ARTESNET EUROPE STRAND TWO QUALITY ASSURANCE & ENHANCEMENT

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ARTESNET EUROPE STRAND TWO QUALITY ASSURANCE & ENHANCEMENT"

Brianne Barnett
6 years ago
Views:

1 ARTESNET EUROPE STRAND TWO QUALITY ASSURANCE & ENHANCEMENT

2 Overarching Objectives OF ARTESNET EUROPE To support all arts institutions in Europe (including students, management, teaching, technical and administrative staff) to gain expertise on self-evaluation evaluation as an institutional responsibility, linking internal quality issues with external requirements with a special focus on institutions in the new member states and candidate countries. To consolidate and further develop a shared body of knowledge within the European higher arts education community on quality issues, that could lead to an independent European quality assurance network as a voluntary partnership for higher arts education.

3 To contribute to the ongoing process of convergence and transparency in higher arts education by establishing European reference points for the first, second and third cycles, and for recruitment, learning, teaching and assessment. To capitalise on, and to transfer good practice by linking higher arts education institutes with local and regional communities, professional practice, and cultural and professional organisations. To value and preserve cultural, artistic, and pedagogical diversity. To ensure a co-ordinated, ordinated, bottom-up approach to all implications of the Bologna process for the arts.

4 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES & FOCUS To support institutions to better understand self-evaluation evaluation as an effective way to assess internal quality and how self- evaluation relates to external standards and procedures. To address subject-based based as well as institutional review, looking at self-evaluation evaluation as an institutional responsibility to enhance the quality in art schools, rather than focusing on the bureaucratic and controlling aspects of quality assurance. To develop an independent institutional evaluation programme linked to a European accreditation network for higher arts education (sustainability strategy).

5 GENERAL PRINCIPLES move to student-centred, outcomes based learning. involves student participation. based on a set of common and shared principles underpinning quality assurance irrespective of differing national approaches. based on peer review. involves participation of professional bodies. emphasis on the development and use of transparent explicit criteria and processes. process is open to external scrutiny. national quality assurance agencies are established.

6 transparency of procedures through the inclusion of a range of external and international reference points. need for comparability European framework. emphasis on enhancement of quality. has formal status and outcomes are publicly available. increased emphasis on the stakeholders (student and employer) in programme planning. greater transparency about qualifications and standards European framework providing reference points to establish comparability.

7 Working method To establish and train a panel of experts in European Quality Assurance & Enhancement in higher arts education two x 3 day sessions in Birmingham training 18 experts (critical friends). To pilot 5 x Institutional Review visits: University of Art & Design Cluj-Napoca, Rumania; National Academy Theatre, Film & Television Sofia, Bulgaria; Lithuania Academy of Theatre & Film, Vilnius, Lithuania; University of Technology Brno, Czech Republic and Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. To carry out 5 x Regional Workshops: Budapest, Hungary; Athens, Greece; Stuttgart, Germany; Porto, Portugal and Ankara, Turkey to disseminate the outcomes and share experiences.

8 Preliminary visit Principle objectives are: to gain a clearer understanding of the specific national, regional and local contexts impacting on the institution (autonomy) to gain a clearer understanding of the existing management operations of the institution to discuss the self evaluation process and the institution s SER to gain greater understanding of the institution s s QME processes to identify and request any missing information from the SER Main visit The ET s s main objective is to arrive at a well substantiated view of the strategic management of quality management and enhancement in the institution at both institutional and subject discipline level. el. Where the preliminary visit focus was on understanding what is specific about that institution, the main visit is about finding out whether, how and with what results the institution s s strategic and internal quality policies and procedures are implemented throughout out all levels of the institution.

9 Impact on the higher arts education community in Europe An increasingly shared understanding of the value and meaning of the three cycles in higher arts education in Europe and their relevance to cultural, social and economical development. The development of a common understanding of terminology. Informative profiles describing core learning outcomes/competences for the three cycles in arts disciplines, agreed in interaction with the professional field. Shared visions and insights on recruitment, learning, teaching and a assessment developed in arts disciplines.

10 All higher arts education institutes, including new member states and the candidate countries are able to realise self- evaluation as an institutional responsibility. Students have become central to the process and key contributors in the development of the European higher arts education sector. The quality of an external evaluation is directly dependent on the preparation and implementation of a continuous rigorous internal evaluation process and the institution s s willingness for open, honest critical self-evaluation. evaluation. The institution has to work to promote a fuller understanding of learning outcomes as a means of both shaping and assessing the student learning experience, ensuring that an appropriate value is placed on the process of student learning.

11 The higher arts education community at large feels informed about relevant Bologna developments and fears about European standardisation and uniformity have substantially diminished. The enhancement of respect and good reputation among other faculties/departments of the institution, and the creation of the potential for stronger integration within the institution. A more thorough focus on the graduate profile, the inter-connection of the learning process and practical professional activities, and a collaboration with employers and professional organisations. National QA Agencies have been established and operating international review panels for institutional review and accreditation (e.g. Sweden & Lithuania) experts have been invited to participate and chair panels. There remains a significant divergence in national approaches to the third cycle PhD research in the Arts retention of scientific methodologies in many countries; no PhDs/Professors in Technical Universities.

12 External Stakeholders Employers Student Destination & Achievement Galleries Educational Institutions Internal Stakeholders Students Academic Staff Administrative Staff Ancillary Staff External/Institutional Stakeholders External Examiners Consultants National Agencies

13 ROLE OF THE EVALUATION TEAM (ET) We see the role of the team as a critical friend: to analyse the institution s s existing and intended quality management and enhancement capacity and procedures to make recommendations to the institution on how to improve quality management and enhancement (QME) capacity and procedures to identify good practice To carry out these tasks the ET will act as: representatives to reflect current good practices in quality management and enhancement evaluators to analyse the institutions existing management and enhancement practices advisors to make recommendations to develop these practices All team members share equal responsibility for and contribute fully f to the process. Each will make notes, chair meetings, discuss findings and contribute to the final report.

14 INSTITUTIONAL QA&E REVIEW Evaluation teams (ET) focus on the following evidence: Internal QA reviews and their outcomes Review/validation of programmes Use of external reference points in course construction Internal systems for the management of information Development and use of programme specifications Academic standards expected from students Progression, retention and achievement data The experience of students as learners Management of teaching staff appointments, appraisal etc

15 EVIDENCE COLLECTED Self evaluation reports (SER s) Information presented by and gathered from students. Student achievement, progression, etc. Recent review reports Information acquired during the visit

16 STUDENTS Students are central to the process of review The audit will examine: Information available to students How learning is facilitated Academic standards they are expected to achieve, and achieve in practice

17 INSTITUTIONAL SELF EVALUATION REPORT (SER) The self evaluation report is intended to address four questions: What is the institution trying to do? How is the institution trying to do it? How does the institution know if it works? How does the institution change in order to improve?

18 Institutional SER Content What is the institution trying to do? Mission statement - broad institutional philosophy/aims Distinctive features - what it is recognised for Governance, organisation and management Learning, teaching and assessment Research and scholarship Relationship to external agencies, professional bodies, industry and society Major developments, changes over last 4 years

19 Institutional SER Content How is the institution trying to do it? Analysis of strengths and areas for improvement Academic activities - research and educational approaches - education programme design and organisation - evaluation of how these programmes reflect institutional mission Academically related activities - analysis of external links, regional and community service - analysis of student support services - evaluation how these programmes reflect the mission Management and administrative systems and activities - communication

20 Institutional SER Content How does the institution know that it works? Institution quality monitoring processes for: - appointment of staff - creating new courses - external examiners - learning support services - learning, teaching and assessment - research - review and approval of existing courses - staff development - student involvement and feedback in quality assurance process - student progression, retention and achievement - student support and guidance.

21 Institutional SER Content (cont) How does the institution know it works? Framework for management of quality and academic standards - policy - key features - aims - key documents Committee and management structures - overview and structure - institution - department/faculty - management responsibilities Feedback by key stakeholders: students, graduates, employers s and professional bodies

22 Institutional SER Content How does the institution change in order to improve? Strategic management and capacity for change Analysis of the role of quality management to implement and support change Identify and respond to internal and external demand and opportunities How are internal and external representatives involved in strategic management? What role does quality monitoring and management play in these developments? What changes do you envisage due to these influences?

23 DISCIPLINE REVIEW (DR) To verify that the institutions QA mechanisms are working at course/programme level A window to view student achievement and effectiveness of support for learning A means to check claims made by the institution

24 Comprises five elements: DISCIPLINE REVIEW Short self evaluation report Discussion between team and staff and students about how QA policies are implemented Scrutiny of the accuracy of information (prospectus, website, programme specifications, etc) Observation of the relation between programmes and intended learning outcomes (sample of assessed work, progression, achievement, external examiners reports etc) The QA team can request additional information

25 DISCIPLINE SELF EVALUATION REPORT The report is an objective, critical self-evaluation evaluation of the course/programme by the course/programme team including programme specification and addressing the following: Maximum 3,000 words Educational philosophy and aims of the provision Description of the learning outcomes Curricula and assessment Quality of learning opportunities Learning and teaching policy and strategy Student admission and progression (including statistics) Learning resources Process for maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality

26 EVALUATION REPORT Relies on the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness of the information provided by the institution and offers: Recommendations and highlights Good Practice

Quality in University Lifelong Learning (ULLL) and the Bologna process

Quality in University Lifelong Learning (ULLL) and the Bologna process The workshop will critique various quality models and tools as a result of EU LLL policy, such as consideration of the European Standards