19/12/2008

1

Students’ QA Experiences: An introduction to the Institutional Audits and Programme AccreditationJuhana Harju, Educational Officer, National Union of University Students in Finland (SYL)

EQAF 2008, Budapest 21.11.2008

Contents

1. Finnish HE system2. Finnish Institutional Audit model (outlined) and

The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)

3. Students’ perspective, pros and cons of Programme Accreditation and Institutional Audit

4. Questions

19/12/2008

2

Diagram of Finnish educational system

Copyright of original work (slides 3-7): Mikko Heinikoski, SAMOK

Universities•20 (+1) Universities•135 000 students•Bachelor´s degree 3 years + Master´s degree 2 years

Universities of Applied Sciences (also called Polytechnics)

•26 (+2) Universities of Applied Sciences,•130 000 students•Bachelor´s degree 3,5 years

(compulsory 3 years working experience before Master’s degree studies)

Master´s degree 1,5 years

19/12/2008

3

Median Age of Graduation 2003-2006

2525,1 25,1

25,2

27,427,327,327,3

23,5

24

24,5

25

25,5

26

26,5

27

27,5

28

2003 2004 2005 2006

)

No significant changes after 2006

Facts about HE in Finland

•Education in Finland is cost-free in every level•Regionally balanced higher education system, hugenumber of institutions / places of business (UAS over60, Universities well over 20)•National application system in Universities of AppliedSciences•HEIs´ are almost entirely funded by public finance

19/12/2008

4

Current topics in HE

•Bologna Process after 2010•Higher Education Funding•Legislation of Universities and Universities of Applied Sciences•Strategy for internationalisation of Finnish HEI•Tuition Fees/Free education•Reform of HEIs (Alliances between HEIs)

All relevant topics for QA (e.g. high quality of teaching will bring funding for institutions)

Finnish Institutional Audit Model and FINHEEC

The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) is an independent expert body assisting universities, polytechnics, and the Ministry of Education in matters relating to evaluation, and thus contributes to improving the quality of higher education. The twelve-member Evaluation Counciloperates under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. The members are elected to terms and represent universities, polytechnics, students and the world of work. Council decisions are prepared and executed by the Secretariat, which is headed by the Secretary-General.

Plan of work annually (strategy and guidelines) Will be mentioned in the new University Law (now governed

by Degree) Annual budget a bit over 1 million euro About 10 employees

19/12/2008

5

FINHEEC

• Evaluation Council• No senior or junior members, students have two seats out

of 12 (SYL and polytechnic students’ SAMOK)• Students have also seat in Working Committee• Is formed of independent experts, who should not be

biased in any way• Of course background gives perspective to members

of Evaluation Council• Relies on the preliminary work done by secretariat, but

has the power to change rulings if so needed• Discussion, arguments and proven expertise much

valued in Evaluation Council• Rather transparent, although there has been criticism

FINHEEC’s Secretariat

• Backbone of FINHEEC, since most concrete work is done by Secretariat• Help and support audit teams• International cooperation and sharing of best practices• Developing audit model further with Evaluation Council

• Jobs in Secretariat are very popular – FINHEEC works in developing field, something that is ”new” in Academic world

• There could be more people working in FINHEEC, but current situation is adequate

19/12/2008

6

FINHEEC’s Three Types of Evaluations

• Audits of quality assurance systems of Higher Education Institutions (universities and polytechnics)• The main business

• Evaluations of educational centres of excellence• Results are used to distribute quality dependent funding.

• Thematic evaluations and evaluations of educational fields• E.G. evaluation of “University Centres” (Joint ventures of

Universities, situated in cities which does not have university of their own, smallish with wide range of subjects).

• Thematic evaluations might be used to draft new policies

Audits of Quality Assurance Systems of Higher Education Institutions

• Audits are evaluations of higher education institutions' quality assurance systems, in other words, the methods, processes and mechanisms that the institution uses to maintain and develop the quality of its education and other activities.• Achieved results are not important (although working

QA system usually indicates good results)• HEIs have complete freedom to draft a system they feel

fit for their institution• It is only demanded that there is a coherent system!

• First round of audits is cost-free for institution• Some institutions (e.g. field of economics) have already

different quality labels and awards.• However it is mandatory to attend audit process!

19/12/2008

7

Timetable of Audits2005• Kymenlaakso polytechnic• Pirkanmaa polytechnic• Jyväskylä polytechnic• Central Ostrobothnia polytechnic• Kuopion university• Mikkeli polytechnic2006• Seinäjoki polytechnic• Svenska Yrkeshögskolan • Lahti polytechnic• Savonia polytechnic• Svenska handelshögskolan • Tampere university of technology2007• Helsinki university• Kajaani polytechnic• Helsinki university of technology2008• Helsinki school of economics• Tampere university• Turku university• Vaasa polytechnic• Jyväskylä university• Lappeenranta university of technology• Satakunta polytechnic

• Tampere polytechnic• Turku school of economics2009• Diakonia-polytechnic• Lappi university• Rovaniemi polytechnic• Helsinki university of art and design• Oulu university• Theatre academy• Turku polytechnic• Yrkeshögskolan Sydväst• Åbo Akademi• Högskolan pä Åland2010• South Carelia polytechnic• Haaga-Helia polytechnic• Sibelius-Academy• Häme polytechnic• Laurea-polytechnic• Kemi-Tornio polytechnic• University of Eastern Finland• National Defence Academy2011• Arcada polytechnic• Humak polytechnic• Finnish Academy of Fine Arts• Metropolia polytechnic• Oulu polytechnic• North Carelia polytechnic• Vaasa university

Audit Process Specifics

• So far all but 2 Universities have passed audit, polytechnics have had more rejections• HEIs value highly passed audit and may work

strenuously to polish their system before audit• Rejection leads to re-audit in two years time

• Re-audit concerns most problematic areas, lighter process

• No direct consequence, like cutting government funding if HEI does not pass audit

• Perceived “shame” seems to be harsh enough• Audit team proposes outcome of the audit

• Evaluation Council makes final decision about passing• Different outcomes sparks discussion

19/12/2008

8

Audit Targets – All Are Considered 1. Definition of the objectives, functions, actors and responsibilities of the HEI’s

QA system as well as the respective documentation2. The comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the QA procedures and

structures related to the HEI’s basic missiona) Degree educationb) Research/R&Dc) Interaction with and impact on society as well as regional development co-operationd) Support servicese) Staff recruitment and development

3. Interface between the QA system and the management and steering of operations

4. Participation of HEI staff, students and external stakeholders in quality assurance

5. Relevance of, and access to, the information generated by the QA systema) within the HEIb) from the perspective of the external stakeholders of the HEI

6. Monitoring, evaluation and continuous improvement of the QA system7. The QA system as a whole

To ”Pass” HEI Should Have..• Evidence of some progress in all aforementioned

targets (”emerging” stage in a scale of absent-emerging-developing-advanced)

• the QA system as a whole (audit target 7) is at least “developing”• The final decision about scaling of the targets is done by

the Evaluation Council• Audit report is also important

• The text should be aligned with the scale, no praise, if scale shows poor performance! (Sometimes difficult.)

• Report is used to develop HEI’s own QA system and also as a reference for other HEIs

• Report is written in collaboration by audit team and member/members of secretariat

19/12/2008

9

Students’ perspective, pros and cons of Programme Accreditation and Institutional Audit

• ESU’s next Board Meeting (starting after EQAF) might state, that audit model is preferable, and QA should be based on constructive evaluation• Constructive evaluation Capacity building• Trust in HEI, acceptance of different QA systems, that suit HEI

best• ”Different concepts of quality”?

• QA is a tool. Institutional audit itself is not something that should be promoted by students.• Results and positive development matter (if such exists)

• Next, some pros and cons of these different models

Institutional Audit

•Pros•Variety of QA systems

•Institutional approach benefits every student•No labels (for better or worse)•There is no readymade concept of good quality to be implemented in all HEIs•Supportive to HEIs

•Cons•No right or wrong, does anything go?•Isolated pockets of resistance may exists•No labels, even when deserved•Variation brings doubt –maybe there are some fundamental practices that work everywhere?•HEIs should be able to take some criticism

19/12/2008

10

Student of HEI Being Audited

•Pros•Will see sudden interest in QA

•Could learn a lot about QA and also teach fellow students

•Many times brings feeling of togetherness, ”everybody in HEI in the same boat”•”Audit? What is that?”

•Cons•Might feel this interest is shown just to pass audit•Seminars, pamphlets, discussions etc. could be organized just to pass audit•Is student willing to be a whistleblower and point out hidden problems?•“Audit? What is that?”

Student Member of Audit Team

•Pros•A Full member of the team, with same responsibilities and freedoms as rest of the team•Usually impossible to influence by other students or student activists, neutral.•Excellent learning experience for individual and her/his organization

•Cons•Can be extremely burdensome experience, because usually not too much prior experience.•Emotions rising of impartiality, especially if there is need to be very critical.•Possible to lose students’ perspective, if seen as another expert?

19/12/2008

11

Student Member in Evaluation Council

•Pros•Direct involvement in outcome of audit process.

•No need to defend students against ”them”.

•Field of constant change and development, interesting work.

•Cons•Need to be objective, and sometimes try to forget one’s background.•When there is no clear student agenda politics are thrown out – might be a new situation.•Should remember, that constant change and new systems are fine as long as positive things happen also in HEIs.

Programme Accreditation

•Pros•At least the one / few programmes of HEI are of adequate level.•Accreditation standards guide HEI to make necessary changes.•Promotes sameness and upholds standards.

•Warranty for students, governments, employers

•Cons•What about the rest?

•Does it stop there? Is it possible to push the envelope further?•“Different but equal” –approach, academic freedom?•Idea of distrust embedded: does HEI know what it is doing?

19/12/2008

12

Questions

• Three different student roles: how much ”students’ perspective” you can find in all of those?

• All students will never be interested in QA – a problem?

• Institutional Audit has huge potential, a carrot to promote positive change. But where is the stick?

• International portability? Some FINHEEC’s international experts have demanded, that FINHEEC tells HEIs what to do next to promote quality. This is contrary to ideals of Finnish model.

• What about hybrid model? The best of both worlds?