurance (QA) framework Results from EQC project

urbano
Download Presentation

Quality Assurance in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities

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. Quality Assurance in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities Maria Helena Nazaré EUA President Former Rector Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal.

  2. Structure of the presentation • EUA. • Short overview on the development of European quality assurance (QA) framework • Results from EQC project • State of affairs • A way forward • IEP (linking quality and strategic planning)

  3. EUA at a glance • 2001: establishment of EUA • a representative organisation of European universities & rectors’ conferences • Members: • 850 individual universities • 47 countries • 35 National Rectors’ Conferences • Independent Voice for the University Sector: • policy dialogue (focus: EHEA and ERA) • projects and surveys • services to its members (information, events)

  4. EUA’s policy positions on QA • Main responsibility for QA lies with the institutions • Context sensitive (institutional and disciplinary diversity) • Fitness for purpose approach • Enhancement oriented • Internal and external evaluations or QA processes should be complementary • Transparency and co-operation

  5. European Quality Assurance Framework • QA: one action line in the Bologna Process • 2003: The Berlin Communiqué • stated that “consistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself” • Invited ENQA to develop – in co-operation with other stakeholders – standards and procedures for quality assurance • 2005: European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) adopted • Proposed by the E4 Group (ENQA, ESU, EUA, EURASHE) • 2007: European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) endorsed (launched in 2008)

  6. Why work on internal QA? • EUA’s Trends 2010: • enhanced internal QA one of the most important changes in the past ten years • In the next 5 years the 2nd most important theme • Relationship between robust internal QA and internationalisation • Increased competition and collaboration between HEIs • Development of external QA systems and demands for accountability …9…

  7. How to make the most out of external QA? • When developing processes the starting point should be the institutional mission and profile • Synergy between internal and external QA • Ensure the link between strategic management and QA processes • Adopt quality enhancement approach to QA • The goal should be an institutional quality culture supported by the QA processes, not the processes themselves (as emphasised in the ESGs)

  8. The ESGs (1) • A set of generic principles for quality assurance • No « procedures » as originally expected • What HEIs and QAAs should do, not how they should do it • No standards for quality • Teaching and learning • Three levels • Internal QA within HEIs • External QA conducted by the QA agencies • QA of QA agencies

  9. The ESGs (2) • Underpinning principles: • Institutional responsibility for QA • Fitness-for-purpose of external QA • Diversity of external QA approaches • Stakeholder participation and interests

  10. EQC: Aims and Objectives The project Examining Quality Culture in Higher Education Institutions (EQC) aimed: • To provide an overview of the internal quality assurance processes in place within higher education institutions across Europe • To examine how they have responded to Part 1 of the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance (ESGs) • To identify the extent to which quality assurance tools and processes contributed to building a quality culture in institutions. …6…

  11. EQC result: Introducing QA system or equivalent

  12. European situation: Overview • Different approaches when creating national quality assurance systems: (programme or institutional) accreditation, evaluations or audits • Level of institutional autonomy in creating internal QA systems varies • Countries and also institutions are in different phases in implementing institutional as well as national QA systems -> There does not exist one European QA, but the ESG provide framework for good practice share by the whole EHEA

  13. State of Affairs (1) • National QA agencies established -> national agendas • Recognition remains a challenge • Increased demands for QA to provide information on higher education to various stakeholders

  14. State of Affairs: Programme Accreditation (2) • Mostly follow traditional peer-review steps: • Self-evaluation process and report • Site visit by external panel • Evaluation report • Follow-up procedure • Attention to internal QA processes (as defined by the ESG) • Cyclical exercise • Exact criteria and emphasis vary • Ex-ante acreditation? • Monitoring?

  15. State of Affairs: Trends in External QA (3) • ENQA 2011 survey • Promoting institutional QA systems -> trend towards institutional review/audit/acreditation • Comparability of external QA results • Excellence in higher education • Discussion on the impact of QA (institutional follow-up)

  16. A way forward (1) The Bucharest Ministerial Communiqué April 2012: • QA “is essential for building trust and to reinforce the attractiveness of the EHEA’s offerings, including in the provision of cross-border education.” • “We will revise the ESG to improve their clarity, applicability and usefulness, including their scope. The revision will be based upon an initial proposal to be prepared by the E4 in cooperation with Education International, BUSINESSEUROPE and the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR), which will be submitted to the Bologna Follow-Up Group.”

  17. A way forward (2) • Strenthen the links between Bologna action lines such as QA, QFs and recognition • Internationational co-operation in QA • Dialogue between agencies and systems • QA agencies operating across the borders …14…

  18. Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) • Focus on institution as a whole: • Decision-making processes, institutional structures and effectiveness of strategic planning • Relevance of internal quality processes and the degree to which their outcomes are used in decision making and strategic management as well as perceived gaps in these internal mechanisms. As part of this larger framework the evaluations address the issues on internal quality assurance identified by the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG).

  19. Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) • Recommendations on the institutional structures, processes, policies and culture, enabling them to perform the full range of their activities (research, teaching and learning and service to society).

  20. IEP: Methodology • Examination of short and long term objectives • Examination of external and internal constraints, as well as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats • Recommendation of strategies to improve the quality of the institution

  21. IEP: Methodology • No standardised solution nor imperative proposals, but support to the institution for improvement. • Not a pass or fail conclusion • Contributes to the dynamics of development and evaluates the University’s capacity for change

  22. Further information • www.eua.be Thank you for your attention Presentation prepared by Tia Loukkola

More Related