TEEP II – A Pilot Evaluation of Joint Degrees Staffan Wahlén 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education TEEP II Transnational European Evaluation Project Aim: to develop a methodology for external evaluation of joint Masters degrees Evaluates three programmes: CoMundus – Media and Communication EMLE – European Master in Law and Economics EuroAquae – Water Management 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Three different programmes Length: Comundus – 3 semesters (90 ECTS) EMLE – 1 year (60 ECTS) EuroAquae 2 years (120 ECTS) Coherence: CoMundus: 4 main areas, 2 locations EMLE: 2 main areas, 2 – 3 locations EuroAquae: different specialities, 3 locations, professional practice 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Three different programmes Number of partners CoMundus 7+ EMLE 10+ Euroaquae – 5 Age CoMundus – since 1988 EMLE – since 1990 Euroaquae – new 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Joint European project Involves six quality assurance agencies Based on the European standards and guidelines Criteria inspired by the Dublin descriptors and the EUA “Golden Rules” 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Evaluation process European Standards and Guidelines - Self-evaluation - Team of experts (peers) - Site visit - Public report - Follow-up 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Organisation and management Both professional and academic aims Different levels of institutional support Different mechanisms for cooperation, information sharing Student support services 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Programme and programme delivery The international environment provides added value and personal development Harmonisation of teaching and assessment methods? Common textbooks; exams? Common core – diversification? Computer based learning platforms 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Quality assurance Joint quality assurance Quality assurance practices involving students, staff and external stakeholders (alumni, potential employers) Student involvement and influence 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Lessons learned The importance of institutional commitment and support The importance of consistent and regular co-operation, information exchange and compliance with agreements: Programme coordinator, local coordinator, teachers, students We have seen different levels of commitment of institutional leadership. It is quite clear that such support, both financially and “politically” contributes to the sustainability and even survival of a joint programme, which may not have a clear base in a faculty. Regular forms of co-operation and exchange in order to agree on important aspects, pedagogical as well as formal, are essential for the smooth operation of the programme. The three programmes we have evaluated all have arrangements to meet regularly and contacts in between. The difficult thing is to commit all teaching staff to pick up all the information necessary. This applies, of course, especially to teachers whose main activities are in other programmes. So one conclusion is that teaching staff (and other staff) should be as much involved in the joint programme as possible. The partners in a joint programme represent different specialities. And these specialities may help to create a natural progression in the programme, leading up to the final thesis. This must be spelt out very clearly to the students. 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Lessons learned 2 Roles of each partner clearly defined Practicalities: information, accommodation Common core vs special profile Legal problems must be defined and solved: - Joint, double, multiple degree? 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Lessons learned 3 Agreement on and awareness of teaching and assessment methodologies Use of ICT, electronic platforms Role of thesis, supervision and assessment Agreement on standards in terms of learning outcomes among staff and coordinators Opportunities for staff development and staff exchange 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Lessons learned 4 Importance of a joint quality assurance strategy Students, teaching staff, management, alumni, employers involved in quality assurance Regular course evaluations (electronic questionnaires), monitoring and external evaluations 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Special challenges Who should evaluate or accredit joint programmes? European label Different legislation in different countries (special requirements for number of credits, for thesis) 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Who should evaluate joint programmes? Mandatory evaluation (accreditation) - agreement among national agencies - Two agencies in co-operation - An expert panel of 5 persons including a student representative - Site visits to all partners, or a selection of partners - Programme report 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Who should evaluate Voluntary evaluation (for label?) - QA organisation (on the European Register) chosen by the programme - The programme foots the bill - Label awarded by ENQA 2018-12-31 Swedish National Agency for Higher Education