1. Quality Assurance in Icelandic Higher Education Institutions Presentation and workshop with the Board of the National Student Union of Iceland 27. August 2015, from Kynning fyrir FRÍ, 24.apríl 2013
Sigurður Óli Sigurðsson, Ph.D.
Senior Advisor to The QualityBoard for Higher Education in Iceland
& BORE Staff

2. Overview
Introduction to Icelandic Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
Icelandic Quality Enhancement Framework
Institution-Wide Reviews
Subject-Level Reviews
Future plans for quality management in Iceland

3. Key figures Inhabitants 325.671 Pre-school pupils 19.615
Comp. school pupils
Sec. school students
HEI students

4. Student population: HEIs

5. HEIs in Iceland Public universities:
University of Iceland (UI) est. 1911
University of Akureyri (UNAK) est. 1987
The Agricultural University of Iceland (AUI) est. 1990´s
Holar University College (HUC) est (or 1106)
Private universities (Government dependent) :
Reykjavik University (RU) est. 1998
Bifröst University (BU) est. 1990´s
Iceland Academy of the Arts (IAA) est. 1990´s

6. HEIs in Iceland (comparison)UI
UNAK
HUC
AUI BU
IAA RU
Master’s level x
PhD level
Tuition
Distance learning
Life-long learning
Pre-University Programme
Number of students
13.619
1.483
213
379
554
2.834

7. Number of students (univ. level)

8. Annual expenditure pr. student (2011)

9. To figure out What the HEIs do with (all of) this money,
We have the ...

10. Quality Enhancement Framework
By Icelandic law, HEIs should have „internal quality management systems“
Quality Enhancement Framework (QEF1)
Quality Board of foreign experts
Quality Council of Icelandic stakeholders

11. The Quality Board Creates framework for quality assurance
QEF2 currently in draft stage
Makes confidence judgments on quality management in individual HEIs
Members of QB are chairs and members of review committees of individual HEIs
Schedule annual quality review meetings with QB representatives and individual HEIs

12. Quality Council Advisory Board to Quality Board
Membership of the Council:
Rectors of the higher education institutions (or their representatives)
Higher education students
A representative of the Science Committee of the Science and Technology Policy Committee
Also invited: Representative of Ministry of Science, Education and Culture (observer)

13. Secretariat for the Quality Board
The Secretariat for both the Board and the Council is provided by RANNIS, which is independent of the Government.
Manager: Þorsteinn Gunnarsson
Senior Advisor: Sigurður Óli Sigurðsson

14. The cornerstones of the Icelandic approach to quality
Ownership of quality and standards
Enhancing the quality of the student learning experience
Safeguarding standards of degrees awarded
Involvement of students
International and Icelandic perspectives
Independence and partnership

15. QEF Main Elements Quality Board-led reviews at institution level (IWR)
Institution-led reviews at subject level (SLR)
Annual meetings with representative(s) of the Quality Board
Quality Council-led enhancement workshops and conferences

16. Institution-Wide Reviews
Balancing enhancement and accountability
Teams of external peers and students of other Icelandic HEIs
Elements:
The Reflective Analysis
The Review visit
Headline letter and preparing the Report
Final post-report preparation, Board meeting with Rector and Board sign-off of for publication

17. IWR: Demonstration of Quality
Standards of degrees awarded
Institutional approach to the management of standards
External reference points and benchmarks
Design, approval, monitoring and review of programmes
Admissions criteria
Assessment policies and regulations
Staff induction, appraisal and development
Published information: accuracy and completeness

18. IWR: Demonstration of Quality
Student learning experience
External reference points
The student journey, from recruitment to graduation and employment
Teaching and learning methods
Learning outcomes
Assessment
Linkages between research and teaching
The student voice: representation, use of feedback

19. IWR: Demonstration of Quality
Student learning experience
Resources for learning (libraries, IT, labs, etc.)
Support services for students, including preparation for employment
Rights and obligations of students: how clearly are these communicated to students and how are they helped to fulfil the latter?
Appeals and complaints
Special section on research students, to cover selection, supervision, training, preparation for teaching

20. IWR Confidence Judgments
Standards of degrees awarded
Full confidence
Confidence
Limited confidence
No confidence
Student learning experience

21. Subject-Level Reviews
Data and General Description
Programme/Course description
Teaching, learning and assessment strategies
Application and enrolment rates
Progression rates
Graduation rates and time to graduation
Employment/further study statistics
Indicators of relevant environment of research, scholarship and/or advanced professional practice
Staffing and staff development
Student feedback and subsequent actions
Support services effectiveness
Development and enhancement strategies

22. Subject-Level Reviews
The safeguarding of standards of awards
Definition and maintenance of standards
Learning outcomes
Appropriateness of learning approaches, assessment instruments and their outcomes
External benchmarks

23. Subject-Level Reviews
The link between research and teaching
Curriculum informed by research methodologies?
Students exposed to current developments in their specialist areas?
Students exposed to alternative and competing research perspectives and methodologies?
Students exposed to practising researchers in their specialist areas?
Students supported in undertaking research activities appropriate to their level of study?

24. Subject-Level Reviews
The effectiveness of annual monitoring
Responses to data
Student satisfaction (course evaluations, etc.)
Student recruitment and selection
Student progression and achievement
Employment
Benchmarking
Internal
External

25. Subject-Level Reviews
Making it better
What is done with feedback?
What changes does it lead to and how effective are those changes?
Recommendations for improvement are systematically followed through and monitored
Sharing of good practice

26. Outcomes of Subject-Level Reviews
No judgment of quality management
Responses to SLRs and annul follow-up is the responsibility of individual HEIs
Responses, action plans, and follow-through checked in QEF2 reviews (SLRs and IWRs)

27. IWRs and Subject-Level Reviews
SLRs supposed to inform IWRs
Not really happening due to logistical restraints
Plans to improve in 2nd 5-year cycle of reviews (QEF2)

28. Looking to the future: QEF2
Evaluation of research
Management of research (mandatory)
Quality of research (optional)
Add transparency to prinicples
Link between accreditation and QA
Increased student representation in QB and review committees
Resources and training in Icelandic
Formal appeals and complaints processes
Decrease QB member involvement in IWRs

29. Thank you! Sigurður Óli Sigurðsson, Ph.D.
Senior Advisor to The Quality Board for
Higher Education in Iceland