The Dutch Experience in Quality Assurance

Transcription

1 The Dutch Experience in Quality Assurance La Qualità nello Spazio Europeo dell Istuzione Ascoli Piceno 4-55 November 2005 Robert Wagenaar (University of Groningen, NL)

2 The Dutch Higher Education System: Based on a selective secondary school system Binary Higher Education System

3 model Four year single study programmes (average time to finish 6 years) (for most programmes) Dutch credit system: 1 NL-credit =1 week One academic year contains 42 weeks (student workload officially 1680 hours) Organized in semesters, trimesters or blocks (depending on programme and institution) Recognition of periods of studies based both on credits and content Quality assurance based on external reviews (since second half of the 1980 th)

4 Dutch Quality Assurance model before 2004: Organized by the sector itself (Research University sector and sector of Universities of Professional Education) Transparent procedure Procedure and outcomes checked by Inspectorate for Higher Education (semi independent body) Based on the concept of external reviews of peers Organized on subject area level Public publication of results based on comparison of quality of study programmes and academic standards System experienced / seen as an example of good practice both in the Netherlands and abroad.

5 Characteristics of the system: Self evaluation questionnaire based on a format prepared by the sector itself Questionnaire starting point for external review Visit of external review committee to institutions: Interviews with staff and students Assessment of teaching material, exam papers and final theses. Outcomes student evaluation of course units (based on standard forms; different per subject area) Feasibility of study programmes Study rate (effectiveness of programmes)

6 Procedure visualized: Institution: Study programme Association of Universities: evaluation authority Self evaluation Assessment protocol Site visit external review committee Publication assessment results

7 Aim of the Quality assurance system: Guaranteeing (minimum) quality of programmes Appraisal of quality of programmes Enhancement of quality by giving advice Building trust and confidence Stick and carrot method: Positive publicity for good programmes Sanctions for low quality programmes (besides negative publicity) Standard procedure: 12 months after publication of programme assessment: Site visit of Inspectorate Ministry of HE to discuss outcomes Report of Inspectorate based on report of external review committee + outcomes site visit Worst case scenario: bad public press and halt of financing of programme by government

8 2004 Introduction new system (based on law of 2002): Based on a combination of external peer reviews and accreditation Establishment of an independent accreditation authority: Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO) Report external review committee basis for accrediting programmes Disconnecting external evaluation organization from sector Protocol for external evaluation determined by NVAO Quality assessment and accreditation procedure fully in accordance with Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance endorsed at Ministers Conference at Bergen

9 Inspectorate for HE evaluates performance NVAO Semi-independent branch of Ministry of Education Accreditation authority NVAO (independent agency) Institution / programmes Evaluation report Guidelines for accreditation Self evaluation report Evaluation organization(s) (independent body)

10 External evaluation protocol based on 21 facets Programme: 1. Domain specific requirements 2. Level 3. Orientation 4. Requirements academic education 5. Relationship aims and programme 6. Coherence programme 7. Student workload 8. Attraction of students 9. Duration 10. Tuning of design and content 11. Assessment and examinations

11 Academic staff effort Requirements academic education Quantity of personnel Quality of personnel Availability of facilities and means Structural and technical facilities Student counselling Internal quality assurance (mechanisms) Evaluation of outcomes Measures for enhancement Involvement of staff, students, alumni and employers Outcomes Outcome of level of learning process Study rate / output

12 Positive aspects of new model: Reliable outcomes Transparent outcomes Comparable outcomes Further improvement of trust and confidence Negative aspects of new model: Extremely expensive Very time consuming

13 Future model: From subject area evaluations to institutional audits Primary condition: Introduction of a quality culture on all levels: Institution Faculty Department Programme

14 Developing a quality culture Different possibilities and perspectives: Institutional approach: focus on quality assurance (periodic evaluation) Study programme approach: focus on quality enhancement (continious evaluation) Both cases: process centred Key element: design of the programme

15 Institutional approach: All curricula members of staff outcomes of the learning process facilities and means have to be evaluated regularly on the basis of the same set of criteria. Curriculum approach: Focus on educational process educational outcome organization of facilities by taking the own merits of the programme as the point of departure. Top-down approach Bottom-up approach

16 Responsible bodies and persons: Faculty Executive Board Director of Studies Committee for Quality Assurance Programme Committee Examination Board

17 Conclusion Advantages of a quality culture: Erasmus Mundus Reliable partner (joint degrees) Accountability of programmes Good quality programmes attract (good) students Anticipate external reviews Quality assurance and enhancement become a routine process Full awareness of the importance of quality in the design, implementation and delivery of study programmes