1

The Bologna Process: Implementation and Strategic Implications for Universities

Dr. Sybille Reichert Reichert Consulting, Zurich

Bilbao 24th of October 2005

2

Trends 4 study - Methodology:

Institutions at the centre of the 2004/2005 exercise 62 site visits to universities (incl. 14 Coimbra) & 7 other HEIs, variety

of profiles, but all institutions which have started implementation for 29 of 40 Bologna countries interviews with multiple institutional players by teams of 2 persons (1 internat., 1 from national RC)

Analysis of institutional responses, progress & priorities concentrating on the 3 Bologna mid-term priorities (structures,

recognition, quality) & research taking account of the European & national contexts

through a questionnaire sent to Rectors’ Conferences through re-analysis of Trends III data

3

Bologna and Prague objectives

common degree structures (Bachelor /Master) establishment of transparency instruments: ECTS, Diploma

Supplement recognition of foreign degrees and study abroad periods promotion of European and/or joint programmes promotion of mobility cooperation in quality assurance promotion of LLL social dimension, HE as a public good/ responsibility significant role of HEIs and students in this process link with European Research Area, doctoral studies

4

Bologna: From national commitment to institutional reality

It takes concerted action on all levels to make the European Higher Education Area a reality…

national commitment

national legislation

national incentives/

support

institutional leadership/

policy

instit. communication

deliberationdecision

instit. reality

Only 6 countries have provided some funding for implementation at institutional level

Bologna reforms have become an integral part of inst. strategy

Almost all countries have by now introduced the two cycles system. Few HEI were still waiting for more detailed governm. regulations, some governments plan amendments. But majority of HEIs still find that nat.legisl. undermines auton. decision-making

Role of academics: investing lots of extra time and ideas, taking up the challenge.

Signs of reform fatigue.

Bologna scorecard (self-declared national data): What is hiding behind these colours?

6

Average Scorecard Performance

Two-cycle systemQuality Assurance

7

Degree Structures: The Bachelor level 1

Bologna does not “prescribe” 3+2 but there is a mainstreaming trend toward 3+2 with some countries having pushed this with legislation.Many professors doubt that 3 y -degrees can be academically valid and relevant to labour market (seen as lowering of academic standards).Discussion still centred on nominal duration, not outcomes: Some universities don’t want to award same degrees as profess. sector.Content of traditional 4 (or 5) y programmes often compressed into 3 years. Ba curricula often reported to be more rigidly structured than traditional ones (many compulsory subjects and contact hours).Justified concern about “one size fits all” approach taken by many national laws in imposing 3 y Bachelors: Some disciplines argue that 3 years are too short for a meaningful first degree and request more autonomy in designing their degree programmes.

8

Degree Structures: The Bachelor level 2

Ba graduates: labour market or Ma-studies? Huge differences between countries. In UK, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey Ba are well accepted by labour market.

In many HEI students felt badly informed about value of a Bachelor in its own right, most plan to go for a Master, often supported by professors.

Emphasis on employability has impact on dual systems: Universities in some binary systems fear competition from polytechnics: Poly-Ba can be more attractive to employers (practical experience). Many want to see Ba-degrees as a platform for re-orientation towards a Ma-programme. Polytechnics more confident.

Insufficient dialogue between HEI, governments with employers to give the Ba more credibility, and adapt public service employment (career, service grades, salary).

9

Degree Structures: The Master level

In spite of Bologna-Consensus on Ma programmes: huge variety Duration: In many countries 180+60 ECTS not seen as internationally

competitive. UK and IR :1y-Ma (often > 60 ECTS) particularly attractive. 300+ ECTS programmes continue to exist in some countries (PL, HG,

IR, Scotland) and disciplines (medicine, engineering) Tendency to create too many M-prog: no institutional strategy Ma progr. often designed with narrow focus on preceding Ba

programmes. Some HEI welcome opportunity to define interdisciplinary Ma.

Vertical mobility seen as a threat, not opportunity, “Stand-alone” Ma still the exception.

Students worried about (future lack of) public funding for Ma level.

13

Toward Comparable Structures and Beyond: Challenges for the Institutions

find meaningful internationally compatible and academically viable definition of degree levels, describe learning outcomes,

make use of the opportunity for more far-reaching curricular reform

make concrete sense of the slogan „flexible learning paths“ (flexibility between what?), use modular structures and ECTS to underpin such flexibility

select areas for targeted positioning (masters, link to reserach strengths, good networks)

define selection and recognition procedures adapt adminsitrative processes and develop staff to meet new

needs contribute to reflections and decisions on the institutional profile

and its articulation/ communication with the „outside world“

15

Quality Enhancement :Putting Quality Assurance

into Context

Quality Enhancement > Quality Assurance Qual. Enhancement = Sum of many methods of institutional

development Ex: Added value of Bologna reforms

Opportunity to reflect and review curricula Opportunity to reform teaching methods (student centred

learning, continous assessment, flexible learning paths) Strengthening horizontal communication and institutional

transparency Most limiting factor for quality enhancement is not nature of

internal or external QA but limits to resources when room for improvements identified.

16

Internal Quality Development

Level of activity in internal qual. dev. processes has risen Focus largely on teaching and learning (all inst.), some attention

student support services Research quality: emphasis on external review, only a third of inst.

have some form of internal res. review Internal qual. dev. of administration and support services less

developed (less than a sixth of inst.) and more ad hoc Lack of coherence reg. qual. development processes -- only few

inst. pursue a systematic institutionalised approach to qual. development

Institutional autonomy systematic approach to qd, at least on the extremes

17

Quality Assurance: future challenges

At institutional level: establish improvement-oriented QA without disproportionate

costs and administrative burden build up coherent internal quality assurance which makes

synergetic use of external QA procedures and reduces their extent in the long term

Between national agencies: creating transparency, exchange of good practice but also enough common criteria to allow for mutual recognition of each

others‘ principles and procedures without undermining positive forces of competition

18

Impact of Bologna Reforms on Research and Research Training

Impact of new programmes on research exposure at the different levels

Shift of research experience from Bachelor to Master level 3 years of Ba-programmes regarded as too short for appropriate res.

experience – Master level: primary level for research in action (although some more „professional“)

Often less time for independent research in new programmes due to compressed continuously assessed programmes

Impact of new structures and reinforced focus on teaching quality on research training at doctoral level

Impact of strengthened institutional communication on internal research cooperation – interdisciplinary programmes

Shifting time resources from research to teaching (teaching more time intensive, not compensated) if no new staff is hired

19

Strengthening the Institutional Level

Noticeable impact of Bologna reforms on institutional communication, new bridges between units

Some institutions used Bologna as part of their positioning, but rarely in relation to research strengths (only a minority had identified strategic res. priorities at institutional level in relation to intern. markets)

Research and education are separately managed at most institutions, development comes together at level of individual/ department but not of institution

Scepticism regarding idea of research priorities in terms of overarching themes

20

Bologna‘s goals: what could they mean for a given European university‘s profile?

What are the primary values which act as driving forces? e.g. flexible access, pushing frontiers of science (selective/competitive research)

Which community do I serve and which communities do I want to target in addition?

Where and according to which criteria do I recruit my students, teachers, reserachers, partners?

Which qualities, skills, competences, attitudes do I want to promote in my students, professors, scientific and adminsitrative staff?

Which reference points do I want to use in the development of my offer (teaching curricula: qualification frameworks, learning outcomes according to disciplines, programmes, research: emphases and their effect on teaching)?

How do I promote institutional thinking (beyond identification with disciplines) to allow for a will to coordinate thoughts and efforts? How and when do I include my partners in these sensitive already difficult deliberations?

How do I define success and progress in these processes? Which targets do I set and how do I defend these to the outside world (politicians, industrial partners)?

21

Implementing Bologna: Success Factors

Success factors:1. Other ongoing reforms2. Problem awareness3. Institutional communication

between units and leadership4. Open dialogue with external

stakeholders5. Dialogue and willingness to

include key actors in design of reform (institutional / national)

6. Timing7. National financial support for Bol.

Reform only granted in small minority of countries

8. Autonomy: in half of BP countries can institutions decide autonomously over key elements of reform (liberal or prescriptive)

Transforming top-down reforms

into anbottom-up agenda

of institutional change

22

Bologna Reforms as Systemic Challenges

Move to student-centred learning in a majority of countries More compact programmes, more time pressure, more

assessment, more efficiency, less time for independent study?

Blurring differentiation between universities and other HEI: Employability at Bachelor level, former competitive advantage of other HEI – new definition of differentiating profiles needed

Retreating State Funding Retreating from full funding of the Master level? Not paying for move to more individualised learning paths? Not increasing institutional grants = paying for quality

enhancement of teaching out of research resources

23

Thank you for your attention!

To download the Trends 4 study:

http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/

TrendsIV_FINAL.1117012084971.pdf