ENQA seminar: Current trends in the European QA and the situation in Southern Europe - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 24
About This Presentation
Title:

ENQA seminar: Current trends in the European QA and the situation in Southern Europe

Description:

Accreditation Authority for Universities of Applied Sciences. ENQA seminar: ... former rector Vienna University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:52
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: Sohm
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: ENQA seminar: Current trends in the European QA and the situation in Southern Europe


1
ENQA seminar Current trends in the European
QAand the situation in Southern Europe
  • How to prepare for an external review?
  • Kurt Sohm
  • Managing director FH Council (FHR)

2
Outline
  • What is the agency under review?
  • History, Framework, FH Council, EQA
  • Educational mandate, accreditation decision
  • How to prepare for the review?
  • Context
  • Key features
  • Terms of reference and protocol for the review
  • Composition expert panel
  • Management SE-process
  • SE-report
  • Schedule of the review
  • Lessons learned

5 slides
16 slides
21 slides 30 min
3
FH sector at a glance short history
  • Short history and is still developing
  • the FH Studies Act became effective on 1 October
    1993
  • the whole sector has been completely new
    developed since 1993
  • building up of the sector not by transforming
    existing educational institutions but by
    accrediting new programmes
  • Actual state of affairs
  • the first 10 programmes started 1994/95
  • meanwhile 20 institutions offering 243
    programmes, 30.000 students, 9.000 annual intake,
    about 23.000 graduates
  • at present 94 of the programmes are offered in
    the BaMa-System
  • the BaMa-reorganisation is nearly completed
    (amendment of FH Studies Act 2002)

4
FH sector at a glance Framework conditions
  • FH Studies Act (lean law with 21 sections) is
    based on principles of New Public Management
  • Deregulation at the state level and regulation by
    private sector under state supervision
  • the state no longer centrally controls and
    regulates the Higher Education sector as it
    previously did
  • decentralisation of decision-making process in
    order to foster independence, responsibility and
    flexibility of the institutions
  • FH institutions were given greater autonomy to
    organize themselves
  • Providers are with one exception privately
    organised
  • legal person under private law, e.g. companies
    with limited liability, associations or public
    foundations (e.g. contracts with lecturers are
    also concluded under private law)
  • Public funding (concept of study place
    management)
  • Accreditation by a public authority (FH Council)

5
FH sector at a glance FH Council
  • Public authority responsible for EQA
  • independent decision-making body gt guaranteed by
    law
  • members are not bound by any ministerial
    directives
  • Members appointed by Federal Minister of Science
    and Research
  • four members being appointed on recommendation of
    the Advisory Board for Economic and Social
    Affairs
  • for three-year terms, singular re-appointment for
    a second, consecutive term is possible
  • FH Council comprises 16 members
  • with academic and professional qualifications
  • current president Leopold März, former rector
    Vienna University of Natural Resources and
    Applied Life Sciences

6
FH sector at a glance External QA
  • Close link between initial accreditation,
    evaluation and re-accreditation
  • accreditation refers to programs gt valid for max.
    of 5 years
  • formal and independent decision, indicating that
    a program offered meets certain standards
  • decision on initial accreditation is carried out
    by the members of the FH Council themselves
  • no expertise in the FH Council written expert
    opinions are asked for
  • decision on re-accreditation is based on a
    previously conducted evaluation
  • each re-accreditation requires a new application
    and the submission of an evaluation report
  • Evaluation internal, external, follow-up,
    publication
  • institutional and programme-related evaluation
  • Evaluation doesnt state an own methodological
    concept but it serves to fulfil the task of
    accreditation

7
FH sector at a glance Educational mandate
  • Practice-oriented education at a higher education
    level
  • focused on the employability of graduates
  • curricula are to be designed in such a way that
  • the graduates will stand a reasonable chance of
    finding a job that matches their qualifications
    on higher education level
  • interrelation between vocational fields of
    activity, qualification profile and curriculum
    plays a crucial role
  • Accreditation decision
  • programmes are reviewed against the fulfilment of
    the educational mandate
  • Does the submitted concept fulfil its educational
    mandate in a reliable and transparent way?
  • Has the field-specific implementation of the
    educational mandate been demonstrated in a
    logical, conclusive and valid way?

8
Review FH Council context
  • FH Council (public authority) is under the
    supervision of the Federal Ministry of Science
    and Research
  • supervision is limited to the observance of laws
    and regulations
  • founding member of ENQA (March 2000, Brussels)
  • Bergen ministerial meeting May 2005
  • Adoption of the European Standards and Guidelines
    for Quality Assurance in EHEA (ESG)
  • ESG are identical with the ENQA criteria for Full
    membership
  • condition of Full membership all Full members
    have to undergo an external review at least once
    every five years
  • if not an agency will cease to be a member of
    ENQA
  • Member of the European Consortium for
    Accreditation (ECA)
  • Code of Good Practice (agreed upon 2004)
  • agreement of all ECA members to be reviewed by
    end of 2007

9
Review FH Council context
  • Organisation of review
  • five-yearly reviews are normally initiated and
    coordinated by national authorities
  • principle of subsidiarity which underpins the ESG
    and as part of the national quality assurance
    arrangements
  • limited resources of ENQA to coordinate reviews
  • exception no suitable or willing national body
  • agencies wishing ot engage ENQA must be able to
    justify why a national review is impossible
  • ENQA reserves the right to decline such a request
  • the management of the review must be completely
    independent of the agency under review
  • all parts of the process must be transparent and
    easily open to examination by the ENQA board

10
Review FH Council context
  • Remit of the review
  • Two types of nationally coordinated reviews
  • sole purpose review (type A) only to fulfil
    the periodic review requirement of ENQA
    membership
  • multiple purpose review (type B) review has a
    number of purposes, one of which is to fulfil the
    periodic review requirement of ENQA membership
  • Clarification well in advance before the review
    starts
  • Determination in the Terms of reference and
    protocol for the review (ToR)

11
Review FH Council key features
  • Review was coordinated by the Federal Ministry of
    Science and Research (national authority)
  • contact details were communicated to ENQA
  • Considered national and international
    requirements (type B review)
  • Panel predominately consisted of international
    experts
  • Close cooperation and consultation with ENQA
  • review process should meet the requirements of
    ENQA board
  • ENQA was kept informed of progress throughout the
    review
  • notification to ENQA at an early stage that the
    review will be conducted in autumn 2007
  • acceptance of ToR by ENQA
  • to preserve the integrity of the review the
    selection process of panel members was carried
    out by the Ministry in consultation with ENQA
  • Site visit interviews with HE-Institutions,
    Association of UAS, Students, Ministry, Council
    members, Staff members, Members expert panels,
    business/industry (about 60 persons)

12
Review FH Council key features
  • Purpose and aim, questions to be addressed
  • In which way and to what extent does the FH
    Council fulfil the tasks stipulated by the
    Fachhochschule Studies Act in the area of
    external quality assurance?
  • In which way and to what extent does the FH
    Council thereby fulfil the criteria for the ENQA
    membership and thus the European Standards and
    Guidelines?
  • In which way and to what extent does the FH
    Council comply with the ECA Code of Good
    Practice?
  • Involvement of stakeholders
  • the final SE-report was submitted to the relevant
    stakeholders by the Ministry (institutions and
    students) for statement
  • the statements were communicated to the review
    panel
  • all relevant documents were made accessible on a
    restricted part of our website

13
Review FH Council key features
  • Basic attitude towards the self-evaluation (SE)
  • organised as a project with a clearly defined
    schedule
  • adhered to the principles of self-criticism,
    objectiveness and openness
  • structured within the seven criteria of ENQA
    membership
  • description of the actual situation
  • identification of strengths and weaknesses
  • proposals for improvement
  • SE-report is to present in an understandable
    manner in which way the FH Council fulfils
  • its tasks of external quality assurance as
    stipulated by the Fachhochschule Studies Act
  • the criteria for the ENQA membership and thus the
    European Standards and Guidelines as well as the
    requirements of the ECA Code of Good Practice

14
Review FH Council terms of reference (ToR)
  • Drafted well before the process started in
    consultation between Ministry, FH Council and
    Conference of FH institutions
  • Table of contents
  • Summary
  • Background and Context
  • Legal Basis of the FH Council
  • National Context
  • International Context
  • Purpose and Aim of the Review
  • Steps of the the Review Procedure
  • Nomination and appointment members of the expert
    panel
  • Self-evaluation of the FH Council
  • External Review by an expert panel
  • Drawing up the Evaluation Report
  • Follow-up Procedure and Publication of the Report
  • Schedule of the Review

15
Review FH Council composition expert panel
  • Compostion of expert panel
  • one national expert well familiar with the
    Austrian higher education system
  • nominated and appointed directly by the ministry
  • two international experts from organisations that
    are responsible for external quality assurance
  • nominated by ENQA and appointed by the ministry
  • one international expert from a higher-education
    institution
  • nominated by ENQA in consultation with EURASHE
  • one international expert with students
    experience
  • nominated by ENQA in consultation with ESU
  • one assistant (not to be in a state of dependence
    to the Council)
  • nominated by the chair of the panel which has to
    come from an ENQA member agency
  • Ministry prepares the panel in an appropriate
    manner

16
Review FH Council members expert panel
  • Members
  • Jon Haakstad, Chair, Norwegian National Quality
    Assurance Agency for Higher Education (NOKUT)
  • Mark Fredericks, Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatie
    Organisation (NVAO)
  • Manfred Prisching, national expert, University of
    Graz, Institute of Sociology
  • Bert Hoogewijs, Rector, University College Ghent
  • Vanja Ivoevic, student member, ESU, Croatia
  • Agnes Leinweber, secretary, German Accreditation
    Council
  • Language
  • Review was made in German (and English)
  • international experts with good oral and written
    command of German language

17
Review FH Council management SE-process
  • responsibility managing director (K. Sohm)
  • drafting the descriptive parts of the SE-report
  • ensuring a broad involvement of staff members and
    Council members especially in terms of discussing
    the strengths/weaknesses analysis and areas for
    improvement
  • observance of time schedule
  • chairing the meetings with staff and Council
    members
  • revising the draft report after the meetings
  • preparing the workshops and meetings with the
    self-evaluation working group of the FH Council
  • consultation with the ministry
  • final wording of descriptive parts,
    strenths/weaknesses, areas for improvement

18
Review FH Council SE-report
  • Table of contents
  • Preliminary remarks
  • Aims principles, composition expert panel,
    description SE-process
  • Introduction
  • Demonstration HE sector in Austria and national
    EQA system general description FH sector
    important key features FH sector
  • The FH Council and the 7 ENQA criteria for
    membership
  • Activities Official status Resources Mission
    statement Independence External QA criteria and
    processes Accountability procedures
  • Integration contents of ESG, ENQA criteria, CGP
    ECA under the headings of the 7 ENQA criteria for
    membership
  • Description tasks FH Council according to FH
    Studies Act, analysis of strengths and
    weaknesses, areas for improvement
  • Appendix index of abbreviations, annexes,
    additional documents at the site-visit,
    statements of stakeholders
  • report 80 pages, appendix 200 pages

19
Review FH Council SE-report (example
independence)
  • ENQA Regulations 4.7
  • 4.7 A Full member should be independent to the
    extent both that it has autonomous responsibility
    for its operations and that the conclusions and
    recommendations made in its reports cannot be
    influenced by third parties such as higher
    education institutions, ministries or other
    stakeholders. The member will need to demonstrate
    its independence through measures, such as
  • its operational independence from higher
    education institutions and governments is
    guaranteed in official documentation (e.g.
    instruments of governance or legislative acts)
  • the definition and operation of its procedures
    and methods, the nomination and appointment of
    external experts and the determination of the
    outcomes of its quality assurance processes are
    undertaken autonomously and independently from
    governments, higher education institutions, and
    organs of political influence
  • while relevant stakeholders in higher education,
    particularly students/learners, are consulted in
    the course of quality assurance processes, the
    final outcomes of the quality assurance processes
    remain the responsibility of the member.
  • European Standards and Guidelines 3.6
  • 3.6 Independence Agencies should be independent
    to the extent both that they have autonomous
    responsibility for their operations and that the
    conclusions and recommendations made in their
    reports cannot be influenced by third parties
    such as higher education institutions, ministries
    or other stakeholders.
  • ECA, Code of Good Practice 3
  • 3. Must be sufficiently independent from
    government, from higher education institutions as
    well as from business, industry and professional
    associations.

20
Review FH Council Panel draft report
  • Site visit 16 19 September 2007
  • Expert panel draft report
  • submitted to the Ministry and forwarded to the FH
    Council only for factual verification on 10
    October 2007
  • deadline for statement 24 October 2007
  • Statement FH Council
  • 10 pages
  • not only factual verification
  • but also clarification on misunderstandings
    related to important contents of the draft report
  • request for further justification of essential
    findings
  • Final report expected on mid November 2007

21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Lessons learned
  • division of labour between project management
    SE-process and responsibility as regards content
  • national expert who is familiar with the national
    context
  • self evaluation was very fruitful and valuable
  • discussion of strengths, weaknesses and areas for
    improvement
  • strong incentive to systematically reflect on the
    situation
  • we placed a lot of weight in the production of
    the report
  • its all about self-critical reflexivity
  • broad involvement of staff and Council members
    (no one-person-show)
  • gain of credibility by the stakeholders
  • international experts provide very valuable
    insights for the review and help to establish its
    credibility

24
Thank you very much for your attentionhttp//www.
fhr.ac.at/
  • Document
  • Guidelines for national reviews of ENQA member
    agencies
  • http//www.enqa.eu/
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com