1 / 36

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN FINLAND

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN FINLAND. Senior Advisor Kati Isoaho 26 November 2015. DIVISION OF LABOUR IN STATE-LEVEL QUALITY ASSURANCE OF HE. FINNISH EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTRE Carries out audits of the quality systems of higher education institutions

vidar
Download Presentation

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN FINLAND

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 OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN FINLAND Senior Advisor Kati Isoaho 26 November 2015

  2. DIVISION OF LABOUR IN STATE-LEVEL QUALITY ASSURANCE OF HE FINNISH EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTRE Carries out audits of thequalitysystemsof highereducationinstitutions Carries out thematicevaluationson HE Developstheevalution of education (processes, methods, participation of differentsstakeholdergroups etc.) Supportshighereducationinstitutions in issues of qualityassurance and qualitywork Cooperatesactively in internationalnetworkson QA (ENQA, NOQA, INQAAHE) MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE Is responsible for steering of highereducationinstitutions (financialsteeringand indicators, performanceagreementswithHEIs, informationsteering) Is responsible for steering and regulating on distribution of educationalresponsibilities(fields, degrees and specialisations) based on theproposals of theuniversitiesoruniversities of appliedsciences Is responsible for nation-widestudentsurveys(Bachelor’slevelgraduates)

  3. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE The HEIs must evaluate their education, research/RDI and other activities, including societal and regional impact The HEIs shall also take part in external evaluation of their activities and quality assurance systems on a regular basis HEIs are free to choose the evaluation agency which carries out the external evaluation of the quality system (on a regular basis) Also FINEEC operates internationally (audit of the University of Graz in 2013) The HEIs must publish the findings of the evaluations they undertake

  4. FINNISH EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTRE = FINEEC Independentstate-levelexpertorganisation Established in 2014 (1.5.2014) Whatmeansindependencyin this case? Independent in decion-making and operations use of thebudget projectplans for theeachevaluation appoitment of theevalutionexperts (universities, labour market representatives, otherstakeholders, students) results of theevaluations and publish of thereports recruitment of thestaffmembers internalstructure of thecentre communications and interactionwithsociety and stakeholders

  5. WHAT DOES THE GOVERNMENT AND MoEC DO ON FINHEEC Gov: nominatestheEvaluation Counciland HigherEducation Evaluation Committee(4-years period) MoEC: Approval of the National Plan on Evaluation of Education (long-termplan on thelevel of evaluationtargetsand action lines) based on theproposal of the Evaluation Council Gov and MoEC: Appoitment of theDirector of FINEEC

  6. STEERING OF THE DEGREES AND CURRICULA IN FINLAND

  7. DISTRUBUTION OF EDUCATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Universities In theGovernmentDecree on Universities (as stated in theUniversities Act) Based on theproposals of theuniversities Universities of Applied Sciences (UASs) Part of the operating licences of the UAS Based on theproposals of theUASs In recentyears a lot of nationaldebate on thestructuraldevelopment and distribution of educationresponsibilitiesamongtheHEIs MoECempasizeslargerentities as wellcooperationwithintheeducationalfields

  8. REGULATION ON DEGREES IN FINLAND (1/4) • Laws and decreesprovide a general framework for the HE degrees: • Mainlyseparateregulation for universities and universities of appliedsciences UniversityLaw 558/2009 Government’sdecree on universities 770/2009 Government’sdecree on universitydegrees 794/2004 Law on universities of appliedsciences 932/2014 Government’sdecree on universities of appliedsciences 1128/2014

  9. REGULATION ON DEGREES IN FINLAND (2/4) • Number of creditsin eachdegreetype • Aimedduration of studies • General structure of thedegrees (mainlysame for allfields of study) • General targets of thedegrees(mainlysame for allfields of study) • Content of thecurriculadesigned and decidedprimarily at theuniversity-level

  10. REGULATION ON DEGREES IN FINLAND (3/4) • Level of languageskillsrequiredfromgraduates • Compliancewith European Union’sand otherinternationalregulation in somefields of study (medicine, midwifery etc.) • Regulation on diplomasawarded

  11. REGULATION ON DEGREES IN FINLAND (4/4) • Decree on system of highereducationdegrees (464/1998) • Coversbothuniversities and universities of appliedsciences • Defineshowdifferentkind of HE degreesrelate to eachother • Degreesbelonging to thefirstcycle of HE degrees • Degreesbelonging to thesecondcycle of HE degrees • Legal status of thedegrees and studies as qualifications to publicposts

  12. FINNISH EDUCATION EVALUATION CENTRE

  13. TASKS OF FINEEC To evaluateactivities of education and trainingproviders and highereducationinstitutions To undertakeevaluations of learningoutcomes To auditqualitysystems To conductthematicevaluations and evaluations of educationalfields To supporteducation and trainingproviders and HEIs To developevaluation of education

  14. FROM PRE-SCHOOL TO HIGHER EDUCATION Pre-Primary and Primary Upper secondaryeducation Vocationaleducation and training Basic education in arts Liberaladulteducation Adulteducation Highereducation

  15. OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES Decision-makingindependent of externalinfluence Followstheprinciple of enhancement-led evaluation Activelydisseminatestheresults of evaluations

  16. EVALUATION COUNCIL 2015-2018 13 members Chair: ManagingDirector, Rector Tapio Huttula, HumakUniversity of Applied Sciences Vice-chair: Head of Education and Cultural Services Sampo Suihko, City of Espoo Appointedbythegovernment Supervises and developsthe Evaluation Centre´sactivities Takespart in thestrategicplanning of the Centre Preparesstatements of far-reachingconsequences Preparesthe National Plan of Evaluation of Education(revisedplanshouldbefinishedbytheend of 2015) Handlesprojectplans of evaluations

  17. EVALUATIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY FINEEC Audits of Quality Systems of HEI`s Universitiesand Universities of AppliedSciences Since 2005, alltheinstitutionsaudited at leastonce Thematicevaluations • Study paths and working life co-operation between vocational education and training and professional higher education (ongoing) • Subjectteachers of Swedishlanguage(ongoing) Evaluations of educationalfields Education and training in earlychildhoodeducation (finished in 2013) Voluntary Engineering ProgrammeAccreditations (EUR-ACE)

  18. FINEEC AUDITS AND THEIR IMPACT ON HIGHER EDUCATION

  19. FINEEC AUDIT– BACKGROUND AND PHILOSOPHY Finland’sresponse to therequest of the Bologna process to develop a comprehensivenationalhighereducation QA system(”system of accreditation, certificationorcomparableprocedure”) Institutionalapproach – thesamemodel for bothhighereducationsectors(universities and universities of appliedsciences) • Comprehensiveapproach – coversresearch/RDI, education and socialimpact – and overallquality management Externalassessment of internal QA - reflectsinstitutions’ autonomy and responsibility, and a largemeasure of trust • HEIsareresponsible for thequality of theiroperations • Eachinstitutiondevelopsitsqualitysystembased on itsownneeds and goals

  20. ENHANCEMENT-LED APPROACH Aim to supportHEIs in theenhancement of quality and establishment of quality culture by producinginformation to assistHEIs to developtheiractivities, and by (2) exchanging and disseminatinggoodpracticesamongotherHEIs As a result of theaudit, an institutioneitherpassestheaudit and receives a qualitylabelor is subjectto a subsequentre-audit • Institutionsareneitherrewarded for a positiveresultnorpunished for a negativeone – thereare no financialincentivesorloss of degree-awardingpowers

  21. AUDIT MANUAL: PROCESS AND CRITERIA Auditsarebased on FINEEC Audit Manual (process and criteria) http://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2015/02/KARVI_0215.pdf Full cycle of auditsconductedduringtheyears 2005-2012, thesecondauditroundgoing on (until 2018) • Feedback fromtheauditedFinnishHEIsshowsthattheyhavebeenquitesatisfiedwiththeaudits • Themodelrefinedfourtimes • Well-established and stableprocedure Impactstudies, institutions’ feedback and follow-upreports: Improvement of management and feedback systems as well as results of activities, newoperational and qualitycultures in HEIs

  22. AUDIT TARGETS

  23. CRITERIA USED IN THE AUDIT Audits employ a set of criteria that is based on a scale of four development stages of quality management • absent • emerging • developing • advanced The development phase for each audit target is determined individually, including each degree programme sample The audit team can propose that the institution passes the audit if none of the targets are ‘absent’ and if the quality system as a whole is at least ‘developing’

  24. AUDIT TARGET 6. THE QUALITY SYSTEM AS A WHOLE

  25. AUDIT PROCESS Higher Education Evaluation Committee appoints the audit team. Higher Education Evaluation Committee makes the decision on the result. If the HEI does not pass the audit, re-audit in 2-3 years Feedback from the HEI and audit team Next audit in 6 years Follow-up seminar 3 years after the audit

  26. AUDIT MATERIAL Basic material Self-evaluationreport • The report is structured according to FINEEC guidelines • The structure mirrors the audit criteria, the length is limited • Each chapter ends with a summary table of strengths and areas in need of development, as recognised by the institution Electronic materials Interviews Requestedadditionalmaterial

  27. FINEEC AUDIT TEAMS An audit team usually consists of five members • In case of bigger institutions, can be up to seven members Selected so that they represent the two higher education sectors (research universities, professionally oriented HEIs) students working life outside the higher educationsector Experience and knowledge of theoptionalaudittarget

  28. AUDIT AGREEMENT FINEEC signs an agreement on the audit with the HEI The following issues are recordedin theagreement: ͘͘ Audit targets (incl. the optional target) ͘͘ Audit procedure and time frame ͘͘ The national or international composition of the audit team and the language to be used to carry out the audit (Finnish, Swedish or English) ͘͘ Duration of the audit visit (3–5 days) ͘͘ Price of theaudit (costsaresharedbetween FINEEC and HEI) ͘͘ Commitment to a potential re-audit

  29. FINEEC´S HIGHER EDUCATION EVALUATION COMMITTEE Committeehas 9 members: HEIs, students, working life represented Professor Jouni Välijärvi, University of Jyväskylä/Chair Rector Anneli Pirttilä, Saimia UAS/Vice Chair Decides on Audit manual, auditteams and auditoutcomes Approvestheprojectplans, planninggroups and evaluationteams of evaluationsthatconcernhighereducation

  30. OUTCOME OF AN AUDIT The FINEEC Higher Education Evaluation Committee decides on the audit result on the basis of the proposal by the audit team and on the audit report The task of the Committee is to ensure that decisions are impartial HEIs that pass the audit receive a quality label and are added to the register of audited institutions maintained on FINEEC’s website http://karvi.fi/en/higher-education/audits-quality-systems/audit-register/

  31. AUDITS 2005-2015

  32. GENERAL REMARKS ON THE FIRST AUDIT ROUND Nearlyone in fiveaudits (18%) resulted in a re-auditdecision • 14% of theUASs vs. 24% of theuniversities Feedback fromtheauditedHEIs • On thewhole, HEIsquitesatisfiedwiththeaudits; satisfactionremainedrelativelyconstantthroughoutthefirstauditround • UASsslightlymoresatisfiedthanuniversities • The management and centraladministrationhadthemostpositiveview on thequalitywork in bothhighereducationsectors

  33. HEIS’ VIEWS ON THE IMPACT OF THE AUDIT Improvement of management systems, strengthening of strategicwork SeveralUASsreport on thelinkbetweenthequalitysystem and theimprovedresults of theiractivities(regarding, e.g., dropoutrate, progression and completion of studies) Improvement of feedback systems(student, working life and alumni) Participationof students and externalstakeholders in thedevelopment of operationsenhanced and supported Dissemination of goodpracticeswithin and betweenHEIs More cooperationwithininstitutionsbetweendifferentunits and betweenHEIs, benchmarkingactivitieshaveincreased New evaluationcultures– externalevaluationsnowseen as moresignificanttools in thedevelopment (internationalevaluationsutilised at differentorganisationallevels)

  34. CONCLUSIONS Audits as enhancement-led evaluationshavereceivedwideacceptance • Mutual trust • Open and supportivecommunication Auditshavecontributed to thedevelopment of Finnishhighereducationby • Changingquality and operationalcultures in HEIs and byincreasingcooperationwithinthewholefield of highereducation • IncliningHEIs to learnfromoneanother and shareinformation and goodpracticeswithoneanother, alsobetweenthetwohighereducationsectors – mutualunderstanding and collaborationbetweenthesectorshavebeenenhanced

  35. FUNDING MODEL OF UNIVERSITIES

  36. FUNDING MODEL OF UAS’S

More Related