1. Claus Nygaard
Associate professor, ph.d., senior advisor
CBS Learning Lab
Copenhagen Business School
Denmark

2. Presentation at OAQ-CRUS Conference in Bern
Agenda
Systematic and Continuous
Quality Enhancement at CBS
Presentation at OAQ-CRUS Conference in Bern
2 December 2005
Internal quality assurance at higher education institutions - requirements and good practices
About CBS
Organisation
Facts and figures
Quality Enhancement
Mission statement
Aims of the learning university
Quality enhancement – a bottom up perspective
Important lessons?
What can be learned from CBS?

3. About CBS

4. CBS Organisation Staff unit for internal quality enhancement
Consultancy
curriculum development
from teaching to learning
pedagogical issues
supervision
e-learning (design and implementation)
project management
task forces and project groups
Competence development
courses for teachers and administrative staff
Development of new knowledge and methods
International research, articles, papers

5. CBS key figures (2004) Student population 15,062 Foreign students
1,138
Full-time academic staff
443
Visiting professors 34
Part-time academic staff
1,026
Administrative staff
582
Funding (million Euro)
104.2
Exchange and cooperation agreements worldwide
308

6. Student enrollment at CBS (2004) (6.055)
Study programs at CBS (2004) (45)

7. Administrative full-time staff at CBS (2004) (582)
Academic full-time staff at CBS (2004) (443)

8. Full-time and part-time academic staff at CBS (2004)

9. Quality Enhancement

10. Quality enhancement at CBS
Quality is about creating a culture
is embedded in the CBS-mission and strategic focus areas
has strong support from CBS leadership and management
is located at and supported by CBS Learning Lab
involves the university as a whole
is a continuous, systematic activity
requires a focus on both quality enhancement and quality assurance
has an international orientation
is stakeholder-related
uses external quality expertise

11. Integrated aspects

12. Mission statement Strategic goals
CBS wants to be among the best higher education institutions in Europe
To be a major contributor to value creation in business and society
Train graduates who will be competitive in the international job market
Develop new research-based knowledge in partnership with companies and
other organizations
Strategic goals
International profile based on a regional foundation
Intensified partnership with the business community
Being a Learning University

13. Quality aims Develop CBS as a learning university
Empower CBS students to be reflective practitioners
Enhance quality in all study programmes so we educate students who are
competitive on the job market
Develop an internal quality culture safeguarding institutional autonomy and
public accountability
Stimulate internal capacity for self-reflection and change
Promote the exchange of ideas, experiences and good practice

14. CBS Learning Lab
The primary aim of CBS Learning Labs is to work for a continuous enhancement of quality in study programs and teaching on Copenhagen Business School.
Quality indicators:
Study programs have relevant and operational goals
Variation in forms of teaching and examination with integration of ICT
Teaching is oriented towards practise
Teaching is research-based
High student activity based on students being responsible for their own learning processes
Study programs are interdisciplinary
Consistency between goals, study activities and forms of examination

15. CBS’ Quality Circle Quality circle 5. Transformation
- empower students
1. Exceptional ambition to be among the best in Europe
Quality circle
4. Value for money payback to stakeholders
2. Perfection develop as a learning university
3. Fitness for purpose stakeholder-related quality enhancement

16. Key Stakeholders Students Academic partners Corporate partners
Ministry
Students
Teachers
Researchers
External examiners
Advisory Boards
1. Exceptional
2. Perfection
3. Fitness for purpose
4. Value for money
5. Transformation
Quality circle
Academic staff
Administrative staff
Students
Government
Ministry
Parliament
Taxpayers
Students
Graduates
Employers
Students
Business community
Corporate partners
Ministry

17. Quality as Exceptional - ambition to be among the best in Europe
Students
Academic partners
Corporate partners
Ministry
Quality as Exceptional - ambition to be among the best in Europe
Learning features:
CEMS Benchmarking (1995)
CRE-Audit (1996), CRE Follow-Up (1998) (now EUA)
EQUIS Accreditation (1999/2000)
EQUIS re-accreditation (2004/2005)
ESMU Benchmarking Programme (since 2002)
Internal Research evaluation (with international peers) – ongoing since 1994
EVA-Audit of masters’ and bachelor programmes - ongoing, latest 2005

18. Quality as Exceptional - ambition to be among the best in Europe
Students
Academic partners
Corporate partners
Ministry
Quality as Exceptional - ambition to be among the best in Europe
Example: ESMU Benchmarking
Strategic Management
Management of Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Marketing the University
Internal Quality Assurance
Student Services
Management Information Systems

19. 2. Quality as Perfection - develop as a learning university
Academic staff
Administrative staff
Students
2. Quality as Perfection develop as a learning university
Learning features:
Staff recruitment
Staff development
Benchmarking (internal and external)
Quality culture
Curriculum development

20. 2. Quality as Perfection - develop as a learning university
Academic staff
Administrative staff
Students
2. Quality as Perfection develop as a learning university
Example: CBS Teaching and Learning Committee
a survey of the dropout rate of students at the Faculty of Languages, Communication and Cultural Studies
CBS ’good practices’ for the embedding of transferable skills in the curriculum according to the educational objectives of the university
Example: CBS Learning Lab
Assistant professor programme in teaching and pedagogical competence
Implementation of SiteScape Forum on all study programmes
Development of a LEARNING STRATEGY FOR CBS (discussed with board of directors, deans, study boards, head of departments, student organisations, assistant professors participating in the assistant professors programme)

21. Student online activities
Our use of SiteScape in a bachelor course:
1+2 semester :
Ca. 65 students, 11 weeks course, 622 online posts in total
3+4 semester :
Ca. 55 studerende, 15 weeks course, 458 online posts in total
All users (teachers and students) receive an digest with all new posts each morning at 5.00 am.
The course is constantly in the mind of the students
Teachers get insight into the knowledge of the students and the development of the course
Students get insight into the knowledge of each other
Studens get access to teachers corrections of assignments and marking
Students get a sense of belonging to a group / the course

22. Students
Business community
Corporate partners
Ministry
3. Quality as fitness for purpose stakeholder-related quality enhancement
Learning features:
Dialogue with the Business Community
Dialogue with graduates (alumni)
Advisory Boards
Life-long learning

23. Students
Business community
Corporate partners
Ministry
3. Quality as fitness for purpose stakeholder-related quality enhancement
Examples:
16 corporate partners
22 alumni organisations
Career Office (graduate placement)
International CaseCompetition
(100% student run)
Students have internships in companies
(master program in HRM, bachelor program in
business economics and communication)
Students are assigned a mentor from a company
(master program in HRM)

24. 4. Quality as value for money - payback to stakeholders
Government
Ministry
Parliament
Taxpayers
Students
Graduates
Employers
4. Quality as value for money payback to stakeholders
Learning features:
External evaluations by the national quality agency (EVA)
Performance indicators ( ) (Ministry)
Performance agreement ( ) (Ministry)
Internal evaluations – feedback to students on webpage
Multiple focus group interviews with employers and alumni regarding drop-out rates, curriculum development, competencies of graduates
Bi-annual qualitative study of the ”learning environment” at CBS (2004)

25. 5. Quality as transformation - empower students to learn to learn
Teachers
Researchers
External examiners
Advisory Boards
5. Quality as transformation empower students to learn to learn
Learning features:
Continuous quality improvement
Curriculum development with focus on learning rather than teaching (example of our philosophy is in the article by Nygaard & Andersen distributed to this workshop)
Evaluation of transformative learning
Embedding transferable skills into the academic curriculum
Benchmarking (internal and external) – transfer of ’good practice’
Use of an external expert

26. 5. Quality as transformation - empower students
Teachers
Researchers
External examiners
Advisory Boards
5. Quality as transformation empower students
Example: CBS Learning Lab
Development and implementation of a learning strategy for the entire organisation
Development of courses for teachers in case-based teaching, applied pedagogics, on-line teaching, supervision, examination
Close links to student organisations (members of the two student organisations on the CBS LL board)
Membership on the Teaching and Learning Committee
Seminars for student members of study boards (”problem oriented learning”, ”to serve as a member of a study board”)
CBS CaseCompetition will be physically located at CBS LL in December 2005 (25 students in their organisation)
Development of ad-hoc inputs and whitepapers for faculty and study boards working with the implementation of a ”learning based pedagogy”

27. Important Lessons?

28. Strengths identified at CBS:
a coherent quality system, systematically applied;
an established quality culture;
good involvement of stakeholders;
the learning lab initiative and the students’ involvement in its inception and management;
effective use of results from quality reviews and processes for the dual purpose of quality improvement and organisational learning;
use of the above for opening up a high level of dialogue between staff and between staff and students;
a strong focus on student outcomes;
effective feedback loops;
transparent information.
- Report from Nordic Project on Quality Assurance in Higher Education Institutions (2005)

29. Approaches Hierarchical vs. Organic Top-down vs. Bottom-up

30. Bad quality enhancement
When it doesn’t work so well:
Projects are run by single
people or a group of people
who are put together because
they have formal positions of
power that gives them ”the right”
to participate. Due to the formal
structure of the group, the decision
power stays within the frame of the
organisation chart, and key actors
have difficulties in changing the
direction, be innovative if they are
not powerful per se.

31. Good quality enhancement
When it works well it is:
Project based, organised
in loosely-coupled networks
of hand-picked key actors
with motivation, drive, and
expert knowledge within the
field in question. Projects
are following the overall
strategy, but decision power
and autonomy is given to the
key actors in the projects. The
formal organisation is put aside,
and groups are manned due to
competencies and ideas.

32. The CBS philosophy
Successful quality enhancement is to be made from an organic,
bottom-up approach where focus is on key stakeholders
An organic, bottom-up approach leads to commitment and
sense of ownership
Quality enhancement in multiple parts of the organisation
requires a well-developed information system
Key stakeholders and key actors have to be brought together
in coordinating the quality enhancement process
Strategy formulation and implementation need constantly to
run throughout the entire organisation