Dr Vladimir RadevskiOhrid, 4 April 2012

National Frameworks and their associated Quality Assurance

The plan

1. Quality Assurance in relation with National Qualification Framework (NQF)

2. Institutional Quality Assurance in relation wit NQF – SEE University experiences

3. Quality Assurance on National Level – Next steps

Part one

Quality Assurance in relation with National Qualification Framework (NQF)

Recognized and well utilized NQFs/Learning outcomes Driver for educational reform Improvement in employability and mobility Empowerment of students with skills, knowledge, and

attitudes that enable them to live and work in a knowledge society

Informed decision making by students and stakeholders Increased student involvement in learning processes Student centred teaching and assessment Qualified, competent and well-supported academic staff Transparent, consistent and evidence-based monitoring

structures and transparency tools which recognise and share achievement, support and demonstrate improvement

Effective, well defined educational cooperation Increased transparency, accountability, public confidence International recognition and comparability

Quality as stakeholder satisfaction – what a ‘reasonable person’ would regard as acceptable

Quality as fitness for purpose – Fulfilment of specified goals; conformity to sectoral standards Vlãsceanu et al., (2007, pp. 71–72) or meeting a stated mission which allows for diversity (Davies and Brailsford (undated))

Quality as fitness for use – effectiveness of design, implementation methodologies and support processes, which fits stakeholders defined need under specific conditions (to ensure that the product not only performs to specification but also satisfies the customer’s - students, employers, stakeholders) - need for any reasonable use) but which stakeholders needs take priority – students? Government? Employers?

Need agreement of purpose of NQF and how this supports quality between national government, agencies and institutions

 Five conditions that lead to an effective quality culture:

Use a variety of quality assurance mechanism;s Develop and maintain effective internal decision making; Ensure processes and structures have clear accountability lines

and defined responsibilities at all levels;  Ensure that processes are not imposed or ‘bolted on’ - facilitate

internal debate - even tolerate dissent; Invest in people through staff development to avoid internal

quality assurance arrangements becoming punitive; Encourage institutional autonomy and self-confidence – define

our quality norms with clear purpose, in line with our specific profile, strategies and organizational culture.

   

Part two

Institutional Quality Assurance in relation wit NQF – SEE University experiences

Legal and formal monitoring –institutional webpage, course syllabi check, moderation of academic programmes in accreditation process

Quality structure involving stakeholders – staff, students, employers, alumni, Quality Champion

Regular, planned and moderated reviews, reports, benchmarking – institutional and Faculty

External evaluation – eg EUA Institutional Review Programme, Programme Review with international expertise

Student induction Programme – learning to learn Student evaluation surveys, focus groups with follow-up Evaluating use of LOs in the classroom - teaching observation Monitoring and improving assessment methodologies Development of effective outcome based learning/PBL/Practical and

Clinical Teaching Active Staff Appraisal Procedure with focus on L&T Use of Staff reward and promotion processes

Institutional Quality Assurance in relation with NQF – SEE University experiences

Part three

Criteria and Procedures for verification of National Framework Compatibility

1. The national framework for HE qualifications and the body or bodies responsible for its development are designated by the national ministry with responsibility for HE;

2. There is a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications in the NF and the cycle qualification descriptors of the European framework;

3. The NF and its qualifications are demonstrably based on learning outcomes and the qualifications are linked to ECTS;

4. The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in the national framework are transparent;

5. The national QA system for HE refer to the NFQ and are consistent with the Berlin Communiqué and any subsequent communiqué agreed by ministers in the Bologna Process;

6. The NF, and any alignment with the European framework, is referenced in all Diploma Supplements;

7. The responsibilities of the domestic parties to the NF are clearly determined and published.

Criteria for verification of NF compatibility

1. The competent national body/bodies shall certify the compatibility of the NF with the European framework;

2. The self-certification process shall include the stated agreement of the quality assurance bodies in the country in question recognised through the Bologna Process;

3. The self-certification process shall involve international experts; 4. The self-certification and the evidence supporting it shall be

published and shall address separately each of the criteria set out; 5. The ENIC and NARIC networks shall maintain a public listing of States

that have confirmed that they have completed the self-certification process [www.enicnaric.net];

6. The completion of the self-certification process shall be noted on Diploma Supplements issued subsequently by showing the link between the NF and the European framework.

Procedures for verifying that NF are compatible with Bologna framework

Thank you