Quality Assurance (HE) in Europe: what next? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Quality Assurance (HE) in Europe: what next? PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 14d9da-ODFiM


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Quality Assurance (HE) in Europe: what next?


General impressions, the Leuven communique, ENQA position paper... accredit the provider/the provision? there may be / will be many different providers ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:34
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 13
Provided by: fcr5
Learn more at: http://www.eva.dk


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Quality Assurance (HE) in Europe: what next?

Quality Assurance (HE) in Europe what next?
  • Fiona Crozier
  • Assistant Director, Development Enhancement
    Group, QAA
  • f.crozier_at_qaa.ac.uk

  • Bologna Process 2010-2020
  • General impressions, the Leuven communique, ENQA
    position paper
  • Try to define some of the trends and
  • then try to predict their impact on
  • Stakeholders and policies
  • Some examples

Bologna up to 2010 success or failure?
  • Coherence, compatibility, harmonisation
  • Three-cycle degree structure
  • Development of reference points such as the
    qualifications framework for the EHEA and the
    European Standards and Guidelines (ESG)
  • Promotion of student mobility etc.
  • All of which has been (subtly or obviously)
    changing the nature of HE in Europe

So what next? Trends
  • Globalisation/internationalisation (includes
    mobility and transnational education)
  • Changing nature of the student body
  • Lifelong learning/widening access (maintenance of
    quality standards?)
  • Links with employers/employer-responsive
  • Accreditation of Prior (Experiential) Learning
  • Development of learning outcomes
  • QA of student assessment
  • The (continuing) development/refinement of
    reference points (e.g QFs, ESG, Tuning)
  • Increasing demand for useful and relevant public
  • Multi-dimensional transparency tools (rankings!
    Or league tables)

Impact onstakeholders
  • HE viewed from different perspectives
  • Students (ESU)
  • Higher Education Institutions (EUA/EURASHE)
  • QA agencies (ENQA)
  • Public/parents
  • Employers
  • National contexts (governments, ministries etc).

Impact on policies/the work that we do
  • Need for changing curricula? (E.g. knowledge v.
  • Need for changes to student support systems?
  • Needs for changes to student assessment
  • Need to take on board rapidly changing
  • Need to revise existing reference points to make
    them more fit for purpose? And/or devise new
  • How do we quality assure all the above?
  • (Question to self When does the associated
    bureaucracy defeat the purpose?!
    Accountability/assurance versus

To conclude
  • The big themes
  • - Globalisation/internationalisation
  • - changing nature of the student body
  • - the growing need for more targeted
    information about higher educationleading to
    rankings/league tables?

Quality Assurance has somehow to cover it all
  • But HOW ?
  • programme accreditation ?
  • what is the programme?
  • there may not even be a programme ! (at the
  • accredit the provider/the provision?
  • there may be / will be many different providers
  • the Learning Outcomes ? And/or the credit
  • and their assessment ?
  • just the award/the degree?
  • (its level and coherence)

Internationalised criteria (and their assessment)
  • designed and meant as reference points
  • can easily become compliance requirements
  • from harmonisation to homogenisation
  • and the loss of cultural identity

To conclude
  • The impact of stakeholder views and trends on
  • - all our work
  • - QA is and will continue to be a partnership
  • - harmonisation and convergence recognition
    and celebration of diversity not compliance

To conclude
  • Higher education in Europe has demonstrated its
    capacity to adapt in the face of rapid change
  • Quality Assurance should be proportionate to
    risk and carried out with
  • shared international principles
  • similar internationalised procedures
  • relevant national / international criteria
  • The method used may be less important than
    adherence to the above principles?

  • Is there evidence to suggest that were on the
    right road?
About PowerShow.com