1. Accreditation of joint programmes Accreditation of joint programmes Mark Frederiks NVAO ECA Coordinator & TEAM II Project Manager Friday, 26th March 2010, Warsaw

2. Content 1.Definitions of JP and JD 2.Accreditation of joint programmes is complex 3.Current and future situation 4.TEAM II methodology for accreditation of JPs 5.ECA Principles for accreditation of JPs 6.The 5 pilot procedures 7.Example: NVAO assessment of JPs 8.Accreditation and recognition 9.Discussion

3. Definitions of JP and JD A joint programme is a programme offered jointly by different higher education institutions irrespective of the degree (joint, multiple and double) awarded (ECA Principles for accreditation procedures regarding joint programmes) Joint degree: A joint diploma issued by the institutions offering a joint programme in place of all the national diplomas, attesting the successful completion of this joint programme (ENQA TEEP II project)

4. Accreditation of joint programmes is complex Complex for HEIs: Different national legislation and funding arrangements Govt funding approval necessary: yes/no Tuition fees: different amounts or none QA requirements for recognition: national accreditation, evaluation or validation by HEI Specific national requirements (e.g.... ECTS for thesis; binary or profiling requirements) European regulations (e.g. for Erasmus Mundus joint Master programmes) Multiple national accreditation procedures | 4

5. Accreditation of joint programmes is complex Complex for accreditation agencies: No national accreditation in countries of partner HEIs What information on quality can be made available? Detailed national accreditation requirements Specific national requirements (e.g.... ECTS; binary) Specific national regulations for JPs or JDs Multiple national accreditation procedures Occasionally joint procedure or mutual recognition agreement or joint degree accredited elsewhere But mostly muddling through, e.g. national procedures with some or no information on foreign provision | 5

6. Accreditation of joint programmes? Recognition cooperation & agreements Countries involved in ECA - TEAM I Signed mutual recognition agreements Letters of Intent Potential additional partners in TEAM II Current situation

7. Quality assurance and/or accreditation National competencies Multiple QA/accreditation procedures Situation in the future? Single accreditation procedure Accreditation decision Accreditation in all national systems Current and future situation

8. TEAM II Methodology for single accreditation JPs Joint programmes should be able to apply for one single accreditation procedure replacing the different national procedures. The TEAM II project is aiming at developing a European methodology for accreditation procedures regarding joint programmes.

9. TEAM II methodology for single accreditation JPs ECA Principles for accreditation of JPs; totality of joint programme (all learning outcomes) 5 pilot procedures One coordinating agency; others are invited to participate (comparison, experts) or observe Comparison of accreditation frameworks Using framework of coordinating agency Additions from frameworks of other agencies involved in JP, e.g. specific national legal requirements

10. TEAM II methodology for single accreditation JPs Selection of experts (cf. ECA Principles) Rules of coordinating agency but special requirements other agencies Self-evaluation by consortium of HEIs Using guidelines for SE of coordinating agency Additions from other guidelines/frameworks, e.g. because of specific national legal requirements Information on totality of joint programme 1 site visit with representatives (and students, graduates) of all or core partners 1 report, multiple (but same!) decisions

11. Principles for accreditation of joint programmes To increase mutual trust and transparency Joint programmes are included in MR agreements Information sharing and transparency Agencies inform each other Legal situation & status of degree Composition of expert panel Particular emphasis on international experience Assessment process Totality of programme included in information, site visit and assessment by panel Include at least 1 observer of other agency

12. Principles for accreditation of joint programmes/2 Accreditation decision Based on assessment of totality of joint programme Communication of decision to other involved agencies Similar principles for the QA of joint programmes through institutional accreditation Agencies should inform accredited institutions that they are expected to quality assure new joint programmes with a rigour equivalent to that which provided the basis of the institutions accreditation

13. The 5 pilot procedures ERASMUS MUNDUS MASTERS -Journalism and Media within Globalisation European Teacher Education for Primary Schools (ETEPS) Joint European Master in Comparative Local Development (CoDe) Joint European Master in International Humanitarian Action (NOHA) European Master of Science in Geosciences of Basins and Lithosphere

14. ERASMUS MUNDUS MASTERS -Journalism and Media within Globalisation Partners in the consortium The Danish School of Journalism, Denmark The University of Aarhus, Denmark University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands University of Hamburg, Germany Swansea University, Wales City University London, England QA agencies involved: ZEvA, NVAO

15. European Teacher Education for Primary Schools (ETEPS) Partners in the consortium Stenden University College, The Netherlands University College Zealand, Denmark Linnaeus University, Sweden Buskerud University College, Norway QA agencies involved: NVAO, HSV

16. Joint European Master in Comparative Local Development (CoDe) Partners in the consortium Trento University, Italy Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary The University of Ljubljana, Slovenia The University of Regensburg, Germany QA agencies involved: HAC, GAC, The Council for Higher Education of the Republic of Slovenia

17. Joint European Master in International Humanitarian Action (NOHA) Partners in the consortium Universidad de Deusto, Spain Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany Université de Aix-Marseille III Paul Cézanne, France Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium University College Dublin, Ireland Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands Uppsala University, Sweden QA agencies involved ANECA, AQAS, NVAO, HSV

18. European Master of Science in Geosciences of Basins and Lithosphere Partners in the consortium VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands The Université de Rennes 1, France The University of Bergen, Norway Associated Partners RWTH Aachen University, Germany The Université Pierre et Marie Curie, France The Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary QA agencies involved: NVAO, HAC, CTI | 18

19. | Milestones / Months JUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUN Initial meeting (coordinators and accreditation agencies) Deciding upon the accreditation standards and procedure Informing the quality assurance agencies involved Drawing up the self evaluation report Selecting the members of the external review panel Writing guidelines for the experts Telephone meeting with the experts Site visit Drawing up the external report Accreditation decision Providing feedback for the methodological report Finishing the methodological report Dissemination conference

20. Example: NVAO assessment of JPs Assessment framework: 6 themes 21 standards criteria Themes: 1.Aims and objectives All intended learning outcomes 2.Curriculum Collective arrangements for student assessment 3.Staff CVs of all teaching staff; language skills? | 20

21. Example: NVAO assessment of JPs Assessment framework: 6 themes 21 standards criteria Themes: 4. Facilities Of all partner HEIs 5. Internal quality assurance system Collective QA arrangements; e.g. coordination meetings, cooperation agreement 6. Results Achieved learning outcomes of all graduates | 21

22. Accreditation and recognition Accreditation informs recognition and recognition informs accreditation Qrossroads will have this year 13 countries included Info on accredited qualifications and accreditation systems, recognition, qualification frameworks, HE systems Joint programmes Learning outcomes Information by HEIs More information sharing between ENIC-NARICs and accreditation agencies needed | 22

23. Discussion How strict can we be without blocking innovation? How flexible can we be without giving bad quality providers legitimacy? E,g. if in joint degrees 1 national recognised HEI in consortium is enough for recognition Should agencies check fulfilment of all legal requirements or is this the responsibility of HEIs? Should we require recognition: Of each HEI in the consortium? and Of each programme (part) in the consortium at the appropriate level? | 23