REPORT Seminar on Quality assurance in higher education in Southern Mediterranean countries A tool to promote international cooperation

Transcription

1 REPORT Seminar on Quality assurance in higher education in Southern Mediterranean countries A tool to promote international cooperation March 2014, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Brussels

2 Table of Contents Summary... 3 Day I... 4 Morning session I - Introductory session... 4 Discussion... 5 Morning session II - Situation of quality assurance in both regions, recent trends and challenges... 6 Discussion... 7 Afternoon Session I - Quality assurance and mobility How can quality assurance support mobility of students and teaching staff?... 8 Discussion... 8 Afternoon session II - Quality assurance and joint / double degrees How can quality assurance build confidence between partners?... 9 Discussion Day II Morning session Group A - Development of quality assurance units in Higher Education Institutions Discussion Group B Quality assurance bodies and agencies Independence and functioning Discussion Closing session Month Year I 2

3 Summary Around 90 participants attended the event. Delegations of 4-9 people from 9 Southern Mediterranean countries (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia) were present. Delegations were made up of representatives of ministries of higher education, higher education institutions, independent experts on quality assurance, and representatives of quality assurance agencies and/or offices working on national/regional level. Other actors were present, such as the European University Association, the European Students Union, the Union for the Mediterranean, the Mediterranean Universities Union and the German Academic Exchange Service. Representatives of several EU institutions attended the seminar including DG Education and Culture, DG Development and Cooperation and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. The seminar's main conclusions are: Quality assurance (QA) is one of the main tools to contribute to the development of trust between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) which in turn is key to fostering cooperation in higher education (HE) at institutional, regional and national level. While QA remains a priority, it is important to shift the focus form a procedural QA check to the development of a real QA culture. It is also important to move the discussion level from theoretical and conceptual to a practical approach focusing on implementation. It is also important to make sure that the results of the QA mechanisms are taken into account in the decision-making process both at institutional and system levels. There is a trend to move from an inspection logic to an improvement oriented process in terms of QA and this should be followed. Southern Mediterranean countries can to learn from the European experience and mistakes. Quality assurance processes need to involve students and employers more, as students are the final 'clients' of the education process and the connection to the labour market is vital. There is a strong need to train students on QA issues so they can better participate in the process, and an even greater need to train staff. QA mechanisms provisions should not limit creativity and innovation in the academic institutions. Recent studies of the European University Association prove that this is possible. New developments in technologies and spread of distance-learning need to be taken into account to adapt QA mechanisms to new realities. Networking on both HEI level and QA agencies is important in order to gain from the experience of peers. Regional networks and associations (such as the Arab Network for QA in Higher Education ANAQHE) should be used to foster this type of cooperation. The independence of QA agencies is an important issue that needs clearer criteria which could be developed regionally (common criteria for Southern Mediterranean countries) to be able to reach comparable situations in different countries. The most important is that QA experts are operationally impartial. Erasmus+ offers a great variety of opportunities for mobility but also capacity building projects, which could support Southern Mediterranean countries' efforts to develop QA mechanisms at institutional and system levels. TAIEX projects can also be used for short-term study visits. Month Year I 3

4 Day I Joint programmes' QA is the most difficult to ensure as the focus is often on a national level and misses the value of the programmes as a whole. However, the seminar identified some useful tools at EU level to overcome this difficulty such as the Erasmus Mundus Quality Assurance organization (EMQA) or the development of a new multi-lateral accreditation scheme and cross-border quality assurance mechanism for joint programmes. Morning session I - Introductory session Jordi Curell, Director for higher education and international affairs at the European Commission, opened the seminar by underlining the importance of internationalization within higher education, which is no longer a choice but a necessity for development, and not an end in itself but a means to achieve better quality for universities. Mr. Currell stressed the importance of the existence of trust between universities from different countries, based on transparency and clear dialogue between partners. Mr. Curell pointed out the necessity of quality assurance mechanisms to build this trust and the growing interest of universities in Southern Mediterranean countries to cooperate with European universities. There is much to be done in the topic of quality assurance, including in European universities, where, for example, tracking of graduates and involvement of employers and business sector is still very limited. Cooperation and support for the higher education system within South Mediterranean countries will continue within the new Erasmus+ programme, building on the good results of the Tempus and Erasmus Mundus programmes, in particular with new actions for capacity building and student and staff mobility. As the topic of quality assurance is very wide, Mr. Curell explained the seminar would focus on 3 important aspects: - Recent developments in the field of Quality Assurance in EU and Southern Mediterranean countries - Identifying practical ways for ensuring quality in international cooperation schemes. - How the EU can better support international and external Quality Assurance mechanisms in Southern Mediterranean countries. Ms. Andrée Sursock, Senior Advisor for the European University Association (EUA), Ms. Andrée Sursock, Senior Advisor for the European University Association (EUA), representing 850 universities in 47 countries in Europe, delivered the keynote speech on quality assurance as an instrument for trust in international cooperation. She explained why QA is such an important topic by observing the evolutions and trends of the past years that triggered greater competition between universities due to greater internationalisation and globalisation. The past 20 years have offered in Europe a greater chance for cooperation with institutions of all types, however partnerships are more targeted and strategic now, explained Ms. Sursock. Therefore it is essential that higher education institutions demonstrate their quality to potential partners. New technological developments are also providing new possibilities for internationalisation all over the world (e.g. the creation of MOOCs), changing the way students perceive HE, now accessible from their laptop. This change of paradigm evokes the necessity to develop quality assurance. Month Year I 4

5 Rising interest in Higher Education has provoked the creation of for-profit education providers who are not always legitimate, warned Ms. Sursock, thus the need for regulations is imperative. As there is no consensus on what quality is, it is difficult to grasp the quality of HE institutions that depend on a variety of factors, internal and external. We could however distinguish 3 levels: On the institutional level, it is important that HEI benefit from greater autonomy and thus greater accountability. There is a strong need to professionalize staff and create more than the very necessary internal quality assurance mechanisms: it is important to create a culture of quality. Ms. Sursock also stressed the importance of professionalizing the staff, the essential character of management in QA, to avoid bureaucratization and to use QA as a tool for innovation and improvement. The involvement and commitment of the staff to quality as a shared value is essential to the improvement of the situation. Systems to support and develop staff need to be set up, otherwise they will feel alienated from it, insisted Ms. Sursock. Ideally, higher education institutions should have a good internal QA mechanism and an external QA agency checking its functioning. Examples of the UK and Swiss systems point that this structure can yield very good results. On the national level, there is a great diversity of approaches and philosophies in QA to be found such as accreditation vs. evaluation; programme vs. institutional evaluation or accreditation; inspection vs. improvement; predefined standards vs. contextualized approaches that take into account specific characteristics; developing the national approach in a dialogue (or not) with HEI. For small countries especially, it is essential to guarantee the international perspective of the quality assurance agency (QAA) by having international experts. And it is very important for all to guarantee the independence of the evaluation process. Standards and checklists should be used with caution. They can be useful for eliminating shady providers, but they can lead to greater homogeneity than desired in a democratic higher education system. On the regional level, the European example can be taken as inspiration. The European framework includes the European standards and guidelines (ESG) as well as the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). These were developed by the associations representing the universities and colleges, the students and the quality assurance agencies together with Business Europe (employers' organisation) and Education International (staff unions). This element of partnership is essential to be sure that QA has an impact on the ground. The agencies and institutions changed the way in which they are working, the process is owned by the stakeholders who put more effort into sustaining it. Ms. Sursock concluded that: 1. The existence of internal quality assurance mechanisms within the HEIs is a strong signal of responsibility of the institutions and their commitment towards quality 2. The partnership between HEIs and the QA agency is fundamental to ensure trust in the national system, which will in turn lead to international trust. 3. The three levels mentioned above need to be complementary to each other on the basis of very clear principles. 4. QA agencies need to be involved internationally in a dialogue with their peers so they can learn from one another and improve their own processes. This is an important factor for developing trust internationally. Discussion Quality assurance as a potential threat for innovation: some participants expressed concerns that QA mechanism and rigidity may hinder innovation and Month Year I 5

6 research and affect academic freedom in the classrooms. Ms. Sursock recognized this as a serious concern and suggested to review the EUA studies conducted, with two publications on how QA (internal and external) can promote creativity. Quality assurance as a universal solution to higher education problems: participants expressed concerns that QA is too often treated as a universal solution to all problems in HE. Ms. Sursock pointed out that, naturally, QA is not a universal tool that can address all challenges, and it shouldn t be expected to be one, as it s only designed to do certain things. Quality of Quality Assurance Agencies: Ms. Sursock gave the example of Europe where the agencies have to be evaluated to be part of the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). The evaluation team includes colleagues from other QA agencies, institutions, students. They examine the agencies to assess their compliance with the European standards and guidelines. EQAR will then decide whether the agency can be listed in the register. Participants have suggested creating a platform/website for respected specialists in Europe and Southern Mediterranean countries to establish links and exchange experience on quality assurance. Participants and presenters have expressed a strong need for moving from conceptual level to structured and practical level when talking about quality assurance. Importance of partnerships: Several participants stressed the importance of partnerships between HEIs themselves and ministries to improve QA mechanisms. EU-funded projects can be developed to support this type of cooperation. Morning session II - Situation of quality assurance in both regions, recent trends and challenges Ms. Nadia Badrawi, Vice-president of the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE), presented the results of a study elaborated in 2012, analysing the state of Quality Assurance Agencies in the region, with 17 Arab countries participating, out of which 7 Southern Mediterranean. The biggest challenges faced in the field of QA in the region argued Ms. Badrawi, are the total reliance on the government for decisions regarding higher education and QA issues, the very limited financial resources, the faulty governance of the QA agencies, and the development and maintenance of the Arab Qualifications Framework. In the target region, the study identified the scope of the work of QA agencies to cover mainly QA of learning and teaching in universities, with only a few including vocational education, or a research unit and only Egypt including a research centre. The QA agencies are in charge at least of licensing and recognition of HEIs. The main goals of the QA agencies in the countries evaluated are the development of a qualification framework. In Egypt this is done by the agency itself while in others it's done by a special authority. In Jordan, for example, they are working on a ranking and classification of universities. Ms. Klara Engels-Perenyi, Policy Officer for the Higher Education Unit of the European Commission, within DG Education and Culture (DG EAC), presented the state of play of QA in higher education within the EU. While a previous report (2009) highlighted the fact that QA should have a more supportive role in policy development in HE in Europe, and to move away from the procedural emphasis, the new 2014 report 1 presents considerable developments in this area. Ms. Engels underlined the main challenges in HE to be: the expanding student population, the need to raise quality of learning and teaching to align to societal and labour market needs, and the new technologies, MOOCs, virtual and blended learning. QA plays a substantial role for reforms in HE around the world. While over 75% of HEI 1 COM(2014), 29 Month Year I 6

7 have a public strategy for internal QA there is a strong need to shift from process orientation into strategic decision making. Observations from the past years show that students and employers involvement is improving, but it is often limited to observation; European standards and guidelines have also contributed to convergence of QA systems. Quality assurance is a key element of the modernization agenda of the European Commission and it contributes to the Europe 2020 strategy. QA can encourage HEIs to widen access through more innovative approaches to admission, to prevent dropout and to stimulate retention, to involve students in programme design and to evaluate support services for students. Strong QA is also the basis of internationalisation. National ministries tend to prefer to work with their own QA agencies however there is an increasing tendency to include international experts in QA panels. Regional cooperation can play an important role to increase quality, to try and avoid the socalled diploma mills. The Erasmus+ programme offers many opportunities to improve QA in partner countries. Other initiatives of the European level include trying to make a coherent array of QA tools in education in general. QA is on the political agenda as the Council conclusions on QA are to be adopted in May The intention is to make QA less of a procedural exercise but a core part of educational policies in different countries. Discussion Organizations working on QA in Southern Mediterranean countries: In the Southern Mediterranean region the Arab Network for QA in HE (ANQAHE) gathers organizations and institutions working on QA. Through UNESCO as well, many of the existing networks are interconnected. ANQAHE is, for example, working with the European network on QA and has bilateral programmes with the European, Asian and Islamic ones. Most of the outcomes of ANQAHE are on the website and can be used by universities. Students involved in QA in Southern Mediterranean countries: the participation of students in QA in Southern Mediterranean countries is very low. They need to be trained to become involved in the QA process. Internal QA strategies: The new Erasmus+ programme offers opportunities to learn from each other, mainly designed for European HEIs but they can have partners from other countries. Apart from the existing European programmes, regional/international associations are also a good tool to establish links between institutions. Experts and exchange of experts: ANQAHE has a database of experts in Arab countries that can be used for any call. In Europe there is a network of experts for modernisation in HE Bologna experts (which will have a new name). Independence of QA agencies: Participants expressed concern for the low level of independence of QAA. The important aspect to consider here are the various definitions of independence and the degree of independence needed, in terms of funding, governance, accountability etc. There is no minimally defined standard for independence; there was a suggestion from participants to create one. Programmes accreditation vs. institutional accreditation: While in the EU the trend is to move from programmes accreditation to an institutional one, the question from the participants was if it wasn t better for Southern Mediterranean countries to skip straight to institutional accreditation. This can be a possibility in some countries, but as this is a learning curve there is a risk to miss some important steps. However, there is higher chance of QA hindering innovation in the case of programmes accreditation than the institutional one. Month Year I 7

8 Afternoon Session I - Quality assurance and mobility How can quality assurance support mobility of students and teaching staff? Mr. Adrian Veale, Policy Officer, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, opened the afternoon session by putting forward some important questions relating to quality assurance and mobility how to develop quality within mobility programmes, putting forward best practice examples (Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus experience, Erasmus Charter etc.), what the elements for a mobility quality strategy are (preparatory help with logistics, intercultural awareness, language courses, academic integration and mentoring etc.) and how to ensure a proper follow-up after the mobility is finished (gathering feedback from students, maintaining contact within alumni networks etc.) Ms. Vanessa Debiais-Sainton, Head of Sector, Higher Education / DG EAC, presented the existing quality assurance framework within Erasmus+ structured on three levels: before, during and after mobility. All HEIs that want to apply for funding under Erasmus+ must apply for the Erasmus charter, to ensure a minimum quality. The Erasmus charter represents the commitment of the HEIs through which their rectors share fundamental principles. This applies only to programme countries, however partner countries will have to adhere to the principles of the charter in order to participate in an exchange. The mobility needs to be very well prepared, with the HEIs having signed an inter-institutional agreement apriori. The important elements need to be explicitly pointed out (e.g. grading system, expected level of language). As for the learning agreements linking the student to the organisation, they need to contain a list of described courses and the group of interchangeable courses (not on a one-on-one basis but on grouped competences). Reinforced linguistic preparation is supported through a new system of distance language-learning tool, and feedback from students and staff is very important. In case of not respecting the Erasmus Charter, Actions Plans to correct this will be developed. If the problems are not corrected, the HEI will be suspended from taking part in the Erasmus+ programme the following year. Mr. Mahjoub Aouni, Professor and Laboratory Director - University of Monastir, Tunisia, gave a presentation on practices at university level to ensure quality of student and staff mobility. He presented the structure of the University of Monastir and the efforts it has made to be able to participate in mobility programmes and to create more international cooperation. Before the Erasmus Charter they created a Quality Committee with limited but important attributions, which dealt with elements related to the evaluation of new accreditations and renewing of research structures. To open up more toward internationalization, the university also created an administrative cell to deal with the network of projects and training of human resources who work on international mobility. On the basis of opening up they are trying to reinforce international cooperation with Europe but also with Asia and the Americas. Within the University of Monastir they currently have: joint degrees, framed mobility (Erasmus type), and free mobilities that do not fit into previous categories. Discussion Language issues: Participants pointed out that it is important that also staff involved in international activities can benefit from language courses. They also expressed concern about the language issue making mobilities more exclusive. The linguistic support online tool currently only covers 5 languages, but more might be Month Year I 8

9 added later. However the project budget can be used by HEIs themselves for language support, or to cover any other needs they have identified. Mobility and quality assurance: Academic achievements need to be recognized automatically upon the students' return. This of course requires a level of trust between HEIs to ensure quality for incoming students. Conditions should be regulated between institutions in their inter-institutional agreement. Selecting partners abroad: It s up to the HEIs to choose with whom they want to cooperate. There is a high probability they will choose partners which they already know from past projects. Students should be encouraged to not only to consider the attractiveness of the city in which they would study. Soft skills in Erasmus +: Through mobilities students gain more than academic knowledge and expand their soft skills, linguistic skills and, in particular, intercultural sensitivity. They are more attractive to potential employers as well. Extracurricular, voluntary/youth exchanges are also supported by Erasmus+. Horizontal mobility: Participants expressed their desire and need to also have horizontal mobility (south-south instead of north-south/south-north). However, Erasmus+ is not designed for that purpose. Afternoon session II - Quality assurance and joint / double degrees How can quality assurance build confidence between partners? Ms. Claire Morel, Deputy Head of Unit International Cooperation Unit DG EAC, opened the session by explaining that the new Erasmus+ programmes offers the possibility to have joint degrees (that can be double or multiple degrees). Ms. Morel pointed out that there are currently very few universities in Southern Mediterranean countries involved in such projects under Erasmus Mundus while many students from the region have benefited from them. Mr. José Gutierrez Fernandez, Head of sector Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, gave a presentation on the lessons from the EMQA project and future perspectives under Erasmus+. The Erasmus Mundus Quality Assurance project (EMQA) is a process meant to evaluate the Erasmus Mundus joint master and doctoral programmes. The project is a self-assessment tool based on voluntary participation of the joint programmes. The EMQA project does not evaluate courses against a classical fixed set of standards but using the underlying principles of constant innovation in international programmes and a review of own quality against a structured set of quality components drawn from practice. The QA of Erasmus Mundus programmes takes into account the excellence of the learning offers, the attractiveness of HEIs in order to understand better the critical success factors: sustainability, recognition, employability, market attractiveness, reputational capital and geographical networks. Mr. Axel Aerden, Senior international policy advisor - Accreditation Organisation of The Netherlands and Flanders, presented the JOQAR project (Joint programmes: Quality Assurance and Recognition of degrees awarded) for cross-border quality assurance and multinational accreditation. The project, aimed at quality assurance for joint programmes, has developed procedures to look at the totality of the programmes first, with a perspective of all institutions and programmes involved, contrary to the multiple national evaluations currently in place. To ensure this, they have created the Multilateral Agreement on the Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Results regarding joint programmes. Participating university representatives were encouraged to use this system for the development of their own joint programmes. Through this, if a joint programme is externally reviewed by an agency, then all the other agencies automatically accepts the assessment report. An assessment Month Year I 9

10 framework was designed for joint programmes in single accreditation procedures. The accreditation agencies agreed on core essential elements and accepted each other s criteria for evaluation. The assessment framework for joint programmes has shared European components, additional national components and guidelines for self-evaluation reports. The multilateral agreement guarantees accreditation decisions in all countries simultaneously, and becomes part of the methodologies of each QA agency so in the future they will all eventually use the shared methodology within the assessment framework. Discussion Visa issues: Participants complained about difficulties with visa issues within joint programmes. Unfortunately visa is a national, very sensitive issue so it depends on the national governments. The Commission has introduced a recast of the existing so called students and researchers directives (for stays longer than 3 months) in order to improve their implementation. The draft legislation is under discussion in Council. Joint programmes versus dual degree: Joint programmes are more integrated while dual degrees are two sets of curricula joined together, each one offering their own degree at the end of the programme. From an external QA perspective it doesn t make a difference. From an internal QA point of view it was suggested that it can be difficult to measure quality because you don t know exactly what happens in the other partner s curricula, while in joint degrees they are common mechanisms to verify these elements. While joint programmes leaving the national HE system and becoming internationally accredited and evaluated can be a good idea, HE is still regulated nationally and even sub-nationally, so ministries cannot accept other authorities legislating joint programmes. A real European solution is not here yet, there are efforts being made on this, but it will not happen in one or two years. The Commission always wanted Erasmus Mundus joint programmes to be considered as single entities. That s why all consortia have a common website, own tuition fees. The consortium 'sells' a European/international product with all its shortcomings. Value of EMQA evaluations: EMQA s role is not to accredit joint programmes, as all EM programmes are accredited. The idea of EMQA is to give a flexible and long lasting self-evaluation tool to look at different components of joint programmes and improve their quality (learning, staff etc.) Partner countries in joint degrees under Erasmus+: The participants pointed out the difficulties in participating in joint degrees as Southern Mediterranean countries as they need to be the 4 th country involved in the consortium and to prove added value. Indeed there is a need for a student to do a 3 rd mobility (which can be a traineeship for example) in a partner country for the project to be eligible. While it is an additional strain, it is still important. However, the average number of mobilities in Erasmus Mundus Masters Courses is already three and the third can be of different lengths. The universities are responsible for promoting their best assets and bringing the added value to the projects. As Tempus has funded joint curriculum development in the past we can surely find effective designs for future successful programmes. Month Year I 10

11 Day II Morning session Group A - Development of quality assurance units in Higher Education Institutions Mr. Georges Yahchouch, Deputy President for Quality Assurance and Teaching & Learning Holy Spirit University of Kasalik, Lebanon, opened the group session by underlining that the greater responsibility for quality assurance rests with the HEIs. Innovations and development of effective QA agencies within universities is important. The group session focused on how past projects (e.g. Tempus) and collaborations between universities have led to better QA and on the impact of QA mechanisms on capacity building in the Southern Mediterranean countries. Mr. Abdallah Al-Zoubi, Professor Princess Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan, gave his presentation on building quality assurance units in Jordanian universities using Tempus projects. Mr. Al-Zoubi started by explaining the HE system in Jordan, which is very new (it started in the late '50s). Every university in Jordan has had to set up an office in the university to deal with QA within the institution. The idea of the Tempus project was to establish such offices to promote a culture of QA in Jordanian universities. In 2007 the Higher Education Accreditation Commission (HEAC) was created, to deal with institutional and programme accreditation, quality assurance and ranking. The Tempus projects identified similarities and differences between European standards for QA offices/bureaus and the situation in Jordan. A White Paper was published to be the backbone of the new model to be proposed. Besides the 12 theoretical standards created after this report, 7 new soft standards were introduced to create a combined model between the one HEAC had created and the European model. So far, the results of the Tempus project have been very good as it has managed to create QA offices where they were inexistent. Mr. Al-Zoubi expressed his hope to start piloting the newly developed model in three different universities in the near future. Mr. Bruno Curvale, Senior programme manager - International Center for Studies in Education, France, presented the results of the AqiUmed Tempus project on strengthening QA in Maghreb universities (gathering 3 Algerian, 3 Moroccan, 4 Tunisian, 4 European universities and 2 QAA in Spain and France). The idea was to frame a common benchmark to assess programmes at institutional level. The objective of the project was to ensure quality down the line, and to develop internal competences for evaluation. 60 different standards were formulated but more importantly the project managed to lay down the infrastructure of trust. In the participating countries a certain level of independence between HEI, ministries and QA agencies, was noted (unlike other countries, e.g. Israel). The culture of the countries involved was very important for the way the project developed. Although there were many differences there were also many similarities between the Maghreb and European systems. Developing the capacity for critical approach and recognizing quality assurance as steering towards change was essential to the project. Mr. Curvale concluded this was a very successful project for the participating institutions themselves, although there wasn t much follow up from his side after the project was finished. The success of this project was owed mostly to the openness of participating partners, in principle the ability to trust each other, essential in such a long-distance project that involved a great deal of online communication and generally a great deal of commitment and individual motivation. Month Year I 11

12 Discussion Success factors of Jordanian project: The legal framework allowed for involvement of the created Higher Education Accreditation Commission, which really enforced the establishment of QA bureaus in universities. The government was highly involved in the project and there was ownership and commitment from all the partners from the Jordanian and European side. Of course, a check-list is not enough for real change. Institutionalizing quality assurance: The main responsibilities with regards to ensuring quality in education lies with the HEIs first, then with the QA agencies which can consult and advise. On a later stage, it's the role of the public authorities to make sure HEIs meet standards and that the system works. EU countries taking on a stronger role for QA in Southern Mediterranean countries: What is truly helpful is when HEIs cooperate with each other, and this is what can and should be done with the new Erasmus+ programme. The projects will need to be bigger, but if there is a need for specific help (short-term training to see how QAAs function for example) there are possibilities for shorter missions in Europe (with funding from TAIEX programme). Group B Quality assurance bodies and agencies Independence and functioning Mr. Pasi Reinikainen, Residential Twinning Advisor - EU-Twinning project in Egypt, was moderating the discussion on quality assurance bodies and agencies, which had a focus on independence and functioning. Ms. Maria Kelo, Director - European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, presented the European experience with QA bodies and agencies, which started in the early 90s when quality assurance procedures and requirements needed to be formalised to face the massification of HE and increased student mobility. These phenomena pushed institutions to adopt different tools to raise the quality of education, and to be able to demonstrate that to others. There are two main approaches to QA in Europe: in some it's an accreditation procedure, in others an assessment / evaluation approach. The methods and formal outcomes of the two approaches are different, but the ultimate objective of both is to support the quality enhancement of programmes and institutions. Quality assurance agencies that are members of ENQA need to meet the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (the ESG). The European standards cover a range of issues, and while they set a common framework, they do not provide strict requirements to the agencies and national contexts. Some of the key standards in Europe include the independence of QA agencies and the impartiality of external experts; orientation to constant enhancement together with accountability; and integration of all stakeholders in the QA processes, including students. Involvement of internal and external stakeholders is important to foster a culture for quality. The agencies must be independent, to avoid being influenced by third parties, argued Ms. Kelo, but very often they rely on ministries or government for funding, making an absolute independency difficult to reach. However the independence of experts and involvement of stakeholders (students, employers) is an important way to ensure that decisions are not influenced by others. There are different cultures and environments so each agency should take into account the framework and cultural environment in which it operates when creating its own procedures and standards while taking stock of the internationally accepted frameworks and principles. Mr. Chafic Mokbel, Professor and Secretary General of the Research Council - University of Balamand, Lebanon, talked about the experience of preparing the creation of a quality assurance agency in Lebanon. The Lebanese context may be different from other countries in the Southern Mediterranean, as there are old Month Year I 12

13 universities, with the majority of them being private. Mr. Mokbel reminded that the approach to QA should be an environment based approach. 20 institutional stakeholders were involved in the project. There was a real willingness to set up a QAA in Lebanon with support of the EU. There were many questions regarding the future of the agency (e.g. if the discussion is about accreditation, where does that leave accountability?) The issue of independence was recurrent, in regards to operations, functionality, top management and transparency. All this has to be taken into account to move the project forward. Some of the standards developed were based on local Lebanese environments of HE and needs of economic operators. Evaluators were then selected and trained in Spain and France. They have helped the 5 universities involved in the pilot assessment project. Discussion Independence of QA agencies: While such agencies are often dependant on public funding, they should make sure that their evaluators are operationally impartial, free to assess and formulate recommendations. The agency s reputation and credibility will depend on that. Measuring the impact of external QA evaluation/decisions: There is still room for improvement to make sure that the QA agencies have an impact on HEIs' programmes and processes, and, at the end, on the quality of training and education and level of students. Follow-up of QAA decisions: Ministries can take decisions which differ from the agency s assessment of a programme or an institution, but this policy decision will need to be motivated and public. Month Year I 13

14 Closing session Mr. Mohammed Alsubu, Head of the Accreditation and Quality Assurance Commission, Palestine, concluded the event by summarizing the main ideas expressed during the two days of the seminar underlining the essential points made by each speaker. Mr. Alsubu reiterated that the work does not end here and there is a need for further cooperation to face the many challenges ahead. Mr. Hartung, Head of Unit International relations and programmes, DG EAC, reminded the participants that this seminar takes place in the framework of the dialogue of Southern Mediterranean countries on HE policy and programmes launched in QA was then identified as the priority for this dialogue. QA as a continuous process of evaluation, assessing, monitoring, guaranteeing, maintaining and improving. There is a whole chain of elements involved so that they are not just empty promises but that there is implementation. The goal of the seminar was to take stock of the recent developments in QA in EU and Southern Mediterranean countries. Its second goal was to identify practical ways to insure quality in international cooperation. We now have different directions for acting: north-south, south-south, east-west etc. These can only be helpful and should be used to maximum. How to support this development with the existing tools? We have financial tools (Erasmus+) and also the Erasmus Charter (for ensuring the quality of the students/staff mobility between our two regions). We have a great variety of situations and practices. We need a pragmatic approach to be adapted to specific situations, each step at a time. The internationalization of HE puts us in a new situations, from an offer-driven HE we are moving to a demand-driven one. There are also new challenges to be seen from a technological point of view. There is a strong need to involve students in evaluation and monitoring, as they are the final customers. They need to be trained to do fair evaluations. Currently the most challenging issue related to mobility is the development and international accreditation of joint programmes. The new Erasmus+ as program, Mr. Hartung emphasized, will not give all the solutions but provides many opportunities for development (e.g. the capacity building strand). The conclusions of this seminar will be presented at the next meeting of the policy dialogue on HE between EU and Southern Mediterranean countries on th of June in Brussels. In addition, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency will organize a seminar in Croatia in June for reflection and discussion among Tempus experts on the challenges and trends in QA. Month Year I 14