…1…

Trends IVMain findings and

conclusions

Sybille Reichert

ACA, Brussels, 15th of April 2005

…2…

Methodology: Data collection & analysis

Institutions at the centre of the 2004/2005 exercise

62 site visits to universities (incl. 14 Coimbra) & 7 other HEIs, variety of profiles, but all institutions which have started implementation

for 29 of 40 Bologna countries interviews with multiple institutional players by teams of 2 persons (1 internat., 1 from national RC)

Analysis of institutional responses, progress & priorities

concentrating on the 3 Bologna mid-term priorities (structures, recognition, quality) & research

taking account of the European & national contexts• through a questionnaire sent to Rectors’ Conferences• through re-analysis of Trends III data

…3…

Bologna: From national commitment

to institutional reality -- 2005It takes concerted action on all levels to make the

European Higher Education Area a reality…

national commitment

national legislation

national incentives/

support

institutional leadership/

policy

instit. communication

deliberationdecision

instit. reality

Only 6 countries have provided some funding for implementation at institutional level

Bologna reforms have become an integral part of inst. strategy

Almost all countries have by now introduced the two cycles system. Few HEI were still waiting for more detailed governm. regulations, some governments plan amendments. But majority of HEIs still find that nat.legisl. undermines auton. decision-making

Role of academics: investing lots of extra time and ideas, taking up the challenge.

Signs of reform fatigue.

…4…

Degree Structures: The Bachelor level 1

Misconception that Bologna “prescribes” in any way 3+2.

Many professors doubt that 3 y -degrees can be academically valid and relevant to labour market (seen as lowering of academic standards.

Discussion still centred on nominal duration, not outcomes: Some universities don’t want to award same degrees as profess. sector.

Content of traditional 4 (or 5) y programmes often compressed into 3 years. Ba curricula often reported to be more rigidly structured than traditional ones (many compulsory subjects and contact hours).

Justified concern about “one size fits all” approach taken by many national laws in imposing 3 y Bachelors: Some disciplines argue that 3 years are too short for a meaningful first degree and request more autonomy in designing their degree programmes.

…5…

Degree Structures: The Bachelor level 2

Ba graduates: labour market or Ma-studies? Huge differences between countries. In UK, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey Ba are well accepted by labour market.

In many HEI students felt badly informed about value of a Bachelor in its own right, most plan to go for a Master, often supported by professors.

Emphasis on employability has impact on dual systems: Universities in some binary systems fear competition from polytechnics: Poly-Ba can be more attractive to employers (practical experience). Many want to see Ba-degrees as a platform for re-orientation towards a Ma-programme. Polytechnics more confident.

Insufficient dialogue between HEI, governments with employers to give the Ba more credibility, and adapt public service employment (career, service grades, salary).

…6…

Degree Structures: The Master level

In spite of Bologna-Consensus on Ma programmes: huge variety

Duration: In many countries 180+60 ECTS not seen as internationally competitive.

UK and IR :1y-Ma (often > 60 ECTS) particularly attractive. 300+ ECTS programmes continue to exist in some countries (PL, HG, IR,

Scotland) and disciplines (medicine, engineering)

Tendency to create too many M-prog: no institutional strategy

Ma progr. often designed with narrow focus on preceding Ba programmes. Some HEI welcome opportunity to define interdisciplinary Ma.

Vertical mobility seen as a threat, not opportunity, “Stand-alone” Ma still the exception.

Students worried about (future lack of) public funding for Ma level.

…7…

Degree Structures: Joint Degrees

Legal situation regarding JD is slowly improving. In most countries JD are now legally possible (at least not explicitly excluded), the others will amend their legislation.

More interest than reported in Trends III survey (where level of interest in Joint Degrees had been “medium to low”).

Existing programmes: information and exact figures are available only in some countries.

One of the biggest practical problems with JD is quality assurance/accreditation –European guidelines would help.

…8…

Degree Structures: Modularisation and Learning

Outcomes

Many HEI have modularised their programmes (ECTS, TUNING), but very different interpretations of “modularisation”. Students welcome the concept of modularisation but complain it often has been done superficially, not leading to more flexibility.

Many HEI are familiar with the concept of LO or competence-based learning, majority are in the process of implementing them and consider them a helpful tool. Very few HEI voiced explicit criticism or reservations against LO.

Very positive reference to qualifications frameworks (QF) in DK and Scotland (curricular dev., recognition); but little has happened (Germany exception).

…9…

Access to higher education, progression through the system

Access to Ba programmes:

In many countries no real selection is possible: all holders of formal qualification have to be admitted .Some HEI are worried that this will weaken their competitiveness at the European level.

Access to Master programmes:

Most HEI can select candidates but even here some constraints can be found.

Admission to doctoral level:

In most but not all HEI left to the discretion of the faculty.

However, in a small group of HEI no selection seems to be possible at any point, neither at Ma nor at PhD level.

More and more HEI want to select students that correspond to their institutional profile and quality standards.

…10…

Recognition: Trends in Mobility

Incoming European M. seems to have increased in many countries since 1999.

Worries over decreasing outgoing M. Reasons: rigid programmes, students more risk-conscious, finish on time, language, funding, jobs, Major obstacle to M.: academic calendars across Europe-> Agreement on end of first/beginning of second semester helpful.

Consensus: better preparation, guaranteed recognition needed. Using stay abroad for practical work, formal inclusion in curricula makes recognition easier.

Few HEI use vertical M. strategically: specific Ma programmes.

Long-term mobility of academics in Europe: important element of EHEA but very few data available.

…11…

Recognition of exchange mobility

HEI that apply ECTS, in particular the learning agreement, report few or no problems with recognition of exchange m.; Sometimes perception varies: leadership/central administration consider it to work well, students don’t.

Very few HEI don’t take responsibility for students seriously, occasionally refuse recognition, in spite of signed LA.

Other HEI report difficulties linked to the superior quality of their own teaching/poor administrative handling at partner HEI.

Some HEI still have difficulties in the validation of courses taken abroad, translation of marks, transfer of credits.

Many called for a more “European” implementation of ECTS to preclude inconsistencies.

More important than ever: ERASMUS principle of “mutual trust and confidence”. HEI should compare the defined learning outcomes, not search for contents identical to their own.

…12…

Recognition: ECTS

A majority of HEI have implemented ECTS and use it both for accumulation and transfer.

Others are still working on ECTS, concentrating on the accumulation aspect as they used ECTS for transfer before.

Occasionally reservations were expressed regarding ECTS standards and levels and the ECTS grading scale.

Moving from contact hours to student workload (how to assess workload) is still an issue in a number of HEI.

ECTS as a transfer instrument can cause problems with regard to regulated professions in some countries, because of the existing strict directives regarding the curriculum.

The discussion and emerging consensus on qualifications frameworks could help to find a more coherent approach to ECTS across Europe, in terms of workload and levels.

…13…

Recognition: Diploma Supplement

Most HEI will be able to issue the DS to every graduate in the course of 2005. Some had already introduced it before.

All HEI plan a DS in English, some also in the national language.

Frequent difficulties: the student record system doesn’t contain the necessary information, the institutional and/or national student data software has not yet been adjusted to “Bologna”, the DS requires a big IT effort because of the complexity of study itineraries, high costs - especially for translations.

Major challenge for many HEI: how to include learning outcomes in the DS to make it a truly informative document. Otherwise the DS may be technically correct but will fail in the essential regard: to provide information on a graduate’s profile.

…14…

Recognition of non-formal/non-academic qualifications

Berlin Com: recognition of prior learning must become an integral part of higher education activity. Debate on qualifications frameworks, on the Lisbon agenda give APL and APEL more visibility.

But Trends IV shows that it is not yet perceived as an important topic in many institutions. Several HEI have no provision at all for this kind of recognition. A few indicated that, while there are no provisions yet, discussions have started, legislation will be changed.

Only few countries and HEI have explicit strategies for the recognition of non-formal or non-academic recognition (mostly for mature or disadvantaged students, applicants with non-standard secondary education, e.g in architecture, medicine, sports sciences and fine arts.)

…16…

Quality Enhancement :Putting Quality Assurance into Context

Quality Enhancement > Quality Assurance

Qual. Enhancement = Sum of many methods of institutional development

Ex: Added value of Bologna reforms

Opportunity to reflect and review curricula Opportunity to reform teaching methods (student centred

learning, continous assessment, flexible learning paths) Strengthening horizontal communication and institutional

transparency

Most limiting factor for quality enhancement is not nature of internal or external QA but limits to resources when room for improvements identified.

…17…

Relation of Internal and External QA

External QA more appreciated in build-up of internal QA

Institutions find that internal qual. processes are more improvement oriented and more attuned to institutional goals.

an advanced internal quality culture should be mirrored in a light external quality control.

Degree of Advancement of Institutional Qual. Development

Positive Impact / Effectiveness of External QA

…18…

Internal Quality DevelopmentLevel of activity in internal qual. dev. processes has risen

Focus largely on teaching and learning (all inst.), some attention student support services

Research quality: emphasis on external review, only a third of inst. have some form of internal res. review

Internal qual. dev. of administration and support services less developed (less than a sixth of inst.) and more ad hoc

Lack of coherence reg. qual. development processes -- only few inst. pursue a systematic institutionalised approach to qual. development

Institutional autonomy systematic approach to qd, at least on the extremes

…19…

Internal Quality Development: Teaching, Learning, Services

Instruments (e.g. student questionnaires, discussion on curricula in committees)

Institutional organisation of qd, especiallyfeed back

Synergies between qual. dev. of different functions

InstitutionalAutonomy ?

External QA Processes?National Quality (Dis-) Incentives?

…20…

Internal Quality Development: Research

Individuals:Submission of papers and grant proposals

Internal incentives: salary, promotion,res. funds

Recruitment and re-election

Peer review of research units

…21…

Impact of Bologna Reforms on Research and Research Training

1. Impact of new programmes on research exposure at the different levels

2. Impact of new structures and reinforced focus on teaching quality on research training at doctoral level

3. Impact of strengthened institutional communication on internal research cooperation – interdisciplinary programmes

4. Shifting time resources from research to teaching (teaching more time intensive, not compensated)

…22…

Research ExposureMost institutions offer some res. exposure to Bachelor students, but often only limited, dep. on subj. Area

Often concentrated on the last year of long degree

Shift of research experience from Bachelor to Master level

3 years of Ba-programmes regarded as too short for appropriate res. experience – Master level: primary level for research in action (although some more „professional“)

Often less time for independent research in new programmes due to compressed continuously assessed programmes

Research skills of working population if Bachelor dominant degree?

…24…

Strengthening the Institutional Level

Noticeable impact of Bologna reforms on institutional communication, new bridges between units

Some institutions used Bologna as part of their positioning, but rarely in relation to research strengths (only a minority had identified strategic res. priorities at institutional level in relation to intern. markets)

Research and education are separately managed at most institutions, development comes together at level of individual/ department but not of institution

Scepticism regarding idea of research priorities in terms of overarching themes

…25…

Resources for Education vs.Resources for Research ?!

Enormous time investment for Bologna reforms, esp. if used as opportunity for deeper reform

Even in the long run, greater time investment bec. Of more counselling, tutoring, assessments, individualised attention

Vast majority of institutions were not in a position to hire new staff (no additional resources from gvmts)

Research resources particularly problematic in some countries, many Eastern European countries, Italy, Greece

T (r) + T (e) = C per person. Note that few univ. were in a position to hire additional staff. Universities: „Enhancing the quality of teaching in Europe should not have to be paid with a decrease in the quality of research!“

…26…

Implementing Bologna:Success Factors

Success factors:

1. Other ongoing reforms

2. Problem awareness

3. Institutional communication between units and leadership

4. Open dialogue with external stakeholders

5. Dialogue and willingness to include key actors in design of reform (institutional / national)

6. Timing

7. National financial support for Bol. Reform only granted in small minority of countries

8. Autonomy: in half of BP countries can institutions decide autonomously over key elements of reform (liberal or prescriptive)

Transforming top-down reforms

into anbottom-up

agenda of institutional

change

…29…

Bologna Reforms as Systemic Challenges

Move to student-centred learning in a majority of countries

More compact programmes, more time pressure, more assessment, more efficiency, less time for independent study?

Blurring differentiation between universities and other HEI

Employability at Bachelor level, former competitive advantage of other HEI – new definition of differentiating profiles needed

Retreating State Funding

Retreating from full funding of the Master level? Not paying for move to more individualised learning paths? Not increasing institutional grants = paying for quality

enhancement of teaching out of research resources

…30…

Conclusion

HEI have adopted the Bologna reforms and accepted ownership in a majority of cases. The reforms have revealed and in some cases even strengthened the institutions‘ capacity for change.

According to HEIs, the Bologna Reforms have already brought a considerable array of added values and multiple opportunities for enhancing the quality of HE in Europe.

But, if seen in the light of its aims of enhancing the quality, attractiveness and competitiveness of HE in Europe, many opportunities for improvements are still waiting to be used, often on hold for lack of available resources.

Many institutions are ready to move forward and have identified priorities for change. Some national contexts are providing very good conditions to help them along.

How can we push for such conditions to spread to more regions in Europe? Or will we have to accept a EHEA or ERA with very unequal opportunities for institutional development of excellence, even in the longer term?