Internal Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Europe Tia Loukkola 6 December, 2010

The structure of the presentation European Quality Assurance Framework Presentation of the selected key findings based on the survey conducted in spring 2010 Further reflection and areas for further development

European Quality Assurance Framework The Berlin Communiqué in 2003 marked a major turning point by stating that “consistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself” European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance adopted in 2005 Simultaneously EUA has been working to promote the development of institutional quality culture rather than merely QA processes

Examining Quality Culture: presentation (1) An on-going project led by EUA Project partners German Rectors’ Conference and QAA Scotland The project period Oct 2009 – Oct 2011 Co-funded by EC’s LLL programme

Examining Quality Culture: presentation (2) Aims to Identify internal quality assurance processes in place in HEIs, particular interest to how the institutions have implemented the part of the ESGs part I. Discuss the dynamics between the development of institutional quality culture and quality assurance processes. Identify and present good practices in a final report in order to disseminate them. Two phases of implementation Survey to map internal QA processes Interviews for more in-depth discussion -> This presentation is based on the survey An on-line survey open from February to April 2010 222 HEIs from 36 countries answered 79.3 % of the respondents were universities Countries from which there were over 10 respondents: Finland, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom

Results: Strategies and QA structures 90% have institutional strategic document or equivalent document 2/3 have a separate institutional QA policy statement 1/4 have its quality statement included in the strategic plan Large variety of organisational structures, no typical solution QA system in teaching and learning, in particular: 2/3 institution-specific but follows national QA frameworks and guidelines 1/4 tailor-made to the institution's needs and does not apply any ready-made model whereas less than 10 % mentioned that it applies a ready-made model such as ISO, EFQM, and CAF Organisational structures: The options are: The rector or specially assigned vice-rector is in charge of QA issues There is a centralised QA unit, with specialised staff (PT: 7 cases out of 12) There is an institutional level quality committee or equivalent There is a unit responsible for pedagogical innovation (or equivalent) that offers support to the teachers in developing teaching methods There are contact persons or persons in charge of QA within their unit, who also have other responsibilities There are faculty level and/or department and/or programme level quality committees or equivalent There is a unit responsible for staff development. There is a person in charge of QA within the rectorate Other There are QA units in each faculty with specialised staff

Result: Introducing QA system or equivalent The timing of introduction does not appear to depend on the type or size of an institution, nor are there distinctive differences between countries with the exception of the UK. While in all other countries there are HEIs that have started working on QA processes on a systematic basis at different times, all UK institutions replying to our questionnaire already had their processes in place by the turn of the century. Remarkable, but recent progress Thus, institutions have been responding to the increased demand for quality Although, it is still work in progress -> need to encourage the continuation of the work Changing organisational culture takes time

Results: Coverage Activities covered by quality assurance processes: Teaching and learning nearly 100% Research 80 % Service to society 50 % Student support services 75 % Governance and administration of the institution 66 % Tendency not to recognise all QA related processes within a HEI as quality assurance processes (may be a quality culture) One can see that teaching and learning is by far the activity that is the best « covered » in terms of QA processes. Influence of ESG providing a framework (while such a European framework is missing for other activities)?

Results: Responsabilities and stakeholders’ involvement In 66% the senior leadership takes the lead in the process In those cases 33% where the leadership was not leading the process, it still somehow follows-up the process. Half of the respondents have no committee responsible for quality assurance Curriculum design often responsibility of a working group or committee When such committee exist, they involve students in 50% of cases

Results: The feedback loop 70% of respondents use student surveys as one of the means to monitor students’ perceptions of the teaching they receive. Among them: 90% take the results into account in the assessment of teaching staff. 60% of the respondents state that students who participated in a survey are informed about the outcomes and the resulting actions taken 5% make the information on teachers’ aptitudes and performance publicly available. One of the recommendations would aim the development of explicit feedback loops: info/feedback is collected because it is useful for documenting the institution’s activities, but also for contributing to strategic planning exercices (what are our strengths/weaknesses based on the data, what could be an opportunity, …)

Results: Information systems 95 % have a centralised information system in place Student progression and success rates: 90% Teacher-student ratio per faculty/department/institute or in the respective faculty/department/institute: 65% Tracking graduates' employment: 40% Students' satisfaction with their programmes: 50% Profile of the student population (e.g., age, gender, education background, socio-cultural background...): 80%  Available learning resources and, when applicable, their costs: 45% Other (such as the institution's own performance indicators): 10% Recommendation: foster the relation between information on strategic goals and communication strategy. There is more about what is offered than about results.

Results: Teaching and Learning The curriculum typically designed by a committee or a working group. A variety of processes for monitoring it exist. More than 90% of HEIs have developed learning outcomes, but they do not all make them publicly available. 40% measure the student workload needed to reach the described learning outcomes through student surveys. Student assessment methods and criteria are usually made transparent to students. HEIs offer learning resources, but they do not all systematically monitor or evaluate them. Most HEIs conduct some kind of internal evaluation in addition to an external one, should there be one. Student support services are more likely to be in place and monitored in institutions having introduced their QA system before 2000.

Further reflection Trends, key perceptions QA systems are largely in place developing a quality culture takes time and effort Participation of all stakeholders still demands attention HEIs seem to have more information available on the input and on what is offered, than on the output Promoting a better and more efficient use of it may better contribute to strategic planning and foster continuous improvement. Thus, institutions have been responding to the increased demand for quality although, it is still work in progress

Areas for further development an all-encompassing approach to QA the development of explicit feedback loops the participation of all relevant stakeholders Communication strategy in general; in particular information on strategic goals and results

Thank you for your attention Further information The publication including comprehensive results available on EUA web-site: www.eua.be Thank you for your attention