1. Realizing continuous quality through educational development 31st Annual EAIR Forum - Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 Huyghe Steven Creten Hilde Totté Nicole Verhagen Alexandra

2. Introduction ▪ QA systems  QD ? ▪ stimulate quality culture to promote QD ? ▪ Classification of issues, opportunities and challenges related to promotion of QD and QC ▪ (Inter)national ▪ Institutional ▪ Faculty/department ▪ Programme ▪ Staff ▪ Educational development initiatives considering these challenges and opportunities 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 2

3. LEVEL(Inter)nationalInstitutionalFacultyProgrammeStaff IssuesHierarchical control and enforcement Perceived ownership Time and manpower for QD Transfer and sharing of QD not obvious Value of QA outcomes Priorities and expertise of programme coordinators Motivation and perception Conflict with priority of teaching OpportunitiesIncreased attention towards quality of teaching and institutional transparency Installing “quality culture” via bottom-up approach Taking position in handling QA Agreements on purposes, means, outcomes Tuning QA processes to the complexity of the programme Professional development of process leaders Culture focussing on learning and teaching Individual commitment Assembling a team lo lead QD ChallengesContext and processes in QA protocols Sense of necessity Proactive and developmental approach to QA Faculty as “learning organisation” (shared vision, communication and commitment) Characterisation of quality culture allowing for tailor-made design of QD Agreement on QD via reflective practices of staff 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 3

4. LEVEL(Inter)nationalInstitutionalFacultyProgrammeStaff IssuesHierarchical control and enforcement Perceived ownership Time and manpower for QD Transfer and sharing of QD not obvious Value of QA outcomes Priorities and expertise of programme coordinators Motivation and perception Conflict with priority of teaching OpportunitiesIncreased attention towards quality of teaching and institutional transparency Installing “quality culture” via bottom-up approach Taking position in handling QA Agreements on purposes, means, outcomes Tuning QA processes to the complexity of the programme Professional development of process leaders Culture focussing on learning and teaching Individual commitment Assembling a team lo lead QD ChallengesContext and processes in QA protocols Sense of necessity Proactive and developmental approach to QA Faculty as “learning organisation” (shared vision, communication and commitment) Characterisation of quality culture allowing for tailor-made design of QD Agreement on QD via reflective practices of staff 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 4

5. Faculty level ▪ Institutional and (inter)national claims on quality ▪ Limited time and manpower for QD ▪ Communities of practice not obvious ▪ Taking position in handling QA  quality culture (Gordon, 2002) ▪ Agreements on purposes, means, outcomes issues opportunities 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 5

6. Faculty level ▪ Faculty as “learning organisation” (Yorke, 2000) ▪ Shared vision and strategy ▪ Communication, support and shared commitment ▪ Long- and short term plan at the level of the Faculty ▪ Consolidation and transfer challenges 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 6

7. LEVEL(Inter)nationalInstitutionalFacultyProgrammeStaff IssuesHierarchical control and enforcement Perceived ownership Time and manpower for QD Transfer and sharing of QD not obvious Value of QA outcomes Priorities and expertise of programme coordinators Motivation and perception Conflict with priority of teaching OpportunitiesIncreased attention towards quality of teaching and institutional transparency Installing “quality culture” via bottom-up approach Taking position in handling QA Agreements on purposes, means, outcomes Tuning QA processes to the complexity of the programme Professional development of process leaders Culture focussing on learning and teaching Individual commitment Assembling a team lo lead QD ChallengesContext and processes in QA protocols Sense of necessity Proactive and developmental approach to QA Faculty as “learning organisation” (shared vision, communication and commitment) Characterisation of quality culture allowing for tailor-made design of QD Agreement on QD via reflective practices of staff 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 7

8. Programme level ▪ Validity of QA outcomes for discipline, context,... (Gosling & d’Andrea, 2001) ▪ Priorities, expertise and appreciation of QD by programme coordinators (Verhagen et al., 2006) ▪ Tuning QD to the specificity of the programme (Verhagen et al., 2006) ▪ Developing expertise of process leaders in curri- culum design, QD, leadership (Verhagen et al., 2006) issues opportunities 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 8

9. Programme level ▪ Investment in culture: characterisation of quality cultures (Harvey & Stensaker, 2008)  embedded in daily practice  inducing a sense of ownership ▪ Tailor-made design of QD processes challenges 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 9

10. Integrated and aligned educational development ▪ Opportunities and challenges  fine-tuning support of QD at K.U.Leuven  4 approaches ▪ Integration between central and decentral educational development ▪ Educational development covering different domains ▪ Conceptual frameworks for educational development ▪ Alignment between instructional, curriculum and organisational development 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009 10

11. 11 Study Programme 1. Integration between central and decentral educational development at K.U.Leuven Integrated model Faculties LED Course 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

12. 12 2. Educational development covering different domains Different domains instructional development curriculum development LED organisational development 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

13. 13 instructional development curriculum development organisational development 3. Conceptual frameworks for educational development 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

14. 14 instructional development curriculum development organisational development 3. Conceptual frameworks for educational development Alignment ▪ Professional development initiatives for staff, programme coordinators and local educational developers ▪ Development of supporting tools (scenario’s, exercises)  Step forward in making “process leaders” independent 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

15. 15 4. Alignment between instructional, curriculum and organisational development Alignment between domains instructional development curriculum development LED organisational development 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

16. 16 4. Alignment between instructional, curriculum and organisational development ▪ communication of experiences, plans and ideas within CED and with partners ▪ creation of an integrated and aligned plan for building teaching and learning capacity in each Faculty ▪ creation of a shared vision and strategy ▪ advocate for harmonization of different domains of educational development 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

17. LEVEL(Inter)nationalInstitutionalFacultyProgrammeStaff IssuesHierarchical control and enforcement Perceived ownership Time and manpower for QD Transfer and sharing of QD not obvious Value of QA outcomes Priorities and expertise of programme coordinators Motivation and perception Conflict with priority of teaching OpportunitiesIncreased attention towards quality of teaching and institutional transparency Installing “quality culture” via bottom-up approach Taking position in handling QA Agreements on purposes, means, outcomes Tuning QA processes to the complexity of the programme Professional development of process leaders Culture focussing on learning and teaching Individual commitment Assembling a team lo lead QD ChallengesContext and processes in QA protocols Sense of necessity Proactive and developmental approach to QA Faculty as “learning organisation” (shared vision, communication and commitment) Characterisation of quality culture allowing for tailor-made design of QD Agreement on QD via reflective practices of staff Integrated model 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

18. LEVEL(Inter)nationalInstitutionalFacultyProgrammeStaff IssuesHierarchical control and enforcement Perceived ownership Time and manpower for QD Transfer and sharing of QD not obvious Value of QA outcomes Priorities and expertise of programme coordinators Motivation and perception Conflict with priority of teaching OpportunitiesIncreased attention towards quality of teaching and institutional transparency Installing “quality culture” via bottom-up approach Taking position in handling QA Agreements on purposes, means, outcomes Tuning QA processes to the complexity of the programme Professional development of process leaders Culture focussing on learning and teaching Individual commitment Assembling a team lo lead QD ChallengesContext and processes in QA protocols Sense of necessity Proactive and developmental approach to QA Faculty as “learning organisation” (shared vision, communication and commitment) Characterisation of quality culture allowing for tailor-made design of QD Agreement on QD via reflective practices of staff Integrated model Different domains 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

19. LEVEL(Inter)nationalInstitutionalFacultyProgrammeStaff IssuesHierarchical control and enforcement Perceived ownership Time and manpower for QD Transfer and sharing of QD not obvious Value of QA outcomes Priorities and expertise of programme coordinators Motivation and perception Conflict with priority of teaching OpportunitiesIncreased attention towards quality of teaching and institutional transparency Installing “quality culture” via bottom-up approach Taking position in handling QA Agreements on purposes, means, outcomes Tuning QA processes to the complexity of the programme Professional development of process leaders Culture focussing on learning and teaching Individual commitment Assembling a team lo lead QD ChallengesContext and processes in QA protocols Sense of necessity Proactive and developmental approach to QA Faculty as “learning organisation” (shared vision, communication and commitment) Characterisation of quality culture allowing for tailor-made design of QD Agreement on QD via reflective practices of staff Integrated model Different domains Conceptual frameworks 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

20. LEVEL(Inter)nationalInstitutionalFacultyProgrammeStaff IssuesHierarchical control and enforcement Perceived ownership Time and manpower for QD Transfer and sharing of QD not obvious Value of QA outcomes Priorities and expertise of programme coordinators Motivation and perception Conflict with priority of teaching OpportunitiesIncreased attention towards quality of teaching and institutional transparency Installing “quality culture” via bottom-up approach Taking position in handling QA Agreements on purposes, means, outcomes Tuning QA processes to the complexity of the programme Professional development of process leaders Culture focussing on learning and teaching Individual commitment Assembling a team lo lead QD ChallengesContext and processes in QA protocols Sense of necessity Proactive and developmental approach to QA Faculty as “learning organisation” (shared vision, communication and commitment) Characterisation of quality culture allowing for tailor-made design of QD Agreement on QD via reflective practices of staff Integrated model Different domains Conceptual frameworks Alignment between domains 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

21. Conclusions ▪ Tailor-made quality development ▪ integration and alignment of initiatives in different domains on central and decentral level ▪ complexity (context, discipline) ▪ “quality culture” via approach of ownership and empowerment ▪ Classification was difficult ▪ Actions on (inter)national level ? ▪ Partnership with QA agencies ▪ QD initiatives  win-win-situation for QA 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009

22. Questions and suggestions ? 31st Annual EAIR Forum in Vilnius, Lithuania – 23 to 26 August 2009