Novi Sad, 4-5 June 2004 Terminology and Actions in Quality Assurance Towards More Coherent Approaches Laura Grunberg UNESCO-CEPES ( (Novi Sad, 4-5 June 2004)

Novi Sad, 4-5 June The Framework: Bologna stocktaking exercise and the quality assurance (Priorities: quality assurance systems; two cycles; recognition of degrees) Concerning QA, by 2005: Development of mutually shared criteria and methodologies on QA Development of mutually shared criteria and methodologies on QA National quality assurance systems should include: - A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved. - Evaluation of programmes/institutions including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the publications of results. - A system of accreditation, certification and comparable procedures - International participation, cooperation and networking. An agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on QA should be developed (ENQA, EUA, EURASHE, ESIB)

Novi Sad, 4-5 June Issues addressed: 1. Terminology of the field of QA  2. References to new approaches in QA

Novi Sad, 4-5 June Some remarks on QA terminology A new field with its own terminology Developments in various national/regional/international environments (multiple circles/contexts/meanings, little consensus) Emerging trends Confusion/Ambiguities Circularity Poetical approaches Barochism/Flowerish (details in “Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Glossary of Basic Terms and Definitions”, UNESCO- CEPES papers on Higher Education, 2004) (details in “Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Glossary of Basic Terms and Definitions”, UNESCO- CEPES papers on Higher Education, 2004)

Novi Sad, 4-5 June Remarks on QA terminology (continuation) Some identified problems: Definitional New bureaucracy Linguistic/translation Borrowing “Technical” (measuring human achievement) Political ( details in “Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Glossary of Basic Terms and Definitions”, UNESCO-CEPES Papers on Higher Education, 2004 )

Novi Sad, 4-5 June A “new” quality assurance system Policy levels ( constructive ambiguity –contextual definitions) global, regional (European), national Government Agency of QA Institutions Study programmes Actors involved in QA (various “receivers” / “spokespersons”) Institutional managers/administrators AcademicsStudentsStakeholders Policy makers New players (inter-governmental organizations: OECD, UNESCO, etc)

Novi Sad, 4-5 June A new quality assurance system (continuation) Policy references …and the need for basic mutual understanding of meanings Qualification frameworks From management statistics to benchmarking Focus on the relations between standards, performance indicators and best practices of achievement Alternative options …and the need for minimal agreement on meanings Global/regional vs. institutional State control vs. institutional QA Single (universal) approach vs. multiple approaches Inputs (resources) vs. outputs (learning outcomes) Hands on vs. hands off in quality evaluation

Novi Sad, 4-5 June Coherent institutional quality management systems (references for) Quality standards  Performance indicators for each standard  Relate performance indicators to learning outcomes  Compare institutional performance indicators through benchmarking  Develop institutional culture of evidence for the levels of educational attainment (expected outcomes)  Quality improvement through a balance system of self assessment and external evaluation  …and basic agreement on fundamental assumptions about the value, purpose and nature of QA in higher education in Europe (on the core meanings in use/practice)

Novi Sad, 4-5 June Communication  Actions  Results (critical reflection along the way) “Words without actions are the assassins of idealism” “Words without actions are the assassins of idealism” (Herbert Hoover) (Herbert Hoover) Levels of communication (in the area of QA) Technical how precise the communication symbols can be transmitted Semantic how precise the transmitted symbols carry the foreseen/expected significance Pragmatic the efficiency/impact of the “transmission” (of the received significance) on various actors behaviour (in the expected ways) Better transmission/communication = better actions/results in the field of QA