Bologna and Quality Assurance & Accreditation in national and European perspective

Axel Aerden

1 June 2010

Intended learning outcomes

• After this presentation, you should be able to:• discuss the position of Quality Assurance in the

European Higher Education Area;• classify how national models of quality assurance can

be implemented;• describe how NVAO is organised;• reproduce the steps in an accreditation procedure

carried out by NVAO;• compare and contrast NVAO’s current and new

accreditation systems;

2

NVAO (1/2)

• Set up in the framework of the Bologna Process• Bi-national organisation• Established by treaty

• Safeguards for independence • procedures, methodologies, decision-making

• Publicly funded• Pre-funded by the Netherlands & Flanders (60/40)• HEIs pay nominal fees

• Accountable • Committee of ministers• Respective parliaments

3

NVAO (2/2)

4

Board (12)

Executive board (4)

Managing director

Advisory council

Policy• General• International

Staff services• Legal affairs• Public relations

SupportFinance | ICT | Archive | Office support | Logistics  | Catering

European Association of HEIs (EURASHE)

European Student Union (ESU)

European University Association (EUA)

“Master”2nd cycle

Bachelor1st cycle

AssociateDegree

“Ph.D.”3rd cycle

European Quality Assurance Landscape

QA AgencyExternal QAInternal QA

Qualifications Framework for EHEA

European Standards & Guidelines for QA

European QA Register

Level descriptors AD, Ba., Ma. & Dr.

Peer review of QA Agency

European Association for QA in HE (ENQA) 5

…

‘Theme’Programme Institution

…Enhancement

InformingAccountability

…

…

European QA Model at national level

Peer ‘Audit’Professional

Labour marketStudents

HEGovernment

External

QA

6

…

‘Theme’Programme Institution

…Enhancement

InformingAccountability

…

…

European QA Model at national level

Peer ‘Audit’Professional

Labour marketStudents

HEGovernment

7

Influences essential QA elements:• Assessment/Audit/Accreditation• Panel composition• Validity of outcomes• Publication policy• ....

…

ImproveFund Recognise

…Agency

MinistryPrivate

…

…

European QA Model at national level

QAAgency

Institutions

GovernmentSelf-funded

DecisionsNon-binding

Advices

8

…

ImproveFund Recognise

…Agency

MinistryPrivate

…

…

European QA Model at national level

Institutions

GovernmentSelf-funded

DecisionsNon-binding

Advices

9

Influences agency’s operation:• Composition of governing Board • Independence criteria• Competencies over procedures • Type of applicable methodologies• Publication policy• ...

NVAO’s Scope of work

• Recognition of new higher education institutions• Initial accreditation

• (New) programmes that want to offer a recognised degree

• All bachelor and master’s programmes, including associate degrees and research masters (MPhil)

• Accreditation• programmes that already offer a recognised degree

• Publication of decisions (and officially recognised degrees (FL))

• Internationalisation10

Institution

Programme assessmen

t

11

Yes No

Is this institution recognised?

Is this programme on the register (=recognised)?

Yes No

Initial accreditation procedure

Accreditation procedure

+ decision ‐ decision

Acc

redi

tatio

n sy

stem

: 1st

phas

e

+ decision ‐ decision

Deleted from register Included on register

Recognition procedure

Accreditation framework (1st phase)

Assessment framework: 6 themes standards criteria (1/2)

• Themes:1. aims and objectives (of the programme)2. curriculum3. staff4. facilities5. internal quality assurance system6. Results

21 standards

12

Accreditation framework (1st phase)

Assessment of standards Assessment of themesExcellent

Positive / NegativeGoodSatisfactoryUnsatisfactory

compensation possibleone ‘negative’ : results in a negative accreditation decision

Assessment rules

13

Accreditation framework (1st phase)

Assessment framework: open standardsExample: Theme ‘Aims & objectives’

Standard: Subject -/ discipline-specific requirementsThe intended learning outcomes of the programme correspond with the requirements set by professional colleagues, both nationally and internationally and the relevant domain concerned (subject/discipline and/or professional practice).

Standard: Bachelor/Master levelThe intended learning outcomes of the programme correspond with the general, internationally accepted descriptions of a Bachelor’s qualification or a Master’s qualification

Standard: Professional / Academic orientationThe intended learning outcomes of the programme correspond with the following descriptions of a Bachelor / Master’s qualification: …

14

Accreditation framework (1st phase)

Assessment of standards Assessment of themesExample 1Standard 1: Good

PositiveStandard 2: SatisfactoryStandard 3: ExcellentExample 2Standard 1: Satisfactory

Positive/NegativeStandard 2: SatisfactoryStandard 3: Unsatisfactory

Assessment rulesExample: Theme ‘Aims & objectives’

15

Evaluation (of the 1st phase)

16

‘Higher education’

‘Government’ ‘General public’

Enhancement

Accountability Information

New accreditation system (2nd phase)

• Aim: balancing accountability and enhancement (1/2)• Stimulate quality culture

institutional audit• Commit professionals / Increase academic ownership

programme assessment• Focus on content; not on procedures• Assess learning outcomes; not quantitative elements

(continued on next page)

17

New accreditation system (2nd phase)

• Aim: balancing accountability and enhancement (2/2)• Reward earned trust

limited programme assessment• Two types of programmes assessments

• Stimulate HE to aim above thresholdaccredit as (un)satisfactory, good, excellent

• Reduce the administrative burden by 25%• Reduce the amount of standards• Limit the amount of mandatory appendixes

18

19Acc

redi

tatio

n sy

stem

: 2nd

phas

e

Comprehensive programme assessment

Limited programme assessment

Institution

Yes No

Is this institution recognised?

Recognition procedure

Institutiona

l aud

it

Has this institution undergone an institutional audit?

Yes No

+ decision ‐ decision

20Acc

redi

tatio

n sy

stem

: 2nd

phas

e

Programme assessmen

t

Is this programme on the register/ recognised?

(Lim./Compr.) initial accreditation procedure

(Lim./Compr.) accreditation procedure

‐ decision + decision + decision ‐ decision

Comprehensive programme assessment

Limited programme assessment

Satisfactory ‐ Good ‐ Excellent

Deleted from register Included on register

Institutional audit

21

• Effective implementation (by progr. assessment )

• Standard 3: Results

• Standard 1 and 2 : Vision and policy

• Standard 4: Improvement policy

act plan

docheck

• Standard 5: Organisation and decision-making structure

1. What is the vision of the institution regarding the quality of the education it provides?

2. How does the institution intend to realise this vision?

3. How does the institution measure the degree to which this vision is realised?

4. How is the institution working towards effecting improvements?

5. Who is responsible for what?

Positive / Negative / Conditional

Programme assessment

22

Limited programmeassessment

Comprehensive programme assessment

Assessment of• content of the programme• focus on performance

Detailed assessment of• content,• policy and• procedures

3 standards 16 standardsThemes

1. Intended learning outcomes 2. Programme and staff quality

3. Achieved learning outcomes & Learning assessment

1. Intended learning outcomes 2. Programme3. Staff4. Services5. Quality assurance system6. Achieved learning outcomes &

Learning assessmentConclusion: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent quality

Programme assessment

• Generic qualityThe quality that in all reasonableness could be expected of a bachelor’s or master’s programme within higher education, and this from an international perspective.

• UnsatisfactoryThe programme does not provide generic quality.

• SatisfactoryThe programme provides generic quality.

• GoodThe programme is of notably higher quality than generic quality.

• ExcellentThe programme is of a quality very much above generic quality and fulfils an exemplary role for other relevant programmes.

23

Accreditation framework – First phase

Theme 1 Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 2 Theme 6

Accreditation framework – Second phase

Standard 1 Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 3

Aims and objectives

Intended learning

outcomesCurriculum Assess

studentsAchieved learning

outcomes

Learning outcomes (in NVAO’s frameworks)

24

Inform

EnhanceFunding

Recognition

Agency

Projects

NVAO Model

NVAO

InstitutionsGovernment

DecisionsAdvices

25

Enhancement

InformationAccountability

ProgrammeInstitution

a.aerden@nvao.netwww.nvao.net | www.qrossroads.eu

26

Thank you for your attention