1. Quality in Education Tuning International Master's Programmes 13 December 2007 Pirjo Halonen Head of Quality Assurance

2. Contents  Quality concepts  Background to Quality Assurance in Education  Quality - for whom?  University of Jyväskylä  Summary

3. Quality  Degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils requirements –Characteristics: distinguishing feature –Requirements: need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory (ISO 9000)

4. Quality  excellence  value  fitness for use  conformity to requirement  defect avoidance  meeting customer’s expectations  …

5. Quality Management  Directing an organisation with regard to quality to establish policy and objectives and to achieve those objectives.

6. Quality Assurance  Part of quality management focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled.

7. Quality Work  means –planning –doing –checking (evaluating) –acting (developing, improving)

8. Background to Quality Assurance in Education  The Bologna process in 1999: –The European Ministers of Education set a target to realise a coherent and cohesive European Higher Education Area (EHEA): Undergraduate and postgraduate levels in all European countries European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) Common framework of comparable degrees (Diploma Supplement) Recognition of studies abroad Elimination of obstacles to the free mobility of students and teachers European dimension in quality assurance

9. What is quality in education?  Education quality is a multi-dimensional concept and cannot be easily assessed by only one indicator.

10. Quality in Education – for whom?  Students  Graduates  Employers  Stakeholders  Teachers  Administrative personnel  Quality personnel

11. For students  Quality of the lecturer –Expertise –Teaching skills –Teaching methods –Communication skills –Approachability –Enthusiasm –Humour –Friendliness –Flexibility

12. For students, cont.  Quality of the curriculum –Flexibility –Lifelong learning – varying student pathways –Appropriate contents of courses –Allowing to challenge practice when linking theory to the real world –Use of up-to-date evidence

13. For students cont.  Quality of social support systems –Student support units - health care, student unions –Part time accepted –Network of other students on the course - learning from each other, motivation

14. For students, cont.  The consequences are –learning –passing the examinations <-- motivation <-- enthusiasm of the lecturer  Word-of-mouth communication follows from satisfaction with teaching.

15. For graduates  More working life relevance than academic relevance.  Theoretical background.  More guidance for studies. More time from professors to students.

16. For employers  Employers do not place emphasis on information about the quality of a university.  Most of them apply the reputation in their decision making: –“grapevine” knowledge, or word-of-mouth communication –personal, regional, professional networks –performance of past graduates –prejudice against new universities

17. For stakeholders  In Finland, mostly The Ministry of Education.  Young graduates.  Moderate studying time.  Given quantitative objectives to be fulfilled.

18. For administrative personnel  Existing strategy for education improvement.  Development and improvement of the quality of academic programmes.  Efficiency and effectiveness of organisational structures within which the programmes can be provided and supported.  Responsibilities well-defined.

19. For administrative personnel, cont.  Retaining students after a bachelor's degree.  Excellent learning results.  Excellent research results.  Careful examination of opportunity costs.

20. In quality audits  Instructions are extensive.  The studying process from the student’s point of view is clearly defined.  Curricula and teaching are well-timed.  The university utilise feedback from graduates in their curriculum work.  Definition, what kind of learning is expected – “in-depth learning”.

21. In quality audits, cont.  The learning path must be a process without breaks between departments.  Shared practices in departments: –personal curriculum (HOPS) –systematic feedback systems –curriculum process –course assessments –post-graduate studies

22. In quality audits, cont.  Processes are well defined, assessed and developed.  Guidelines to assure quality of education.  The responsibilities well defined.  A department of students services have been established and it has enough resources.  A variety of teaching and testing methods are used.

23. In quality audits, cont.  Research of teaching  produces good practices.  Pedagogic strategy.

24. Two-way Quality!  In a service process there are always two parties.  In education also the students have duties.

25. At the University of Jyväskylä  Present practices are described in the quality manuals.  A new education strategy is needed.  Evaluation policies of the education have to be implemented.  The education will be evaluated yearly.  On the basis of the evaluation education will be developed.

26. Summary  The concept quality is defined in various ways depending on the speaker.  Several approaches are needed.  All the parties have rights and duties.  A firm strategy is necessary to improve the quality.  All the topics must be open for evaluation.

27. References Alves H, Raposo M. Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2007; 18(5):571-588. Hill Y, Lomas L, MacGregor J. Students' perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education. 2003; 11(1):15-20. Morley L, Aynsley S. Employers, quality and standards in higher education: Shared values and vocabularies or elitism and inequalities? Higher Education Quarterly. 2007; 61(3):229-249. Ross R, Gruber V, Szmigin I. Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research. 2007; 60(9):949–959 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. EU Education and Culture. 2005. Yin Cheong Cheng, Wai Ming Tam. Multimodels of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education 1997; 5(1):22–31. Kekäle T, Ilolakso A, Katajavuori N, Toikka M, Isoaho K. (2006). Kuopion yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 3:2006. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto. Helsinki. Wahlbin C, Hieikkilä J, Hellberg M, Lindroos P, Nybom J, Corrnér S. (2007). Auditering av Svenska handelshögskolans kvalitetssäkringssystem. Publikationer av rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna 3:2007. Rådet av utvärdering. Helsinki. Jokinen T, Malinen H, Mäki M, Nokela J, Pakkanen P, Kekäläinen H. (2007). Tampereen teknillisen yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 4:2007. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto. Helsinki. Tuomela J. (2007). Jyväskylän yliopistosta vuonna 2005 valmistuneiden maistereiden sijoittumisenseuranta. Tutkimus- ja rekrytointipalvelut. Jyväskylän yliopisto. Jyväskylä.