Accreditation of joint programmes Accreditation of joint programmes Mark Frederiks NVAO ECA...

Accreditation of joint programmesAccreditation of joint programmes

•Mark Frederiks

•NVAO

•ECA Coordinator & TEAM II Project Manager

•Friday, 26th March 2010, Warsaw

ContentContent

1. Definitions of JP and JD2. Accreditation of joint programmes is complex3. Current and future situation4. TEAM II methodology for accreditation of JPs5. ECA Principles for accreditation of JPs6. The 5 pilot procedures7. Example: NVAO assessment of JPs8. Accreditation and recognition9. Discussion

Definitions of JP and JDDefinitions of JP and JD

• A joint programme is a programme offered jointly by different higher education institutions irrespective of the degree (joint, multiple and double) awarded (ECA Principles for accreditation procedures regarding joint programmes)

• Joint degree: A joint diploma issued by the institutions offering a joint programme in place of all the national diplomas, attesting the successful completion of this joint programme(ENQA TEEP II project)

Accreditation of joint programmes is complex Accreditation of joint programmes is complex

Complex for HEIs:• Different national legislation and funding arrangements • Govt funding approval necessary: yes/no• Tuition fees: different amounts or none• QA requirements for recognition: national accreditation,

evaluation or validation by HEI • Specific national requirements (e.g. ... ECTS for thesis;

binary or profiling requirements)

• European regulations (e.g. for Erasmus Mundus joint Master programmes)

• Multiple national accreditation procedures

| | 44

Accreditation of joint programmes is complex Accreditation of joint programmes is complex

Complex for accreditation agencies:• No national accreditation in countries of partner HEIs• What information on quality can be made available?

• Detailed national accreditation requirements• Specific national requirements (e.g. ... ECTS; binary)• Specific national regulations for JPs or JDs

• Multiple national accreditation procedures• Occasionally joint procedure or mutual recognition

agreement or joint degree accredited elsewhere• But mostly “muddling through”, e.g. national procedures

with some or no information on foreign provision

| | 55

Accreditation of joint programmes?

Recognition cooperation & agreements

Countries involved in ECA - TEAM I

Signed mutual recognition agreements

Letters of Intent

Potential additional partners in TEAM II

Current situationCurrent situation

Current situation

►Quality assurance and/or accreditation

National competencies Multiple QA/accreditation procedures

Situation in the future?

► Single accreditation procedure

► Accreditation decision

► Accreditation in all national systems

Current and future situationCurrent and future situation

TEAM II TEAM II Methodology for single accreditation JPsMethodology for single accreditation JPs

Joint programmes should be able to apply for one single accreditation procedure replacing the different national procedures.

The TEAM II project is aiming at developing a European methodology for accreditation procedures regarding joint programmes.

TEAM II methodology for single accreditation JPsTEAM II methodology for single accreditation JPs

• ECA Principles for accreditation of JPs; totality of joint programme (all learning outcomes)

• 5 pilot procedures• One coordinating agency; others are invited to

participate (comparison, experts) or observe• Comparison of accreditation frameworks

Using framework of coordinating agency Additions from frameworks of other agencies involved in

JP, e.g. specific national legal requirements

TEAM II methodology for single accreditation JPsTEAM II methodology for single accreditation JPs

• Selection of experts (cf. ECA Principles)• Rules of coordinating agency but special requirements

other agencies

• Self-evaluation by consortium of HEIs Using guidelines for SE of coordinating agency Additions from other guidelines/frameworks, e.g. because

of specific national legal requirements Information on totality of joint programme

• 1 site visit with representatives (and students, graduates) of all or core partners

• 1 report, multiple (but same!) decisions

Principles for accreditation of joint programmesPrinciples for accreditation of joint programmes

To increase mutual trust and transparencyJoint programmes are included in MR agreements Information sharing and transparency• Agencies inform each other• Legal situation & status of degree

Composition of expert panel• Particular emphasis on international experience

Assessment process• Totality of programme included in information, site visit and

assessment by panel• Include at least 1 observer of other agency

Principles for accreditation of joint programmes/2Principles for accreditation of joint programmes/2

Accreditation decision• Based on assessment of totality of joint programme• Communication of decision to other involved agencies

Similar principles for the QA of joint programmes through institutional accreditation• Agencies should inform accredited institutions that they are

expected to quality assure new joint programmes with a rigour equivalent to that which provided the basis of the institution‘s accreditation

The 5 pilot proceduresThe 5 pilot procedures

• ERASMUS MUNDUS MASTERS -Journalism and Media within Globalisation

• European Teacher Education for Primary Schools (ETEPS)

• Joint European Master in Comparative Local Development (CoDe)

• Joint European Master in International Humanitarian Action (NOHA)

• European Master of Science in Geosciences of Basins and Lithosphere

ERASMUS MUNDUS MASTERS -Journalism and Media within Globalisation

Partners in the consortium

The Danish School of Journalism, Denmark

The University of Aarhus, Denmark

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

University of Hamburg, Germany

Swansea University, Wales

City University London, England

QA agencies involved:

ZEvA, NVAO

European Teacher Education for Primary Schools (ETEPS)

Partners in the consortium

Stenden University College, The Netherlands

University College Zealand, Denmark

Linnaeus University, Sweden

Buskerud University College, Norway

QA agencies involved:

NVAO, HSV

Joint European Master in Comparative Local Development (CoDe)

Partners in the consortium

Trento University, Italy

Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary

The University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

The University of Regensburg, Germany

QA agencies involved:

HAC, GAC, The Council for Higher Education of the Republic of Slovenia

Joint European Master in International Humanitarian Action (NOHA)

Partners in the consortium

Universidad de Deusto, Spain

Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany

Université de Aix-Marseille III Paul Cézanne, France

Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium

University College Dublin, Ireland

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands

Uppsala University, Sweden

QA agencies involved

ANECA, AQAS, NVAO, HSV

European Master of Science in Geosciences of Basins and Lithosphere

Partners in the consortium

VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The Université de Rennes 1, France

The University of Bergen, Norway

Associated Partners

RWTH Aachen University, Germany

The Université Pierre et Marie Curie, France

The Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary

QA agencies involved:

NVAO, HAC, CTI

| | 1818

||

Milestones / Months JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

Initial meeting (coordinators and accreditation agencies)

Deciding upon the accreditation standards and procedure

Informing the quality assurance agencies involved

Drawing up the self evaluation report

Selecting the members of the external review panel

Writing guidelines for the experts

Telephone meeting with the experts

Site visit

Drawing up the external report

Accreditation decision

Providing feedback for the methodological report

Finishing the methodological report

Dissemination conference

Example: NVAO assessment of JPsExample: NVAO assessment of JPs

Assessment framework: 6 themes 21 standards criteriaThemes:1. Aims and objectives

• All intended learning outcomes

2. Curriculum• Collective arrangements for student assessment

3. Staff• CV’s of all teaching staff; language skills?

| | 2020

Example: NVAO assessment of JPsExample: NVAO assessment of JPs

Assessment framework: 6 themes 21 standards criteriaThemes:4. Facilities

• Of all partner HEIs

5. Internal quality assurance system• Collective QA arrangements; e.g. coordination

meetings, cooperation agreement

6. Results• Achieved learning outcomes of all graduates

| | 2121

Accreditation and recognitionAccreditation and recognition

• Accreditation informs recognition and recognition informs accreditation

• Qrossroads will have this year 13 countries included• Info on accredited qualifications and accreditation

systems, recognition, qualification frameworks, HE systems• Joint programmes• Learning outcomes• Information by HEIs

• More information sharing between ENIC-NARICs and accreditation agencies needed

| | 2222

DiscussionDiscussion

• How strict can we be without blocking innovation?• How flexible can we be without giving bad quality

providers legitimacy?• E,g. if in joint degrees 1 national recognised HEI in

consortium is enough for recognition

• Should agencies check fulfilment of all legal requirements or is this the responsibility of HEIs?

• Should we require recognition:• Of each HEI in the consortium? and • Of each programme (part) in the consortium at the

appropriate level?

| | 2323