Examining Quality Cultures: what we know and what we don t. Thérèse Zhang, EUA Oliver Vettori, WU PQC workshop, Zagreb, 23 May 2013

Transcription

1 Examining Quality Cultures: what we know and what we don t Thérèse Zhang, EUA Oliver Vettori, WU PQC workshop, Zagreb, 23 May 2013

2 Why work on internal QA? EUA s Trends 2010 report: In the past 10 years: enhanced internal QA = most important change for 60 % of institutions surveyed In the next 5 years: the 2 nd most important theme Very strong correlation between internationalisation and QA Change drivers: Increased competition and collaboration between HEIs Increased cooperation with external (public and private) partners Development of external QA systems and demands for accountability

3 Besides, let s not forget that The Berlin Communiqué in 2003 marked a major turning point by stating that: consistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself and the European Standards and Guidelines for QA (ESG) took that principle on board.

4 A few words about the context European QA landscape is in constant development. Variety of approaches when creating national QA systems. Level of institutional autonomy in creating internal QA systems varies. Countries/HEIs in different phases of implementation Challenges for external QA: To stay relevant to universities in a changing context To support institutional diversity and creativity -> ESG as framework for sharing good practice within EHEA

5 What do you know about quality cultures?

6 What do we know about quality cultures (so far )?

7 Examining Quality Culture I, II & III EQC I: A survey questionnaire on the 7 areas of Part I of ESG 222 institutions from 36 countries across Europe EQC II: 59 phone interviews with 10 universities Focused more specifically on quality culture EQC III: Based on a workshop that gathered QA officers

8 Finding one: QA systems are everywhere When did your institution introduce a quality assurance system (or equivalent)? 16% 8% Before % In the 1990's Between 2000 and % 21% Between 2005 and 2009 We are currently designing and/or planning it. 8

9 But people still mean very different things when they use the same terms

10 Finding two: staff and student engagement In 2/3 of cases the senior leadership takes the lead for the process. In the remaining 1/3, the senior leadership still somehow follows-up the process. Half of the respondents have no committee responsible for curriculum and quality assurance. When such committee exist, they involve students in 50% of cases. Students are formally involved in only 25% of the universities

11 Finding two: Staff and student engagement (2) Role of staff: Academics are usually involved, particularly through programme committees... but Administrative staff are rarely involved Stakeholders: Involved through some programme committees... A possible trend toward developing alumni relations and alumni questionnaires that would feed into the quality discussions

12 But QA professionals still struggle with getting others on board

13 Finding three: QA structures and decision-making 90% have institutional strategic document or equivalent document 2/3 have either a separate institutional QA policy statement 1/4 have its quality statement included in the strategic plan Large variety of organisational structures QA system in teaching and learning, in particular: 2/3 institution-specific but follows national QA frameworks and guidelines 1/4 tailor-made to the institution's needs and does not apply any ready-made model whereas less than 10 % mentioned that it applies a ready-made model such as ISO, EFQM, and CAF

14 Finding three: QA structures and decision-making (2) 70% of respondents use student surveys as one of the means to monitor students perceptions of the teaching they receive. Among them: 90% take the results into account in the assessment of teaching staff. 60% of the respondents state that students who participated in a survey are informed about the outcomes and the resulting actions taken. 5% make the information on teachers aptitudes and performance publicly available.

15 Finding three: QA structures and decision-making (3) Development of explicit feedback loops (and relate to strategic planning: why is data collected?) Two requirements: Results must be used Use of results must be publicised Coordinating QA, staff development and institutional data collection/analysis Streamlined structures and clear responsibilities

16 But many QA strategies do not provide clear goals and data are created but not used

17 Finding four: QC and QA processes and tools Activities covered by QA processes: Teaching and learning nearly 100% Research 80 % Service to society 50 % Student support services 75 % Governance and administration of the institution 66 % Tendency not to recognise all QA related processes within a HEI as quality assurance processes (may be a quality culture)

18 Finding four: QC and QA processes and tools (2) A combination of several tools to triangulate information about quality: Formal and informal Ex ante and ex post These tools are developed : With the support of the leadership As a process of co-construction Combined with staff development

19 But there are too many tools, that are neither connected nor evaluated in terms of their impact

20 ... And talking about tools, what about QA professionals living in a culture of their own

21 Finding five: the key role of QA officers Supportive role and providing expertise: The visits to departments and faculties made the difference. People felt listened to and were happy that someone from the central administration came to them. You can t imagine the amount of coffee I drank, the number of biscuits I ate and the stories I heard! Coordination role: My main interactions are with the vice rector for quality, the head of pedagogical development with whom I brainstorm regularly and a senior planning officer, with whom I work on issues connected with institutional data performance

22 Finding five: the key role of QA officers (2) Interpretive role: I do not know the national QA requirements and I do not want to know them. We have decided to avoid the question altogether. It is the QA officer s job to follow national developments. Our aim is to develop a quality culture adapted to the institution. Monitoring role Administrative role and? (an academic staff)

23 Conclusions: So where are we now? Institutions have been responding to the increased demand for quality, yet it is still work in progress: QA systems in place and very much developed in recent years Embedding them and developing a quality culture takes time and effort Participation of all stakeholders still demands attention Attention to output and results (not just inputs) The goal should be an institutional quality culture supported by the QA processes, not the processes themselves (as emphasised in the ESGs)

24 Conclusions: So where are we now? (2) The most successful internal QA systems are: Closely linked to institutional strategies Grounded in effective internal decision making processes and structures Context-sensitive: take into account different organisational/disciplinary cultures Not punitive but developmental They reflect institutional autonomy and self-confidence They reflect commitment of institution to its staff and students

25 Conclusions: And what still needs exploring - How to build effective communication structures for engaging making students an active partner in quality culture? - How to engage staff in the shared goal of enhancing quality? - How to connect QA to the decision-making processes at all levels? - How to balance centralised and decentralised efforts and activities in QA? And last but not least: how to make the quality culture idea practically meaningful instead of reproducing the same abstract principles?

26 and now, you have the floor! Thank you More information on