Students QA Experiences: An introduction to the Institutional Audits and Programme Accreditation

Transcription

1 EQAF 2008, Budapest Students QA Experiences: An introduction to the Institutional Audits and Programme Accreditation Juhana Harju, Educational Officer, National Union of University Students in Finland (SYL) Contents 1. Finnish HE system 2. Finnish Institutional Audit model (outlined) and The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) 3. Students perspective, pros and cons of Programme Accreditation and Institutional Audit 4. Questions 1

2 Diagram of Finnish educational system Copyright of original work (slides 3-7): Mikko Heinikoski, SAMOK Universities 20 (+1) Universities students Bachelor s degree 3 years + Master s degree 2 years Universities of Applied Sciences (also called Polytechnics) 26 (+2) Universities of Applied Sciences, students Bachelor s degree 3,5 years (compulsory 3 years working experience before Master s degree studies) Master s degree 1,5 years 2

3 Median Age of Graduation No significant changes after ,5 27,3 27,3 27,3 27, , , ,1 25,1 25,2 24, , ) Facts about HE in Finland Education in Finland is cost-free in every level Regionally balanced higher education system, huge number of institutions / places of business (UAS over 60, Universities well over 20) National application system in Universities of Applied Sciences HEIs are almost entirely funded by public finance 3

4 Current topics in HE Bologna Process after 2010 Higher Education Funding Legislation of Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences Strategy for internationalisation of Finnish HEI Tuition Fees/Free education Reform of HEIs (Alliances between HEIs) All relevant topics for QA (e.g. high quality of teaching will bring funding for institutions) Finnish Institutional Audit Model and FINHEEC The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) is an independent expert body assisting universities, polytechnics, and the Ministry of Education in matters relating to evaluation, and thus contributes to improving the quality of higher education. The twelve-member Evaluation Council operates under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. The members are elected to terms and represent universities, polytechnics, students and the world of work. Council decisions are prepared and executed by the Secretariat, which is headed by the Secretary-General. Plan of work annually (strategy and guidelines) Will be mentioned in the new University Law (now governed by Degree) Annual budget a bit over 1 million euro About 10 employees 4

5 FINHEEC Evaluation Council No senior or junior members, students have two seats out of 12 (SYL and polytechnic students SAMOK) Students have also seat in Working Committee Is formed of independent experts, who should not be biased in any way Of course background gives perspective to members of Evaluation Council Relies on the preliminary work done by secretariat, but has the power to change rulings if so needed Discussion, arguments and proven expertise much valued in Evaluation Council Rather transparent, although there has been criticism FINHEEC s Secretariat Backbone of FINHEEC, since most concrete work is done by Secretariat Help and support audit teams International cooperation and sharing of best practices Developing audit model further with Evaluation Council Jobs in Secretariat are very popular FINHEEC works in developing field, something that is new in Academic world There could be more people working in FINHEEC, but current situation is adequate 5

6 FINHEEC s Three Types of Evaluations Audits of quality assurance systems of Higher Education Institutions (universities and polytechnics) The main business Evaluations of educational centres of excellence Results are used to distribute quality dependent funding. Thematic evaluations and evaluations of educational fields E.G. evaluation of University Centres (Joint ventures of Universities, situated in cities which does not have university of their own, smallish with wide range of subjects). Thematic evaluations might be used to draft new policies Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Higher Education Institutions Audits are evaluations of higher education institutions' quality assurance systems, in other words, the methods, processes and mechanisms that the institution uses to maintain and develop the quality of its education and other activities. Achieved results are not important (although working QA system usually indicates good results) HEIs have complete freedom to draft a system they feel fit for their institution It is only demanded that there is a coherent system! First round of audits is cost-free for institution Some institutions (e.g. field of economics) have already different quality labels and awards. However it is mandatory to attend audit process! 6

7 Timetable of Audits 2005 Kymenlaakso polytechnic Pirkanmaa polytechnic Jyväskylä polytechnic Central Ostrobothnia polytechnic Kuopion university Mikkeli polytechnic 2006 Seinäjoki polytechnic Svenska Yrkeshögskolan Lahti polytechnic Savonia polytechnic Svenska handelshögskolan Tampere university of technology 2007 Helsinki university Kajaani polytechnic Helsinki university of technology 2008 Helsinki school of economics Tampere university Turku university Vaasa polytechnic Jyväskylä university Lappeenranta university of technology Satakunta polytechnic Tampere polytechnic Turku school of economics 2009 Diakonia-polytechnic Lappi university Rovaniemi polytechnic Helsinki university of art and design Oulu university Theatre academy Turku polytechnic Yrkeshögskolan Sydväst Åbo Akademi Högskolan pä Åland 2010 South Carelia polytechnic Haaga-Helia polytechnic Sibelius-Academy Häme polytechnic Laurea-polytechnic Kemi-Tornio polytechnic University of Eastern Finland National Defence Academy 2011 Arcada polytechnic Humak polytechnic Finnish Academy of Fine Arts Metropolia polytechnic Oulu polytechnic North Carelia polytechnic Vaasa university Audit Process Specifics So far all but 2 Universities have passed audit, polytechnics have had more rejections HEIs value highly passed audit and may work strenuously to polish their system before audit Rejection leads to re-audit in two years time Re-audit concerns most problematic areas, lighter process No direct consequence, like cutting government funding if HEI does not pass audit Perceived shame seems to be harsh enough Audit team proposes outcome of the audit Evaluation Council makes final decision about passing Different outcomes sparks discussion 7

8 Audit Targets All Are Considered 1. Definition of the objectives, functions, actors and responsibilities of the HEI s QA system as well as the respective documentation 2. The comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the QA procedures and structures related to the HEI s basic mission a) Degree education b) Research/R&D c) Interaction with and impact on society as well as regional development co-operation d) Support services e) Staff recruitment and development 3. Interface between the QA system and the management and steering of operations 4. Participation of HEI staff, students and external stakeholders in quality assurance 5. Relevance of, and access to, the information generated by the QA system a) within the HEI b) from the perspective of the external stakeholders of the HEI 6. Monitoring, evaluation and continuous improvement of the QA system 7. The QA system as a whole To Pass HEI Should Have.. Evidence of some progress in all aforementioned targets ( emerging stage in a scale of absentemerging-developing-advanced) the QA system as a whole (audit target 7) is at least developing The final decision about scaling of the targets is done by the Evaluation Council Audit report is also important The text should be aligned with the scale, no praise, if scale shows poor performance! (Sometimes difficult.) Report is used to develop HEI s own QA system and also as a reference for other HEIs Report is written in collaboration by audit team and member/members of secretariat 8

9 Students perspective, pros and cons of Programme Accreditation and Institutional Audit ESU s next Board Meeting (starting after EQAF) might state, that audit model is preferable, and QA should be based on constructive evaluation Constructive evaluation Capacity building Trust in HEI, acceptance of different QA systems, that suit HEI best Different concepts of quality? QA is a tool. Institutional audit itself is not something that should be promoted by students. Results and positive development matter (if such exists) Next, some pros and cons of these different models Institutional Audit Pros Variety of QA systems Institutional approach benefits every student No labels (for better or worse) There is no readymade concept of good quality to be implemented in all HEIs Supportive to HEIs Cons No right or wrong, does anything go? Isolated pockets of resistance may exists No labels, even when deserved Variation brings doubt maybe there are some fundamental practices that work everywhere? HEIs should be able to take some criticism 9

10 Student of HEI Being Audited Pros Will see sudden interest in QA Could learn a lot about QA and also teach fellow students Many times brings feeling of togetherness, everybody in HEI in the same boat Audit? What is that? Cons Might feel this interest is shown just to pass audit Seminars, pamphlets, discussions etc. could be organized just to pass audit Is student willing to be a whistleblower and point out hidden problems? Audit? What is that? Student Member of Audit Team Pros A Full member of the team, with same responsibilities and freedoms as rest of the team Usually impossible to influence by other students or student activists, neutral. Excellent learning experience for individual and her/his organization Cons Can be extremely burdensome experience, because usually not too much prior experience. Emotions rising of impartiality, especially if there is need to be very critical. Possible to lose students perspective, if seen as another expert? 10

11 Student Member in Evaluation Council Pros Direct involvement in outcome of audit process. No need to defend students against them. Field of constant change and development, interesting work. Cons Need to be objective, and sometimes try to forget one s background. When there is no clear student agenda politics are thrown out might be a new situation. Should remember, that constant change and new systems are fine as long as positive things happen also in HEIs. Programme Accreditation Pros At least the one / few programmes of HEI are of adequate level. Accreditation standards guide HEI to make necessary changes. Promotes sameness and upholds standards. Warranty for students, governments, employers Cons What about the rest? Does it stop there? Is it possible to push the envelope further? Different but equal approach, academic freedom? Idea of distrust embedded: does HEI know what it is doing? 11

12 Questions Three different student roles: how much students perspective you can find in all of those? All students will never be interested in QA a problem? Institutional Audit has huge potential, a carrot to promote positive change. But where is the stick? International portability? Some FINHEEC s international experts have demanded, that FINHEEC tells HEIs what to do next to promote quality. This is contrary to ideals of Finnish model. What about hybrid model? The best of both worlds? 12