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