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 and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area related to University LLL and issues of subsidiarity and convergence. The workshop intends: to point up matters of reflection and priorities, which will aid in finalising key recommendations to test the relevance and feasibility of selected approaches which are considered of high interest to practioners and managers of LLL in universities; to experiment with interactive working methods based on recent research in the subject The workshop is timely to make key recommendations for the Bologna follow-up Group. Please See Appendix A and B BELOW for background to EU LLL policy For example, APPENDIX A relates to Quality in LLL policy http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c11038.htm and APPENDIX B relates to the Bologna process: to make higher education systems in Europe converge alas, it merely states the aim of cooperation with regard to quality assurance rather than enhancement. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c11088.htm Our discussion paper will stimulate reactions and debate among participants - we will consider the critical success factors that need to be considered in approaches to quality for ULLL.We will ask: why is quality is important in ULLL? is it to enhance student learning or to impose external standards? will a culture of compliance stifle radical initiatives in lifelong learning? Defining University Lifelong Learning (ULLL) is challenging because of the great diversity of the stystem. Every University has its own distinct portfolio of activity that falls under the ULLL banner and the organisation of ULLL in each University usually has some distinct feature, however small, which differentiates it from its national and European counterparts. -1-
The European context is one of the rapid growth in the higher education sector, an increasing interest from government in the societal importance of universities, and a relatively new interest within EU countries of the systematic quality assurance of ULLL. Three distinct types of EU university can be categorised - 1. General universities. 2. Professional/vocational universities. 3. Local universities -2-
Points for debate: A single quality model of ULLL may be insufficient to meet the diverse needs of institutions. External quality scrutiny, made by public bodies in various countries, is a relatively recent phenomenon, but it is one that is here to stay. Universities appear to accept the primary driver of accountability for public funding as a reasonable rationale for systematic quality routines imposed externally In addition to external inspection, universities are continuing to develop internal quality procedures. External and internal can interact to inform the development of strategies within universities to improve the quality and performance of teaching and research, and to provide improved levels of service to users, and impact on ULLL. Quality procedures may be used by universities to manage tensions in strategy and direction such as those between the demands of traditional teaching, profession-oriented teaching, adult learning programmes and what is still called in some universities continuing education. There may be tension between the demands to increase the participation rate in higher education and participation in cultural and economic local development. External quality procedures may provide a basis for positive internal change regarding ULLL if it finds support with senior management. It is both possible and useful to identify key features of ULLL provision that set it apart from mainstream University provision. ULLL: Operates in a complex and competitive market place which requires a rapid response to purchasers. These may be individual or corporate buyers or come in the form of financial sponsors such as employers or public agencies. The demands of this market in turn need to be balanced against the need to maintain academic rigour however this may be defined. Is subject to a diverse range of immediate pressures on its curriculum, for example: changing professional practices and regulations, regional economic drivers, employer priorities (sectoral/technological developments) or cultural and intellectual trends Is often at the forefront in promoting new ways to deliver courses flexibly and new ways to accumulate credit. Our innovative pedagogy is in the vanguard for the rest of our institutions. ULLL tends to have irregular delivery patterns that makes demands -3-
outside the normal routines and this puts pressure on University systems. Deals with adult learners and their variable and often demanding support requirements e.g. study support or guidance needs. Given these distinctive characteristics, what are the implications for approaches to the development and maintenance of quality in ULLL? How best might national and European structures support its development? ISSUES: Does quality for ULLL differ from quality for the mainstream of University provision? If so how? Does this mean that we need a different model of quality assurance? We will debate the key differences between much ULLL provision and the mainstream degrees: e.g. rapid response to local needs (therefore not time for long approval processes), no assessment of the learners (therefore no need for monitoring the standards of the learners achievement) open to general public (therefore satisfaction is completely different) A discussion will follow of the varied and different stakeholders- more employers/enterprises for example with different needs in relation to quality. ISSUES: Quality control, assurance, enhancement, improvement - which is the most appropriate and why? Is an enhancement/improvement model best suited? It values the experience and expertise of the staff (teaching and admin) and it focuses on the future, and, importantly, it tends to be less bureaucratic, and managerialist for the sake of it, or for the focus on the wrong things that the quality industry can easily quantify and therefore recognize and value. Useful models and tools for ULLL Various types of tool will be considered and colleagues have been invited to share their experience and expertise regarding the usefulness of various approaches: National accreditation (like any other course), local/university accreditation (some other form of approval internally), ISO 9000, EFQM, our own EQLT etc. Following these vignettes, from EUCEN projects and other relevant work, the different models will be gauged. -4-
Our recommendations are likely to include some points about the experience of ULLL staff in different modes and tools for quality that would be useful for the mainstream of the University. Examples include experiential and other innovative forms of pedagogy to enhance the learning experience of adults. Draft issues for debate 1. Improve objective and results based quality tools as there is a trend to link funding to objectives and results through internal contractualisation between universities and funding agencies and within university organisational units that can generate new modes of funding. 2. Find ways of improving the quality assurance procedures and methods of administrative and support services as most innovative practices relate to the quality of services delivered to our varied adult users 3. Develop effective use of technology that enable the appropriate measurement and realisation of improvements for quality enhancement (ensure that IT systems do not dictate policy simply because the technology is easily available and an administrative convenience. Strive for meaningful measurement rather than merely tidy.) 4. Develop and refine a model of quality enhancement for ULLL that is: - Pluralistic - recognises a range of local, regional, national, and European level factors, related to our area of work Contextual - the specific ULLL environment. Dynamic - takes account of the individual university Mission, its objectives and history. Integral the internal marketing issue, - makes use of links between all university activities, as appropriate. Overall Aim The ULLL community supports the concept of continuous quality improvement and enhancement and constantly strives to improve processes, systems and techniques particularly with a view to improving the effectiveness of adult learning opportunities, our research and partnership working with various societal stakeholders. -5-
Conclusion: The quality initiatives of our EUCEN community continue to serve as a model of creativity and relevance that is emulated by many institutions. As both European level and National needs for LLL have evolved, so have our university programmes. The changes occurring within ULLL programmes will allow them to meet evolving needs and maintain and enhance the quality of our offers. The workshop s recommendations for quality in ULLL policies are intended to facilitate this adaptation to new challenge -6-
APPENDIX A http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c11038.htm LIFELONG LEARNING > Quality of higher education This Council Recommendation calls on the Member States to introduce quality-assessment and quality-assurance mechanisms into their higher education systems and to promote cooperation between the authorities responsible for quality assurance in higher education.. ACT Council Recommendation (EC) No 561/98 of 24 September 1998 on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education [Official Journal L 270 of 7.10.1998] SUMMARY The Council of the European Union recommends to Member States that they establish transparent quality assessment and quality assurance systems in the field of higher education. The aim is to safeguard and improve the quality of higher education while taking due account of national conditions, the European dimension and international requirements. The systems of quality assessment and quality assurance must be based on the following principles: autonomy and independence of the bodies responsible for quality assessment and quality assurance; relating evaluation procedures to the way institutions see themselves; internal (self-reflective) and external (experts' appraisals) assessment; involvement of all the players (teaching staff, administrators, students, alumni, social partners, professional associations, -7-
inclusion of foreign experts); publication of evaluation reports. The Council recommends Member States to ensure that follow-up measures are taken at national or regional level in order to enable higher education institutions to implement their plans for improving quality and for integrating graduates into the labour market more effectively. The Member States are also recommended to ensure that high priority is given by public authorities and by the management of higher education institutions to continuous exchange of experience with other Member States and with international organisations active in this field. The Council also recommends Member States to promote cooperation between the authorities responsible for evaluating quality in higher education and encourage their networking. This cooperation should concern: o o o exchange of information and experience; fulfilling requests for expertise and advice from the authorities in the Member States and promotion of contacts with international experts; support for higher education institutes in the different countries which wish to cooperate. In pursuing these objectives, the links with other Community activities, notably in the framework of the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes, should also be taken into account, as well as the "acquis communautaire" in the field of recognition of qualifications for professional purposes. The Commission is invited to support this cooperation between the authorities responsible for evaluation and quality control in higher education, by involving organisations and associations in the European Community that possess the necessary experience in the field of evaluation and quality assurance in higher education. The Commission is requested to present, every three years, a report on the development of quality assessment and quality assurance systems in the Member States and on cooperation activities at European level in this field. -8-
APPENDIX B http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/cha/c11088.htm EDUCATION AND TRAINING: GENERAL FRAMEWORK > LIFELONG LEARNING > The Bologna process: make higher education systems in Europe converge The Bologna process aims inter alia at making divergent higher education systems converge towards a more transparent system by 2010, based on three cycles: Degree/Bachelor - Master - Doctorate. ACT Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999, adopted by 29 countries in order to make the higher education systems in Europe converge. SUMMARY The Bologna Declaration initiates the so-called Bologna process, which is designed to introduce a system of academic degrees that are easy to read and compare, to promote the mobility of students, teachers and researchers, to ensure quality in education and to take into account the European dimension of higher education. The process will end in 2010. Making academic degrees comparable and promoting mobility The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999 involves six actions relating to: a system of academic degrees which are easy to read and compare. It includes the introduction of a diploma supplement in order to improve transparency; a system based essentially on two cycles: a first cycle geared to the employment market and lasting at least three years and a second cycle (Master) conditional upon the completion of the first cycle; a system of accumulation and transfer of credits of the ECTS type used in the Socrates-Erasmus exchange scheme; -9-
mobility of students, teachers and researchers: elimination of all obstacles to the freedom of movement; cooperation with regard to quality assurance; the European dimension of higher education: expand at all levels on modules, teaching and study areas where the content, guidance or organisation has a European dimension. The Prague Communiqué [ PDF ] of 19 May 2001 added the following actions to the Bologna process: lifelong learning is an essential element of the European Higher Education Area in order to address economic competitiveness; the involvement of higher education institutions and students; the Ministers underline the importance of the involvement of universities, of other higher education establishments and in particular of students in order to create a constructive European Higher Education Area; promote the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area among students in Europe and in other parts of the world. At the 2003 Berlin conference, the Ministers responsible for higher education adopted a communiqué [ PDF ] on 19 September, which includes doctorate studies and synergies between the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area (ERA) in the Bologna process. The Ministers underlined the importance of research, research training and the promotion of interdisciplinary research to maintain and improve the quality of higher education and strengthen its competitiveness. They called for increased mobility at doctorate and post-doctorate level and encouraged the establishments in question to enhance their cooperation in the spheres of doctorate studies and training young researchers. The Bergen communiqué [ PDF ] of 20 May 2005 noted that significant progress had been made concerning the objectives of the process, as illustrated in the 2003-2005 monitoring group's general report [ PDF ]. By 2007, when the next meeting will be held, the Ministers would like to have made progress in the following areas in particular: implementing references and guidelines to guarantee quality, as proposed in the ENQA report (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education); introducing national qualification frameworks ; awarding and recognising joint degrees, including at doctorate level; creating opportunities for flexible pathways for training in higher education, including the existence of provisions for the validation of experience. -10-
The next meeting of Ministers will take place in May 2007 in London, United Kingdom. On this issue, the European Commission is publishing a document of 24 January 2006 called "From Bergen to London - the contribution of the European Union" [ PDF ]. -11-