Quality Assurance in Masters Programmes Dr Robin Humphrey Director of Research Postgraduate Training Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Newcastle University, UK EUROPOS SĄJUNGA Europos socialinis fondas MYKOLO ROMERIO UNIVERSITETAS

Series of Talks and Discusssions Today:  The European Context: Bolonga and the Second Cycle  National Frameworks of Qualifications, and the UK Experience Tomorrow  Quality Assurance in Masters Programmes at Newcastle University  Multi-disciplinary Research Training in Masters Programmes in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Who am I? In my School  Experienced teacher at masters level  Experienced examiner at masters level In my Faculty  Director of PG Training – Social Sciences, and then Arts and Humanities too  Have developed masters programmes  Been through Quality Assurance procedures  Degree Programme Director for masters programmes  Have developed masters programmes

Who am I? In the UK  Involved in 1+3 research masters initiative for Economic and Social Research council  External Examiner for thee research masters programmes at other universities In Europe  In the UKEUA Doctoral Project, Coordinator  Bologna Process, Brussels and Nice

Lessons from International Work UK Most experience with Quality Assurance and Research Training issues But, much to learn from others However, Beware best practice from other contexts! Embedded in Institutions, and developed in own cultural and political national and local contexts So, Learn from others, but adapt to own circumstances

The European Context: Bologna and the Second Cycle Introduction: The Bologna process Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area

The Bologna Process: What is it? Launched in 1999 Establish European Higher Education Area by 2010 Involving:  46 European Countries  5,600 institutions  31 million students

The Bologna Process: Why? ‘Answer’ some of Europe’s Social and Economic problems by enhancing:  Quality of Education;  Research Capacity;  Staff and Student Mobility;  Graduate employability. Remain competitive in a global society.

The Bologna Process: The process Major reform encompassing 46 countries Voluntary No legally binding treaty or regulation Not harmonisation of national educational systems Endorsement of common principles to help connect them

The Bologna Process: General Aims Create Higher Education Area, where common principles apply. Make common principles transparent. Make cooperation and mobility within Europe easier. Make cooperation easier for outside partners around world with European Universities.

A Sector characterised by Diversity Heterogeneity – 46 Bologna signatories History of university development – doctorates often defining feature of university identify State traditions – legal framework, regulatory framework, autonomy versus centralisation

The Bologna Process: Progress to date Agreement of a comparable three cycle degree system  First Cycle: 3-4 year Bachelors ( ECTS Credits)  Second Cycle: 1-2 year Masters ( ECTS Credits)  Third Cycle: 3+ year Doctorates (Common principles under discussion) Agreement on need of Quality Assurance for transparency, comparability, and equity

Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (1) ‘An overarching framework that makes transparent the relationship between European national higher education frameworks of qualifications and the qualifications they contain. It is an articulation mechanism between national frameworks.’ (A Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area, 2005)

Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (2) agreed at the Bologna Process ministerial summit in Bergen in 2005 Provides overarching European Framework Should inform the development of national frameworks Careful mapping of national qualifications with agreed cycle descriptors in European framework bergen2005.no/EN/BASIC/050520_Framework_qualifications.pdf bergen2005.no/EN/BASIC/050520_Framework_qualifications.pdf

Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (3) The Framework defines the learning outcomes that signify a student has successfully completed a second cycle degree. Based on Dublin Descriptors s_dublin%5B1%5D_2004.pdf

Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area – the Second Cycle The Dublin Descriptors

Bologna and the Second Cycle: Recent Documents European Universities Association Trends Report No 5 ations/EUA_Trends_V_for_web.pdf ations/EUA_Trends_V_for_web.pdf EUA’s Guidelines for Joint masters programmes:

Bologna and the Second Cycle: Key Issues Distinction between Bologna Process (BP) and objectives of European Communtiy (EC) BP: Commitment to increase compatibility and comparability while respecting institutional diversity and autonomy. EC: More directive, mechanistic adoption of ECTS

European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) Origins in European Union mobility programmes Therefore ‘owned’ by the European Commission EC’s prescriptive emphasis on workload in its ‘Users’ Guide for ECTS’ (75 ECTS in calendar year) out of line with the Bologna Process ( ECTS for second cycle, based on learning outcomes) Review of ECTS (ongoing)

Useful web references … European Qualifications Framework (Annex 1, descriptors): 6_0479_en.pdf Framework for qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (Appendix 8 – outcomes and credits): Main_doc/050218_QF_EHEA.pdf UUK Europe Unit: Guide to the Bologna Process, Edition 2: he%20Bologna%20Process%20-%20Edition%202.pdf ____________________________________________________________________

National Frameworks of Qualifications, and the UK Experience Dr Robin Humphrey Director of Research Postgraduate Training Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Newcastle University, UK

Quality assurance and national frameworks of qualifications Development and use of explicit criteria and process for quality assurance which are open to external scrutiny Majority of Bologna countries have quality assurance bodies linked to higher education

The Need for Quality Assurance ‘The Quality of higher education … at the heart of setting up a European Higher Education Area. Ministers commit themselves to supporting further development of quality assurance at institutional, national and European level. They stress the need to develop mutually shared criteria and methodologies on quality assurance’ (Berlin Communiqué, 2003)

Responsibility for Quality Assurance ‘Consistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself and this provides the basis for real accountability of the academic system within the national quality framework’ (Berlin Communiqué, 2003) Main_doc/030919Berlin_Communique.PDF

Principles for quality assurance Underpinning Quality Assurance irrespective of various national approaches although national approaches need to reflect local context and culture in detail of application

National Quality Frameworks: Four minimum criteria Definition of responsibilities of bodies and institutions involved Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and publication of results System of accreditation, certification and comparable procedures International participation, co-operation and networking

Trends in National Approaches to Quality Assurance Significant differences in approaches but:  All systems include element of ‘externality’, by external inspectors or academic peers  Increasing input of students  Increasing input of other stakeholders (eg employers, professional associations)

The UK Context: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Established 1997, to provide an integrated quality assurance service for UK higher education. Independent body, funded by subscriptions from universities, and through contracts with the main higher education funding bodies. Governed by a Board, which has overall responsibility for conduct and strategic direction of our business.

QAA: Responsibilites Each university is responsible for ensuring that appropriate standards are being achieved and a good quality education is being offered. QAA’s responsibility to safeguard the public interest in sound standards of higher education qualifications, and to encourage continuous improvement in the management of the quality of higher education. Achieve this by reviewing standards and quality, and providing reference points that help to define clear and explicit standards.

QAA: Reviewing Standards and Quality Academic standards: Way of describing the level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an academic award (for example, a degree). They should be at a similar level across the UK (but, in practice, great variation). Academic quality: Way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students help them to achieve their award. It is about making sure that appropriate and effective teaching, support, assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them. QAA use peer review processes where teams of academics conduct our audits and reviews, called Institutional Audit. Some team members are drawn from industry and the professions (but rarely, in practice).

QAA: Institutional Audit (England) 1 aims to ensure that institutions are providing higher education, awards and qualifications of an acceptable quality and an appropriate academic standard; and exercising their legal powers to award degrees in a proper manner. Outcome published on QAA’s website  Short version (public consumption)  Report, pages (institution)  Commentary, detail of systems and reasons for conclusions

QAA: Institutional Audit (England) 2 Developed out of Subject Reviews Now looks at systems to manage quality enhancement Audit team: 4 Academics + senior administrator (Audit secretary) Mainly document-based; 5 days, minute meetings

QAA: Defining clear and explicit standards Help to define clear and explicit standards for public information and as reference points for review activities. Work with the higher education sector and other stakeholders to develop: Frameworks for higher education qualifications to promote a clearer understanding of the achievements and attributes represented by the main qualification titles, such as a master's degree.

The UK Context: Towards a benchmarking of ‘M’ness Statement on benchmarking M Level under development by QAA Issues about developing a generic statement Subject communities to develop own M level statements

Why benchmark? Capture essence of M Level award Useful for those involved in programme design, approval and delivery at masters level Helpful for institutional audit, by QAA Important for inclusion in the Bolonga Process

Subject Benchmark Statements Sets out expectations about standards of degrees Describe what gives a discipline its coherence and identity Define what can be expected of a graduate in terms of the abilities and skills needed to develop understanding in the subject. Intended to assist those involved in programme design, delivery and review. May also be of interest to prospective students and employers, seeking information about the nature and standards of awards in a subject area. QAA published subject benchmark statements for a range of disciplines to clearly set out the academic characteristics and standards of UK programmes. (4 so far, including Business Management)