1. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) Internal quality assurance – common challenges among ENQA agencies Riitta Pyykkö, Professor, Chair FINHEEC IQA seminar: Internal Quality Assurance – Facing common challenges The Hague 15-16 June 2009

2. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 16/2/14 Riitta Pyykkö 2 Outline European diversity in QA Point of view of an agency Case: Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council Point of view of an external review panel ESG – ENQA membership – EQAR?

3. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 16/2/14 Riitta Pyykkö 3 Diversity at the European level: different but equal? national responsibility for (higher) education as a basis for the EHEA > autonomy also in the external QA mutual recognition of the basic methodology of QA since mid 1990s (self-assessment – external assessment – publication of the report – follow-up procedure), but different roles and functions of agencies, different places/status of agencies in the national QA system, different division of labour in HE and in QA of HE >one size does not fit all differences in involvement of students and society diversity in resource basis; operational vs. financial autonomy (agencies usually financed by stakeholders: are some stakeholders more suitable than others?) publication of results: in principle yes, but ? all in all: national regulations vs. European guidelines

4. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 16/2/14 Riitta Pyykkö 4 Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) an independent expert body, council appointed by the Ministry of Education from candidates proposed by HEIs and national student organisations 12 members (4+4+2+2) and a secretariat (11) full operational autonomy, but financed by the MinEdu mission and goals defined by a Decree on FINHEEC (first from 1995); position as a national, independent QA expert body will be defined more precisely in the new Universities Act (also a new Decree from January 2010) national responsibility for QA of HE (evaluation of research is conducted by the Academy of Finland) main function today: audits of QA systems of HEIs (all Finnish HEIs will be audited until 2011) main principle of all operations: enhancement-led evaluation full member of ENQA (but will undergo a new review in 2009/2010)

5. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 16/2/14 Riitta Pyykkö 5 Challenges from the point of view of FINHEEC renewal of the Decree on FINHEEC (< new Universities Act) maintaining the good relationship and trust between FINHEEC and the HEIs; HEIs as partners rather than stakeholders effect of the evaluations within the evaluated institutions, exchanging and disseminating the good practices identified in evaluations among HEIs communication of the QA of HE (and QA of FINHEEC) to external stakeholders, e.g. employers division of labour in FINHEEC: staff members – council members (e.g. communication with stakeholders) a rather small organisation > IQA process must be systematic but integrated and closely connected with the daily work (daily informal learning and discussion)

6. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 16/2/14 Riitta Pyykkö 6 Point of view of an international panel: preparation of the site visit thorough preparation before the site visit extremely important knowledge of the national HE system and educational culture differences in operational culture (agency under review vs. background of panel members), e.g. degree of openness very much culturally determined evaluation methods applied by the agency vs. ESG? > relevance of national context for judging compliance? reviewers previous knowledge and expertise vs. common expertise and understanding of the panel, e.g. what is evidence? > involvement of international experts provides substantial benefit, but…

7. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 16/2/14 Riitta Pyykkö 7 Site visit & report 1/2 Organisational questions: duration of the site visit way and mode of writing the report (wider/tighter, although must be sufficiently detailed to provide satisfactory assurance for the ENQA Board) drafting of the report should start already before the site visit, with the self evaluation report evidence > analysis > conclusions > recommendations roles of the chair (everybody should have the same understanding of central issues) and secretary (a panel member, not only a technical secretary) involvement of student representatives (especially, if their participation is not embedded in the national institutional culture) language matters (common language – interpretation; how to avoid problems with terminology even if the language is common)

8. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 16/2/14 Riitta Pyykkö 8 Site visit & report 2/2 Challenges: changing every standard into questions (and finding evidence) the agencys willingness and ability to look carefully at itself and to measure its practices against the European expectations different (hidden? national?) purposes of the review? does the self evaluation report reflect them? (e.g. strengthening of the national or international status of an agency) Hoped-for results: constructive criticism > discussions in the country > development development recommendations important also for the external stakeholders

9. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto Rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 16/2/14 Riitta Pyykkö 9 Discussion: implementation of the ESG ESG are intended to be neither too detailed nor too prescriptive > agencies have the right to reflect in their organisation and processes the experiences and expectations of their nation or region But: they must ensure that the professionalism, credibility and integrity of the agencies are visible and transparent to their stakeholders and must permit comparability to be observable among the agencies and allow the necessary European dimension national legislation vs. ESG (fulfilment of the national mandate - conformity with the European standards): is it realistic to try to effect the national legislation? ESG vs. ENQA membership criteria: mostly the same, but developed as two separate processes (agencies should follow the ESG but they have to comply with the membership criteria) ENQA membership vs. EQAR? The real value of the listing? Now and/or in the future? From the point of view of agencies/HEIs/stakeholders?