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

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?

About CBS

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

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

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

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

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

Quality Enhancement

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

Integrated aspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 www.CBSEVALUERING.dk 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)

Student online activities Our use of SiteScape in a bachelor course: 1+2 semester 2002-2003: Ca. 65 students, 11 weeks course, 622 online posts in total 3+4 semester 2003-2004: Ca. 55 studerende, 15 weeks course, 458 online posts in total All users (teachers and students) receive an e-mail 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

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

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)

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 (2005-2006) (Ministry) Performance agreement (2000-2003) (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)

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

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”

Important Lessons?

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)

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

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.

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.

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