Search

The title of this document is a deliberate play on the title of the biennial reports on the progress of Bologna produced by the European Students' Union, "Bologna With Student Eyes." It is a way of paying tribute to student involvement in the Bologna reforms, and marking a parallel student working participation in the state system "Tuning" study groups in the U.S. This monograph, an expansion of the previous Bologna Club essay, draws on hundreds of documents in 8 languages, interviews with principal actors in 9 countries, and suggestions from two rounds of European reviewers, to bring to a broad academic audience in the United States an analysis of what European higher education authorities, academic leaders, faculty, and students have learned over the first decade of their considerable efforts, particularly in the challenging matters of: (1) student learning outcomes (set in what are called "qualification frameworks"); (2) the relationship of these frameworks to credits and curriculum reform; (3) the construction of new paths to student participation in higher education, including refinement of "short-cycle" degrees analogous to our Associate's, and combinations of e-learning and part-time status; (4) the reflection of all of this in the documentation of student attainment called "Diploma Supplements," and the expansion of this documentation in a lifelong "Europass' (5) the establishment of a "zone of mutual trust" through an all-encompassing culture of quality assurance, and an international accreditation register; and (6) consolidating and hence clarifying the myriad of academic credentials offered across 46 countries into common "cycles," which, in combination with qualification frameworks, a common credit system, and quality assurance, assures the recognition of degrees across national borders. These highlights help clarify, for North American readers, what Bologna is and what it is not. Some of them are extraordinarily relevant to challenges that face U.S. higher education, and are particularly applicable to accountability and access issues--in ways we simply have not considered. This document urges us to learn something from beyond our own borders that just might help us rethink our higher education enterprise. Thirteen Chapters comprise this report. They are: (1) A Tapestry of Change; (2) The Core of Bologna, Line I: Qualification Frameworks; (3) The Core of Bologna, Line II: Qualification Frameworks from the Ground-Up: the "Tuning" model and its Analogues; (4) The "Bologna-Code:" Learning Outcomes and Competences; (5) The Core of Bologna, Line III: The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS); (6) The Core of Bologna, Line IV: Closing the Loop with The Diploma Supplement; (7) Coda to the Accountability Loop: Quality Assurance; (8) The Core of Bologna, Line V: A Different Kind of Visit With Degree Cycles; (9) The Social Dimension of Bologna: Providing Multiple Pathways; (10) The External Dimension: Bologna Faces the World; (11) The Larger Language Landscape; (12) Bologna 2020: What is Left to be Done?; and (13) What Should the U.S. Learn?: Epiphanies for Our Eyes. Appended are: (A) Our European Colleagues; Our Translation Assistance; (B) 2007 Status of Core Bologna Features and Enabling Legislation in 46 Countries; and (C) Institutions from Which Diploma Supplements Were Received and Examined. (Contains 14 figures and 4 tables.) [For the document, "Bologna with Student Eyes, 2007," see ED500451.]

This paper offers a broad look at accreditation and quality assurance in higher education and how these issues are addressed around the world. Section 1 is an overview of accreditation and addresses the aims and objectives of accreditation, standards, accreditation bodies, stages of the accreditation process, the quality of that process, the role of government in the accreditation process, some critical points of view concerning the process, and present accreditation trends. Section 2 looks at accreditation and quality assurance through brief national case studies. The nations represented are France, Germany, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United States, China, India, Hong Kong, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Australia. This section closes with a section comparing accreditation and quality assurance in various regions. Section 3 takes a closer and more detailed look at the accreditation process in Romania, particularly in light of the recent political and educational changes in this nation and the fairly recent decision to introduce accreditation of institutions of higher education. This examination covers accreditation principles and objectives, standards for initial and subsequent accreditation, application rules, structure of the accreditation committee and its functions, and provisions for financing accreditation. Appendixes contain institutional evaluation standards and a glossary. (Contains 27 references.) (JB)

At a time when more students than ever are attending higher education, its provision is becoming more fluid, global and competitive. For example, developments in new technologies mean that higher education institutions (HEIs) can make their courses available all over the world. These developments bring into question the traditional delivery model of higher education institutions, which tends to be confined to physical--and hence geographically defined--course offerings. This report examines innovative modes of higher education provision, as well as ways in which the management and governance of higher education are changing in support of innovations in higher education provision. As such, it ties in with the European Commission's objectives to enhance the quality of higher education in an environment where globalisation and the attractiveness of the European higher education area need to be reinforced. This report also issues policy recommendations regarding the governance and management of new modes of higher education provision in order to enhance the attractiveness and relevance of European higher education and to increase the strategic capacities of HEIs to manage resources efficiently and effectively. Finally, it also promotes an awareness of the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity within Europe by bringing together a team of researchers representing varied backgrounds, organisational cultures and experiences. Key Findings: (1) "Innovations" include various aspects of education provision, including but not limited to digital innovations; (2) Participating institutions have highlighted several examples of promising practices in education provision and governance and management; and (3) University governance and management structures and approaches can support innovation in a number of ways. Recommendations: (1) HEIs should include innovation objectives, defined in measurable performance targets, in their strategies; (2) HEIs should consider how the types of institutional support, organisational layout, financial incentives and evaluation procedures enhance the institution's innovation potential; and (3) HEIs should consider not just investing in technology, but also prioritising training staff and developing support structures to facilitate the inclusion of innovation in a coherent teaching and learning approach. The following Annexes are included: (1) Case study 1: École Supérieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales (ESSEC Business School), France; (2) Case study 2: University of Strasbourg, France; (3) Case study 3: University of Latvia; (4) Case study 4: Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, Latvia; (5) Case study 5: Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia; (6) Case study 6: University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Slovakia; (7) Case study 7: University of Alicante, Spain; (8) Case study 8: University of Salamanca, Spain; (9) Case study 9: Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom; (10) Case study 10: Queen Mary, University of London, United Kingdom; (11) Peer Learning Activity and Training Course, Poitiers, France, 25-27 January 2016; (12) Self-assessment tool for higher education institutions; (13) Quality assurance protocol; and (14) Survey of higher education institutions.

This 2010 edition of the "Focus" report has been prepared for the European Ministerial Conference in Budapest/Vienna, 11-12 March 2010, that officially launches the European Higher Education Area. The report has been developed as a fully collaborative exercise between the Eurydice Network and the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG), with the aim of ensuring that information is as comprehensive, reliable and consistent as possible. The main aim of the report is to provide concise and clear information on key aspects of higher education systems in all 46 countries of the emerging European Higher Education Area at the end of the first Bologna decade. It focuses on the impact of Bologna process reforms, taking account of other significant contextual factors. The publication is divided into two main parts. The first part consists of a comparative overview of the main issues related to the implementation of the Bologna process. These aspects include the Bologna three-cycle degree structure, the implementation of the main Bologna tools--the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS), the Diploma Supplement and National Qualifications Frameworks--the development of quality assurance systems, the social dimension of higher education, lifelong learning in higher education, student mobility and the impact of the economic crisis. The second part of the publication consists of comparable system information for all signatory countries giving an overview of key issues associated with the Bologna process. Each country table is accompanied by a higher education diagram showing the higher education degree structures and qualifications most commonly offered by higher education institutions. A glossary is included. (Contains 12 figures and 1 footnote.)

The educational assessment quality assurance and control practices of Germany, Sweden, France, New Zealand, and Australia are compared to illustrate the considerable variety of approaches and some of the social factors that contribute to this variety. In Germany there is considerable variation from one province to another, and quality assurance and control in assessment are largely part of the professional responsibility of teachers, based on the long-standing legitimacy of the procedures in use. In Sweden there is also considerable emphasis on quality assurance through developing the expertise of teachers regarding assessment and then trusting them to carry it out. In France there is a heavier reliance on externally set examinations and central control. Education in New Zealand has been dominated by external assessment. A new quality-assurance framework is being implemented to move the system from a norm-referenced examination system to one that assesses achievement against recognized standards. Every Australian state has its own system, and the formal provisions for quality control and assurance are focused on secondary school and entrance to higher education. Three figures illustrate the discussion. (Contains 25 references.) (SLD)

Western Europe's demand for quality higher education at lower cost is discussed. It is argued that the criteria for quality are determined by external interests, including governments looking for economic development through an improved labor market. The situations in Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom are considered. (MSE)

A model of quality assessment for higher education that incorporates both accountability (representing extrinsic values) and peer-review/collegiality (reflecting intrinsic values) is outlined. It is presented in both a historical context and the context of experiences with quality assessment in North America and Western Europe. (Author/MSE)

These two papers look at international aspects of quality in higher education from contrasting perspectives. The first paper, "Higher Education Quality: A European Dimension" by John Brennan asks whether there is a distinctive European dimension to quality in higher education and, if so, what are its implications for British institutions and their students. The first part of this paper reviews current higher education policy developments in the European Community and considers the issues which they raise for quality. The second part of Brennan's paper reports on the results of a number of recent projects which have attempted to assess the quality of educational programs across several countries and considers implications of these studies for British institutions. The second paper is "Towards a General Model of Quality Assessment in Higher Education" by Frans A. van Vught. It proposes a general model of quality assessment consisting of a number of elements. It puts these elements in an historical context of quality assessment in medieval universities and makes a distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic values of higher education and types of assessment related to each. It also deduces the elements from recent experiences with quality assessment in the United States, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. (JB)

The system of pharmaceutical education in France is explained including the structure of the doctoral curriculum, internships for specialization, the system of diplomas, classification and certification of a pharmacist, and locus of responsibility for program quality. (MSE)