Assessing the contribution of Tempus to the Bologna Process in

the Russian Federation

Dr Anthony J Vickers, C Eng, FIET, CPhys, MInstPUK Bologna Expert

The International Expert Team

Dr Anthony J Vickers

The University of Essex, UK

Dr Svetlana Tvorogova

State University, Higher School of Economics

Professor Gennady Lukichev

National Information Centre for Academic Recognition and Mobility

Professor Vladimir Andreff

Sorbonne University Paris I, France

The Action Lines

1. Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees2. Adoption of a system essentially based on two cycles3. Establishment of a system of credits4. Promotion of mobility5. Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance6. Promotion of the European dimension in higher education7. Lifelong learning8. The involvement of HE institutions and students in the development of

the Bologna Process9. Promoting the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area.10. European Higher Education Area and European Research Area – two

pillars of the knowledge based society.

The overall objective is to assess the contribution of the Tempus programme to achieve the goals of the Bologna process and to help form the EU-Russia Education Space, contributing to bringing the Russian higher education system closer to the newly forming European Higher Education Area (EHEA).

The project Global objectives

– Assessing the results of selected Tempus projects focussed on Tempus priorities linked to Russia’s participation in the Bologna process, such as:

–adoption of a two-tier “bachelor-master” cycle, –introduction of a credit system, namely ECTS–adoption of learning quality provisions –and introduction of integrated curricula.

– Identifying best examples of;

– comparable degrees structures– development of two cycle systems– adoption of ECTS approach – adoption of quality provisions– and development of integrated curricula.

– Stimulating a debate on results achieved in order to strengthen Russia’s involvement in the development of the EHEA.

Specific objectives

Methodology - Questionnaires

– A three section questionnaire was sent to all RF Institutions participating in Tempus projects started after Jan 1st 2001 as well as those Institutions participating in Tempus projects started between January 1st 1999 and December 31st 2000 selected for a site visit.

– Both English and Russian versions were sent and the respondents were given the choice of answering in English or Russian.

– The questionnaires were sent to the project coordinators where the coordinator was from a Russian Federation Institution as well as to the Rector/Vice Rector of the Russian Federation Institutions.

– A third Questionnaire was sent to Russian Federation students who have spent a period of study abroad as part of any Tempus project.

– A separate questionnaire based on section B of the main questionnaire was sent to the contact person at each EU partner in all the selected Tempus projects.

Methodology – Site Visits

– A selection of Tempus projects made from all projects started after January 1st 1999 and ended before December 31st 2005 have had a site visit by at least two members of the expert team.

– A standard set of areas of discussion was used at each site visit to aide comparison between site visits.

The principles applied for the selection of site visits

• The projects were selected by scoring all projects against a set of criteria.

• The criteria were the relevance to the Bologna ten action lines, the number of RF partners being greater than 2 which would influence knowledge transfer, the size of the project in terms of funding, and the location to maximise the site visit efficiency.

• The major criteria was obviously the relevance to the Bologna ten action lines.

• We have endeavored to make a site visit to all those RF partners which are located in the 5 cities we have visited, namely Moscow, St Petersburg, Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, and Nizhni Novgorod.

SELECTED PROJECTS

Questionnaires

• Section A – for Institutions (English, Russian)• Section B – For teachers in the project• Section C – for students• RF Students who studied abroad• EU coordinators and partners

Questionnaire Response Rates

Russian Federation• Questionnaires have been sent to a total of 107 Institutions, 21 of

which have had site visits.• The response rate was as follows

– 100% of Institutions visited have completed questionnaires

– 45% of Institutions not visited have completed questionnaires.

EU• Questionnaires have been sent to 39 EU coordinators

– The response rate was 51.3%

• 7 site visits were undertaken

Questionnaire AnalysisNon visited Institutions

Number of responses per Institution

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

A

B

C

Two cycle Implementation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

BA share

MA share

Introducing credits

• 58% of responded HEIs have introduced credits• 8% are working on this issue• The rest has not done it yet• Most of the HEIs cooperate with others while

introducing the credits: 90% of respondents work with Russian partners, and 95% cooperate with EU partners

• The question remains: what exactly is being introduced and how valuable it is

Mobility rates since January 2001 differs a lot

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Number of studentsabroad (q20)

Number of teachersabroad (q21)

Cooperation in Quality assurance is active with different partners

• Russian partners are more popular for QA issues: 95% of the respondents have some national collaboration in this field

• QA procedures used are often formal; they are rarely complex and mostly focus on measuring students’ satisfaction and / or knowledge. The assurance component remains weak and is poorly understood

Site Visits

• Site visits have been undertaken in Nizhny Novgorod, St Petersburg, Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, and Moscow. A total of 21 Universities and 3 organisations have been visited

• At each site visit we have interviewed the available representatives starting with the Rector or his/her representative and ending with students. (example site visit) A total of over 80 interviews have been held.

• Notes are written up on the site visits and all team members give their views on any identified examples of good practice in relation to the 10 Bologna Action Lines.

Questionnaire AnalysisVisited Institutions

10 Bologna action lines implementation:Nizhny Novgorod, questionnaire А

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Civil Engineering

State University

State Technical

Public Admin.

5=full implementation3=partial implementation1=pilot implementation

10 Bologna action lines implementation, total score (questionnaire A)

Score for all site visits

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bologna Action Line

Per

cen

tag

e

General assessment of Tempus projects impact on the implementation of the 10 Bologna action

lines in %, questionnaire B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Good practice identified

• We have identified good practice examples against all of the 10 Bologna Action Lines

• Some Action Lines have multiple examples of good practice.

Action Line 1Project ID: UM_JEP-26017-2005-TACISTitle: University knowledge transfer for sustainable growthCoordinating University: Nizhny Novgorod State University named after N I LobachevskiiRF Partner HEIs: Nizhny Novgorod State University named after N I LobachevskiiA comparison of curricula with European partners was made and it’s further modernization in order to have full comparability is realized. As an example a Master programme in Economics developed in cooperation with the European partner-universities (University of Roskilde, University of Calabria) in accordance with the Bologna principles was introduced into the educational process. It is fully compatible with the respective programmes of the university-partners. The Diploma Supplement was introduced in the Law Faculty and new 2 cycle compliant degrees developed in three Faculties.

Action Line 2

Project ID: UM_JEP-21118-2000-TACISTitle: Quality in Education for the New MillenniumCoordinating University: Cranfield University, UKRF Partner HEIs: St Petersburg State Electrotechnical University, Moscow State Institute for electronic Technology, Moscow State University of Technology named after Stankin, and the European Quality Centre (Moscow).St Petersburg State Electrotechnical University has held a number of Tempus projects. This project being their first. They have also held the following projects JEP-22254-2001, JEP-22135-2001, and JEP-23194-2002, JEP-25085-2004 and SCM-T032B04-2004. The good practice examples we list in this report are to be considered as a cumulative set of good examples against the complete project list.The University has been developing its two cycle system (BAMA) for many years and the University will be 100% BAMA by the start of the 2007-2008 academic year.

Action Line 3

Project ID: CD_JEP-25241-2004-TACISTitle: The modernization and Internationalisation of the curriculum at

Urals Academy of Public AdministrationCoordinating University: London Metropolitan University, UKRF Partner HEIs: State University Higher School of Economics,

Urals Academy of Public AdministrationCourses developed within this project have had ECTS credits

associated with them with a standard credit value of 10ECTS credits per course. The courses have been designed from a student workload perspective taking into account all the student activities associated with the courses. Although this is not yet applied across the HEI the intention is for these courses to act as models for the rest of the HEI. All the developed courses have aims and learning outcomes stated as standard. The assessment methodology has also been adapted to ensure testing of learning outcomes.

Institutional Matters Arising

• The level of involvement of students• The level of involvement of employers• Use of learning outcomes in curriculum design• Good governance and enthusiasm of senior

management is essential

Tempus Organisation Matters Arising

• A database of projects undertaken should be developed

• A dissemination database or library should be developed

National Questions and observations

• How will the two cycle system be funded?• Is curriculum development being restricted by

the State Standards?• Some students feel the need to take a second

diploma to improve employability.• Students fear the value of their Bachelor degree.

Draft recommendations

• Through the written final report of this project and the WWW, disseminate as widely as possible, the examples of good practice evidenced within this evaluation.

• Plan the public transparency of future outcomes of Tempus projects.

• Consider developing a network of Bologna practitioners drawn from those people who have been actively involved in projects with identified "good practice" outcomes.

• Encourage a high standard of the measurability and assessment of future Tempus project deliverables, where appropriate.

• Improve networking amongst Russian HEI’s, as in the case of the Engineering community for example.

• Promote continuity of collaboration between Russian Federation HEI’s and EU HEI’s, as long term collaboration has been shown to be give great benefits. Current examples could be developed as Centres of Excellence for the promotion of the Bologna Process.

• Develop a clear understanding of the full meaning of a learning outcome approach to Higher Education. (Action Line 1 and 3)

• Clarify and widely inform all stakeholders the definitions of Russian Bachelor and Master Qualifications and in particular work towards strengthening the recognition of the Bachelor qualification with all stakeholders. (Action Line 2)

• Improve the understanding of the aligning of workload and credits, and in particular foster debate on the balance between student based learning and formal classes. (Action Line 3)

• Improve financial support for student mobility. (Action Line 4)

• Improve the teaching of foreign languages (Action Line 4)

• Encourage teaching in foreign languages for example economics taught in English. (Action Line 4)

• Improve inward mobility of EU teachers and students. (Action Line 4)

• Promote strong quality assurance of assessment procedures and their adherence by all academic staff, through for example the adoption of an ethical code. (Action Line 5)

• It appears difficult for HEI’s to formulate Action Line 6 so some debate on this should be encouraged. (Action Line 6)

• Promote distance learning networks for LLL (Action Line 7)• Improve the involvement of both students and employers in

all aspects of Higher Education reform (Action Line 8)

• Involve employers in the education process, using them as teachers where appropriate. (Action Line 8)

• As in the case of action line 6 HEI’s seem to have difficulty in formulating strategy for action line 9. (Action Line 9)

• Increase the international publications of academic staff at HEI’s. (Action Line 10)

• The exposure of students to research would be improved if the research budget to HEI’s was increased. (Action Line 10)