European Standards and Guidelines – ESG 2015 Helka Kekäläinen, PhD Head of Higher Education Evaluation Unit, FINEEC Former Vice-President of ENQA Vi flyttar fram positionerna! –conference University of Stockholm November 2015

Contents Look at ESG 2015 Main Changes in Part 1 Are European Universities ready? Finnish Challenges

ESG: purposes They set a common framework for quality assurance systems for learning and teaching at European, national and institutional level; They enable the assurance and improvement of quality of higher education in the European higher education area; They support mutual trust, thus facilitating recognition and mobility within and across national borders; They provide information on quality assurance in the EHEA. p. 3

Main principles and values of the ESG Twin-purpose of QA: Accountability and enhancement HEIs have primary responsibility for quality and QA Transparency and external expertise in QA processes Encourage culture of quality within HEIs Processes to demonstrate accountability Efficient & effective organisational structures for provision and support of programmes Diversity and innovation Interests of society safeguarded

Some important changes overall 1/2 Underlined that ESG apply to all programmes whichever mode or place of delivery in the EHEA (e-learning, TNE…)  – programmes delivered abroad should be “as good” as at home, but does this mean “the same”?  criteria? – Site visits to programme abroad? Cost, practicalities etc. – Can e-learning be evaluated along the same criteria as traditional forms of education? E.g. drop-out rates, teacher-student ratio, m2/student, the student experience, assessment methods (LOs)… 5

Some important changes overall 2/2 Apply to agencies wherever they carry out EQA (if want to be in ENQA or in EQAR), and weather the activities are compulsory or voluntary  CBQA needs to be ESG compliant, too Underlines the importance of enhancement for all QA processes, and the support EQA needs to give to the development of a quality culture Strong focus on the shift to student-centered learning 6

Old ESG – Part 1New ESG – Part Policy and procedures for quality assurance 1.1 Policy for quality assurance 1.2 Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards 1.2 Design and approval of programmes 1.3 Assessment of students1.3 Student-centred learning, teaching and assessment 1.4 Quality assurance of teaching staff 1.4 Student admission, progression, recognition and certification 1.5 Learning resources and student support 1.5 Teaching staff 1.6 Information systems1.6 Learning resources and student support 1.7 Public information1.7 Information management 1.8 Public information 1.9 On-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes 1.10 Cyclical external quality assurance

Main Changes in Part 1 High number of standards and many more guidelines than before: reflects the focus on institutional responsibility for quality and its assurance Some structural changes to make the standards follow more logically student “lifecycle” Move from “QA of teaching staff” to “development of teaching staff” to emphasise the importance of constant enhancement, not of once-for-all checking Flexible learning central: frequent reference to LLL, RPL, different delivery modes, diverse student body etc. – 1.2: design of programmes, explicit reference to LOs, national QFs and QF-EHEA – 1.4: student admission and progression have a stronger focus than before and refer throughout to LOs based approach – 1.6: student support standard emphasis the diversity of the student population 8

Main Changes in Part 1 Cont. LOs and SCL have a strong focus, and are mentioned in 5 out of the 10 standards! A new standard focusing altogether on student centred learning, teaching and assessment (1.3)  requires a shift in thinking about “what is quality” in teaching and learning. Agencies need to be able show in their external review how they address all standards of Part 1 in their own procedures and through their own standards. 9

ESG Standard 1.2 Design and approval of programmes Institutions should have processes for the design and approval of their programmes. The programmes should be designed so that they meet the objectives set for them, including the intended learning outcomes. The qualification resulting from a programme should be clearly specified and communicated, and refer to the correct level of the national qualifications framework for higher education and, consequently, to the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. 10

ESG Standard 1.3 Student-centred learning, teaching and assessment Institutions should ensure that the programmes are delivered in a way that encourages students to take an active role in creating the learning process, and that the assessment of students reflects this approach. 11

ESG Standard 1.4 Student admission, progression, recognition and certification Institutions should consistently apply pre-defined and published regulations covering all phases of the student “life cycle”, e.g. student admission, progression, recognition and certification. 12

ESG Standard 1.5 Teaching staff Institutions should assure themselves of the competence of their teachers. They should apply fair and transparent processes for the recruitment and development of the staff. 13 ESG Standard 1.6 Learning resources and student support Institutions should have appropriate funding for learning and teaching activities and ensure that adequate and readily accessible learning resources and student support are provided.. Learning resources and student support Institutions should have appropriate funding for learning and teaching activities and ensure that adequate and readily accessible learning resources and student support are provided..

ESG Standard 1.9 On-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes Institutions should monitor and periodically review their programmes to ensure that they achieve the objectives set for them and respond to the needs of students and society. These reviews should lead to continuous improvement of the programme. Any action planned or taken as a result should be communicated to all those concerned. Guideline: The content of the programme in the light of the latest research in the given discipline thus ensuring that the programme is up to date; The changing needs of society; The students’ workload, progression and completion; The effectiveness of procedures for assessment of students; The student expectations, needs and satisfaction in relation to the programme; The learning environment and support services and their fitness for purpose for the programme. 14

ESG Part 1: Are Universitie ready? EUA Occasional Papers September 2015 European-wide Challenges with ESG 2015 Need to link quality assurance to institutional strategic management Ability of the QA system to generate information that is valuable for both internal decision-making and external stakeholders Ensure the quality of student experience and success Link QA and the academic quality of learning and teaching Demonstrate that HEIs have put in place robust measures to review their programmes

Challenges at FINEEC FINEEC has comprehensive model that covers much more than ESG Part 1 => not all issues of ESG are covered systematically For example, Finnish HEIs have no problems in Public information, ESG 1.8 => no real need to check that in EQA, should we anyway? Finnish NQF is stuck in the Parliament, but the 3-cycle degree structure with LOs corresponding to EQF is in place, Good enough? The design of the 3 rd audit cycle begins in autumn 2015 and it will be operational in 2018, will it be taken into account in external evaluation in 2016? 16

Thank you for your attention!