1. IMPLICATIONS OF THE “BOLOGNA PROCESS” FOR MSCHE
Jean Morse, President
MSCHE Commission meeting
March 5, 2009

2. OUTLINE AND ISSUES
1. OVERVIEW OF “BOLOGNA,” I.E. VARIOUS EUROPEAN PROCESSES BEING CREATED TO IMPROVE COMPARABILITY OF DEGREES AND TO EASE TRANSFER OF CREDIT
2. DESCRIPTION OF QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORKS
3. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER FOUNDATION – QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK (I.E. DEFINITION OF DEGREES) SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN IN THE U.S.

3. ELEMENTS of “BOLOGNA” DEGREE DEFINITION DEGREE CYCLES
CREDIT TRANSFER (ECTS)
DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT
QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES
QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORKS
TUNING PROGRAM GOALS

4. QUALITY ASSURANCE
EUROPEAN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR:
INTERNAL QA:HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
EXTERNAL QA OF HIGHER EDUCATION
EXTERNAL QA AGENCIES
EUROPEAN AGENCIES ARE REVIEWED AGAINST THESE STANDARDS TO JOIN THE EUROPEAN “REGISTER” OF QA AGENCIES

5. DEGREE CYCLES: “3+2+3” BACHELOR’S (180 – 240 ECTS)
MASTER’S (90 – 120 ECTS)
Ph.D. (approximately 180 – 240 credits)
Nations moving from 5 year degrees to 3+2 have deep concerns as to use of the First Cycle degree
US: significant % not accepting 3 Year UG degree for graduate study

6. ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
BASED ON STUDENT WORKLOAD, AND SOMETIMES, ON WEIGHTING OF CHALLENGE vs. US SYSTEM OF CREDITS BASED ON FACULTY CONTACT HOURS

7. DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT
CREDENTIAL, ITS LEVEL, ENTRY REQUIREMENTS, OFFICIAL DURATION
DEGREE REQUIREMENTS, MODES OF STUDY, ENROLLMENT INTENSITY, AND COMPRESSED SIGNALS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE
PURPOSE OF THE CREDENTIAL
TRANSCRIPT AND DESCRIPTION OF NATIONAL SYSTEM ARE APPENDED

8. “TUNING” DISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORKS
INTENDED TO CREATE “REFERENCE POINTS” SO THAT THERE IS “CONVERGENCE” ACROSS COUNTRIES
TO BE CREATED BY FACULTY
PROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY IN SPECIFIC DISCIPLINES

9. TUNING, CONT’D DISCIPLINES TO ARTICULATE OUTLINES AND BENCHMARKS FOR:
SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE
GENERIC SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES
INTERPERSONAL
INSTRUMENTAL
SYSTEMIC
LEVELS OF MASTERY WITHIN SUBJECT

10. TUNING LEVELS SUBJECT DEPENDENT OUTCOMES FOR GENERAL LEARNING
GENERAL COMPETENCY ACROSS DISCIPLINES (TRANSFERABLE SKILLS)
LEVEL DESCRIPTORS FOR INDIVIDUAL COURSES
THRESHHOLD VS. DESIRED OUTCOMES
RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE VALUE OF CREDITS
REGULAR VS. EXTRA-CHALLENGING

11. THE SYSTEM IN PRACTICE: COMMUNICATION SKILLS
NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK AND PROGRAM GOALS
Qualifications Framework – Dublin General Qualifications
Tuning subject dependent
General Learning Outcomes (reference points)
Tuning General, Competency
Across Disciplines (Transferable skills)T59
Benchmarking (alternative to Tuning) Generic Skills in History
(UK)
Benchmarking (alternative to Tuning) Learning Outcomes
Communicate
Information, ideas, problems, and
solutions to specialized and non-specialized audiences (18)
BA – Communicate the basic knowledge of the field in coherent ways and in appropriate media (oral, written, graphic, etc.) p. 35
Level 1 – instrumental, interpersonal, and systemic (p. 37) Interpersonal includes ability to communicate with experts in other fields T 23
Communication Competence: structure, coherence, clarity and fluency both orally and in writing (p. 44)
Clarity, fluency, and coherence in written expression and oral expression
(H8)
*Progression: AA: can communicate about their understanding, skills and activities with peers, supervisors, and clients; MA = can communicate their conclusions and the knowledge and rational underpinning these, to specialist and non-specialist audiences
clearly and unambiguously

12. IN PRACTICE: COMMUNICATION SKILLS - COURSES AND TRANSCRIPTS
Level Descriptors For individual
courses
Tuning Differentiates
UK examples of knowledge and application
Diploma Supplement proposal for U.S. – excerpts on learning
Basic – introduction p. 58
Threshold vs. desired outcomes
Apply knowledge to demonstrate comprehension of theory p.61
Qualification framework, if any
Intermediate (deepen Basic knowledge)
Relative vs .Absolute Value of credits T 53
Develop a distinctive approach to acquisition of knowledge
Program requirements in major as objectives, Tuning type disciplinary requirements, credit distributions, etc.
Advanced – strengthening expertise
Regular vs. extra-challenging Programs T54
Generate ideas formulating responses to well defined and abstract problems
Markers of student achievement beyond course content – research, etc.
Specialized – subfields that open up at an advanced level
Reviewing, consolidating, and extending knowledge

13. THE SYSTEM IN PRACTICE: SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION SKILLS
FRAMEWORK: COMMUNICATE INFORMATION, IDEAS,PROBLEMS, SOLUTIONS TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES
SUBJECT: COMMUNICATE BASIC KNOWLEDGE IN COHERENT WAYS IN DIFFERENT MEDIA
GENERAL: ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH EXPERTS
LEVEL: INTRO, DEEPEN, EXPERTISE
ALSO: THRESHOLD, RELATIVE VALUE, EXTRA-CHALLENGING
DIPLOMA: MARKERS OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

14. QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORKS
WHAT DOES EACH LEVEL OF DEGREE WE AWARD MEAN?
WHAT DOES IT REPRESENT IN TERMS OF STUDENT LEARNING?
HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM LEVELS ABOVE AND BELOW IT?

15. TOP 3 DEGREE LEVELS
LEVEL 6: Demonstrate mastery and innovation to solve complex and unpredictable problems in specialized field
LEVEL 7: Specialized problem-solving skills required in research and innovation to develop and integrate new knowledge
LEVEL 8: Most Advanced, including synthesis and evaluation, to solve critical problems in research/innovation and extend knowledge

16. LEARNING OUTCOMES 1. KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: breadth and kind
2. APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE /UNDERSTANDING: range, selectivity
3. FLUENCY IN USE OF INCREASINGLY COMPLEX DATA AND INFORMATION
BREADTH AND DEPTH OF TOPICS COMMUNICATED; RANGE OF AUDIENCES FOR COMMUNICATION
DEGREE OF AUTONOMY GAINED FOR SUBSEQUENT LEARNING

17. IRISH FRAMEWORK COMPENDIUM, TAB 9, BLUE SHEET, DISPLAYS GRID OF:
KNOWLEDGE (BREADTH AND KIND)
KNOW-HOW AND SKILL (RANGE, SELECTIVITY)
COMPETENCE (CONTEXT, ROLE LEARNING TO LEARN, AND INSIGHT)
WITH LEVEL INDICATORS FOR EACH LEVEL

18. CANADIAN FRAMEWORK COMPENDIUM, TAB 9, YELLOW PAGES
DEGREE DESCRIPTION FOR:
PREPARATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
LENGTH OF PROGRAM
ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS

19. CANADA, CONT’D DEGREE-LEVEL STANDARDS FOR:
DEPTH AND BREADTH OF KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE OF METHODOLOGIES AND RESEARCH
APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
AWARENESS OF LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY/AUTONOMY

20. APPLICATION TO U.S
DO WE ALREADY HAVE A FORMAL SYSTEM THAT IS MORE FLEXIBLE?
ACCREDITORS:
REQUIRE LEARNING GOALS
USE PEERS TO ADDRESS LEVEL OF GOALS
REQUIRE GENERAL EDUCATION
STATES SET PROGRAM LENGTH AND MONITOR OTHER AREAS
TRADITION REGARDING MAJORS
JOHN NICHOLS - AACU

21. ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT NEEDED, SHOULD THE U.S. HAVE A QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSFER WITH OTHER COUNTRIES?
WHO WOULD CREATE AND ENFORCE IT?

22. DISCIPLINARYASSOCIATIONS
COULD ACCREDITORS MOTIVATE NATIONAL DISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATIONS TO DEFINE LEARNING GOALS AND MEASURES BY STATING THAT INSTITUTIONS USING THOSE WOULD BE DEEMED TO COMPLY WITH STUDENT LEARNING REQUIREMENTS?
INSTITUTIONS COULD ELECT WHETHER OR NOT TO USE THEM

23. DISCIPLINARY ASSOCIATIONS HAVE EXPERTISE
FACULTY BUY-IN
“ASSESSMENT IN POLITICAL SCIENCE” (APSA 2009)
“ASSESSMENT IN HISTORY: (AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION)

24. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION –10 GOALS WWW. APA
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION –10 GOALS
COMMUNICATION
INFORMATION AND IT
SOCIOCULTURAL AWARENESS
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
CAREER PLANNING
KNOWLEDGE BASE
RESEARCH METHODS
CRITICAL THINKING
APPLICATION
VALUES

25. NEXT STEPS
THERE MAY BE FOUNDATION GRANT MONEY AVAILABLE. REGIONAL ACCREDITORS HAVE DISCUSSED PARTICIPATING IN A PROJECT WITH A NATIONAL ORGANIZATION INVOLVED.
WHAT, IF ANYTHING, SHOULD MSCHE DO?