Developing successful joint_programmes_v3_belfast_may_2013

www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 1

Bologna Regional Workshop

Belfast – 02 May 2013

The Proposal (1)

Erasmus for All: Ambitions

• Simplify current education and training programme structure

• Improve access and reinforce lifelong learning aspect

• Simplify operation/implementation

• Broaden scope for structured partnerships (including between different sectors and with business)

The Proposal (2)

Architecture:

This diagram demonstrates the

proposed changes under the

Erasmus for All proposal.

The Proposal (3)

Key Action 1 - Learning Mobility (66%):

• Remains core element of programme

• Significant share of budget

• Aspiration to support c 5m individuals, c 135,000 international

• Strong emphasis on mobility in HE

• Mobility within coherent institutional development strategy

• Quality as a criterion of funding (content, teaching and learning methods, recognition, preparation...)

• [Erasmus Masters student loan guarantee scheme]

The Proposal (4)

Key Action 2 - Co-operation for innovation and good practice (26%):

• Strategic partnerships, incorporating mobility between education establishments and other relevant bodies

• Large scale partnerships between HE and business ('Knowledge Alliances') - aim to increase Europe's capacity for innovation

• IT support platforms - includes e-courses and virtual mobility

• Capacity-building in third countries (focus on neighbourhood countries) to enhance quality, relevance and governance of HE - link to mobility - to incorporate other HE programmes of the EC

The Proposal (5)

Key Action 3 - Support for policy reform (5%):

• Support to activities which help develop and direct EU agenda for education, training and youth

• Support to specific policy agendas for thematic priorities (including modernisation, Bologna process)

• Greater policy dialogue with third countries and neighbourhood countries

The Proposal (6)

The Budget:

• 19 billion euros ??? - proposed

• c70+% increase on current equivalent budget

• Mobility (Key Action 1) 66%

• Higher education: 25%

• Vocational education and training: 15%

• School education: 7%

• Adult education: 2%

The Proposal (7)

Implementation:

• Emphasis on streamlining, simplification and performance-based allocation

• Reduction in types of activity, 75 to 11 (4 mobility, 4 co-operation and 3 policy support)

• More flat-rate grants, especially for mobility

• Budget allocation for international dimension to follow geographic, development and policy priorities for EU external action

The Proposal (8)Strengths:

•Significant budget increase (proposed)

•Enlargement of geographic scope

•Integration of EU HE programmes

•[Support for European Masters level mobility]

•Simplification of administration and management

•Greater decentralisation

•Increased support for university-business co-operation

But

•Wholesale integration, loss of sectoral definition

•Many details unknown

What now?

• Debate in European Parliament (CULT Committee voted December – EP plenary vote February?)

• Return to Council in February (?)

• General budget discussions through Spring

• Decision by mid-2013?

[email protected]

02920 924311

www.britishcouncil.org/erasmus

Thank you

Challenges 1: Establishing successful joint

programmes

The Challenges


• Why develop joint programmes? Internationalisation, funding opportunities … Campus Asia, Science Without Borders …

• Understanding risks & opportunities: Benefiting from shared quality and expertise. Risks to reputational capital & legal implications

• Linking mobility pathways to student-led learning outcomes. Designing mobility pathways - student-led not institutionally-led

• Joint degrees can be planned at all Bologna levels, but what are the key characteristics of each level when developing them?

• Whose Quality Assurance assures the quality?

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/clusters/sustainability_en.php (Practical guidelines for Sustainability and Recognition) and http://www.emqa.eu (Handbooks for Erasmus Mundus Joint Master and Doctoral Programmes)

Work with EC Erasmus Mundus JPs


Master and Doctoral. Indicators and Critical Paths. Recognition and Sustainability challenges. The future?

Develop Logically and Strategically - Master


Joint Doctorates – Particular Challenges


Joint Doctorates – Particular Challenges


Recognition, Employability, Sustainability• ‘Cloud’ of degrees awarded by JPs and no single strategy

• Complex multi-disciplinary and multi national products with recognition through a range of actors

• Employability and Recognition are inter-linked

• Challenging for complex JPs to become entirely sustainable

• Aspirational and majority of programmes are yet to achieve tangible outcomes

• Links to employers and market needs are vital

• Exit strategies to be tailored to individual JPs

• These issues must be considered ‘a priority’

22

Looking to the future …• Erasmus for All … whatever shape or form?

• Global competition for high quality students

• More sophisticated models? European Institute for Innovation and Technology and others

• Commodification trends – fees, customers, quality, liability

• MOOCs and other technological beasts ….

23

More Information• EMQA Site with indicators: www.emqa.eu

• Handbooks of Excellencehttp://www.emqa.eu/Downloads/Handbook

%20of%20Excellence%202012%20-%20Doctoral%20-%20Final.pdf

http://www.emqa.eu/Downloads/Handbook%20of%20Excellence%202012%20-%20Master-%20Final.pdf

24

Challenges 2: Life after a Joint Degree:

Common recognition issues


ENIC-NARIC Network

Employers

HEI Admissions

Role of ENIC-NARICs


What facilitates recognition?

This recommendation was adopted in 2004 and brings joint degrees under the legal framework of the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. The recommendation underlines that the basic principles regarding recognition also apply to joint degrees. In addition, it sets specific requirements that the joint degrees should fulfil. European higher education has come a long way since this recommendation was issued and there have been calls to update it to better reflect current definitions and practices of joint programmes and joint degrees. (www.enic-naric.net)

This recommendation was adopted in 2004 and brings joint degrees under the legal framework of the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. The recommendation underlines that the basic principles regarding recognition also apply to joint degrees. In addition, it sets specific requirements that the joint degrees should fulfil. European higher education has come a long way since this recommendation was issued and there have been calls to update it to better reflect current definitions and practices of joint programmes and joint degrees. (www.enic-naric.net)

Chapter 15: Qualifications awarded by joint programmes

Assess consortium and content of joint programme

Recommendation on Recognition of

Joint Degrees

Is accredita-tion/recognition of joint programme sufficiently

guaranteed?

Recognize qualification unless there is substantial difference

Yes

If institution in country of recognition authority was involved, recognize

qualification with greatest flexibility possible

Determine if partial recognition may be granted, or deny recognitionNo

European Area of Recognition Manual

Recommendation on the recognition of joint degrees

ECA (European Consortium for Accreditation): ENIC – NARIC Survey, 2010


25 respondents

• Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, the Netherlands, UK and United States of America

• 6 anonymously

Are you experienced with Qualifications awarded by JP?


Common problems raised..

“..compatibility of qualification with national regulations of the countries concerned..”

“..unclear status of the awarding body (consortium or number of HEIs) and agreement on which cooperation is based..”

“..lack of appropriate legal provisions in the national legislation..”

“..No problems in case a national qualification from any country is awarded. If not, recognition is more difficult and not possible in some cases (e.g. regulated professions)..”

“..Insufficient information about the joint programme itself and the institutions..”

“…In some cases one of the institutions associated with the joint programme is not recognised..”

“..not clear who provides quality assurance: national agencies in each country or one of the participant countries..?”


Issues summarised

JOQAR action lines


Where do we search for information?

Certification

Multiple degrees;

Double degrees

Multiple degrees;

Double degrees

Joint degreeJoint degreeCover degreeCover degree

Several types of documents issued to graduates :

! Explicit clarification of the certification arrangements can facilitate recognition

Cover degree

JOQAR Guidelines, 2012

• All relevant (sub)national legal frameworks in accordance to which the degree was awarded;

• Higher education institutions; (logos and/or full names) are limited to the awarding institutions/authorities, i.e. only the institutions that award this joint degree;

• Signatures of the competent authority/-ies representing the awarding institutions;

• Qualification’s full name(s) as recognised in all the relevant legal frameworks;

• If the consortium has agreed on one responsible institution (such as a coordinating institution or a contact point), this is indicated on the joint degree (e.g. next to the name of that institution).

Information Provision: Diploma Supplement

• Explanation of the credit system(s) used by the joint programme

consortium

• Information about all the grading systems referred to under the

programme details

• Access to further academic and/or professional study for each of

the higher education systems

• If there are other members in the joint programme consortium

which are not involved in awarding the joint degree, their full

name, status and role in the joint programme is included

• If the joint programme was quality assured and/or accredited as

such, reference to the responsible quality assurance and

accreditation agencies should be included


“Perfect” Certificate?

Consortium

•All institutions in the consortium are recognised and/or accredited as higher education institutions in their (sub)national higher education systems;

•Each higher education institution in the consortium is entitled to legally offer this type of programme (level, orientation, discipline) as a joint programme, even if that institution is not involved in the awarding of the joint degree.

Programme

•The joint programme is offered in accordance with the legal frameworks of the relevant (sub)national higher education systems;

•When required, the joint programme is quality assured and/or accredited as a joint programme.

General conditions for recognition

Good practice for recognitionKey message:

… joint degrees should be treated as

favourable as foreign national degrees. In

addition, we encourage gathering evidence

for recognition and recognising or

recommending recognition when sufficient

evidence is available.


Practical GuidanceCase Study:

A joint programme consortium consists of institutions from France, Germany, Italy, The

Netherlands and Slovenia. All institutions are well-established research universities

except the consortium partner from the Netherlands. This is in fact a training provider

with facilities for the joint programme offered but without recognition as a higher

education institution.

Good practice:

The participation of a legitimate but non-recognised provider can be accepted if the

other recognised and degree-awarding institutions have assumed full responsibility for

the joint programme provided. This means that the fact that not all institutions in the

joint programme consortium are recognised and/or accredited as higher education

institutions in their (sub)national higher education systems SHOULD NOT stop a

recognition procedure.


Quality Assurance:

Changes, risk, legal competence

Quality - why risk? Reputational

Student progression

Financial

Complaints

Grades and credits

External examiners

Compliance

“These are reflected in QAA’s work on a new risk-based approach to quality assurance, increased student engagement in quality assurance, and the development of the QAA Quality Mark”

per Anthony McClaran 09/04/2013 at INQAAHE Taipei

Quality Code – B10Old B10 until January 2014 – management of collaborative

arrangements

2010 Section 2: Collaborative Provision

Was this “future proof”?

“risk-based approach to engagement with collaborative activity”

emphasis on management of the provision

guidance re the quality of learning has been re-allocated to other chapters of the Quality Code

The new B10 – Managing higher education

provision with others

Takes effect from 01 January 2014

B10 supersedes:

- Section 2: Collaborative provision and learning (including e-learning), and

- Section 9: Work-based and placement learning – much of this will be in B3

The new B10

“...... how academic standards are established and maintained and how the quality of learning opportunities is assured and enhanced; ...... apply to all UK higher education provision, regardless of where it is delivered or who delivers it.”

“This Chapter of the Quality Code applies to the management of all learning opportunities leading or contributing to the award of academic credit or a qualification that are delivered, assessed or supported through an arrangement with one or more organisations other than the degree-awarding body.”

“The following list ............. illustrates .........:

• Joint, dual/double or multiple awards granted by one or more other awarding bodies”

The new B10 (page 6)

“Assessment and management of risk

“Delivering learning opportunities with others inevitably carries risk”

“Arrangements that break down can present difficulties for students and can damage the reputation of participating organisations ...... give rise to high human, financial and legal costs ............. Incumbent .... To assess the risks involved and manage them appropriately.”

“Adopting a risk-based approach to commissioning, developing and managing arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with others mitigates these dangers.”

The new B10 (pages 19 and 20)

“Programmes leading to joint awards

Degree-awarding bodies:

• Satisfy themselves that their partners have the legal and regulatory capacity to grant the relevant joint awards [Note: and that they themselves do]

• Ascertain what ...... legislation .... and qualifications frameworks of all awarding bodies involved are ........and whether these could have implications for the standards of their own awards.

Written agreements

- nature, requirement and list (not exhaustive) of contents

The new B10

“Appendix 1: The Expectation and Indicators

Expectation:

Degree-awarding bodies take ultimate responsibility for academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities irrespective of where these are delivered or who provides them. Arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with organisations other than the degree-awarding body are implemented securely and managed effectively.

The Indicators of sound practice”

19 of them

JoiMan – Joi.Conwww.joiman.eu

Funded project to analyse what the management issues are in joint programmes

Many types and modes of joint programmes

Institutional strategy and support essential

Processes and planning essential

Risk evaluation needed

Robust management framework

Legal mattersQuestions to be answered:

Do all the universities involved have the legal ability to do what is being set up?

Accept the levels of credit required

Award joint degrees

Enrol the students

Issue the appropriate documentation (certificate)

Charge the appropriate fees (and “collect” them)


Assessment Methodologies and Grading Practices

Anthony Vickers

University of Essex


Outline

• UK assessment methodology and grading practice

• Other EU/EHEA assessment methodology and grading practice

• Outside the EU/EHEA

• Erasmus Mundus Advice


UK Assessment Methodology and Grading Practice

• Learning Outcomes

• Assessment Methods

• Grading Scale

• Grading Criteria

• Grade Distributions

• Grade conversion for returning mobile students

Learning Outcomes

• All UK Universities must provide programme specifications for their degree courses along with module maps which indicate where the programme learning outcomes are met within the programme.

• It is not clear how prevalent the practice of creating module level learning outcomes is within the UK.

• Module level learning outcomes are mapped to the learning pathway and to the assessment which determines if the student has met the learning outcome.


Assessment Methods

• Assessment methods are now vary varying across subject and Institutions.

• The traditional approach of lectures, seminars, laboratories, tutorials has been adapted with for example more interactive lectures, computer based laboratories, use of social media, collaborative online systems etc.

• The KIS data now records the type of an assessment (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lt/publicinfo/kis/ )


Grade Scale


In general most Higher Education Institutions in a particular country operate the same grading scale.

In the UK it is common to use a 100 point scale divided in the following way at the Bachelor level

<40 – Fail40-49 Third Class Honours50-59 Lower Second Class Honours60-69 Upper Second Class Honours>70 First Class Honours

Although grading criteria will be set against specific assessments in general the distribution of students across this grading scale is to some extent consistent across the UK.

Grade Criteria• All grading in UK Universities is undertaken by measuring the

student against criteria.

• I do not know of any examples were the grading is applied using a normative approach where students are compared to each other in order to determine their grade. Any objections?

• Criteria are not always published to students although guidance regarding what is expected is given to a greater or lesser extent.

• The UK uses grades to create a degree classification. There are many different practices regarding the process.


Grade Distribution

• Grade distribution data is analysed by most Universities at Department, Faculty, and Institutional level.

• Grade distribution data is returned to HESA (http://www.hesa.ac.uk/ )

• It is possible to analyse degree classification data for an Institution or for a group of Institutions. The data is semi-public (subscription)


Grade conversion for returning mobile students


University of Essex current practice for EU partners

Grade conversion for returning mobile students


ECTS Users Guide Advice


Other EU/EHEA Assessment Methodology and

Grading Practice

• Scale

• Criteria

• Distributions

• Learning Outcomes

• Grade conversion for returning mobile students


Outside the EU/EHEA

• Scale• Criteria• Distributions• Learning Outcomes• Grade conversion for returning mobile students


Erasmus Mundus Advice


Handbook of Excellence


Observations

http://www.emqa.eu/HandbookObservations.aspx?Component=1-M


Questions?