European Quality AssuranceRegister for Higher Education

Accreditation and Recognition – Reflecting

Jointness in External Quality Assurance

Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees Coordinators' ConferenceBrussels, 17 November 2016

Colin Tück

European Framework forQuality Assurance in HE

Standards and Guidelinesfor Quality Assurance

in the EHEA (ESG)

European QualityAssurance Register

for HE (EQAR)

Qualifications Frameworkof the EHEA (QF EHEA)

European Approach forQA of Joint Programmes

Criteria forregistration

Based onESG & QF

Applied byEQAR-reg. Agencies

Referred instandard 1.2

Standards and Guidelines forQuality Assurance in the EuropeanHigher Education Area (ESG)

Purposes: Common framework Enable quality assurance and

improvement Support mutual trust, facilitate

recognition and mobility Provide information

Principles: HEIs' primary responsibility Responds to the diversity of

systems, institutions,programmes and students

Support the development of aquality culture

Take into account the needs andexpectations of students, all otherstakeholders and society

Developed by stakeholders, adopted by governments Initially adopted 2005, revised in 2015 to reflect EHEA progress

European Quality Assurance Register forHigher Education (EQAR)

Established by E4 atMinisters' request, jointlygoverned by stakeholdersand governments

Non-profit andindependent, acting in thepublic interest

Mission: enhancing trustand confidence in EHEA

Main role: to manage aregister of QAAs thatcomply substantially withthe ESG

Registration based onexternal review

Annual updates onreviews/countries

Substantive changereports

Third-party complaints

Periodic renewal every5 years

Background

Approaches and pilots for single reviews of joint programmes Developed and tested by QA agencies and stakeholders (e.g. JOQAR)

Working, but complex

Need to accommodate different national criteria Not always quality-related, but often structural

Sometimes contradictory (e.g. # of ECTS Master thesis)

Make sense nationally, but difficult to understand for foreign peers

Consequence: “fragmented” external QA a common solution Different agencies looking at bits and pieces

“Jointness” not reflected

Background (II)

Policy: Bucharest Ministerial Communiqué (2012)

“We encourage higher education institutions to further develop jointprogrammes and degrees as part of a wider EHEA approach. We willexamine national rules and practices relating to joint programmes anddegrees as a way to dismantle obstacles to cooperation and mobility embedded in national contexts.”

“In particular, we will aim to recognise quality assurance decisions ofEQAR-registered agencies on joint and double degree programmes.”

European Approach for QA ofJoint Programmes

Developed 2012 – 2015, aiming to: Ease accreditation of joint programmes Enable single reviews, reflect the joint character also in QA

Concept: one agreed, consistent European framework Standards for quality assurance of joint programmes Procedure for quality assurance of joint programmes Based on ESG & QF-EHEA – applied to a specific case No additional national criteria

Adopted by EHEA ministers in Yerevan (May 2015)

For details see: www.eqar.eu/topics/joint-programmes.html

In a nutshell

Before After

Multiple, fragmented reviews Single review

Combining various national rulesand criteria

Agreed Standards, based on ESG& QF-EHEA

Complex procedures, ad hocdesign

Agreed Procedure

Recognition

“It often seems more difficult to obtain recognition of ajoint degree than of a national qualification. This is incontradiction with the overall policy goal of fosteringmobility and institutional and international co-operation.”

Revised Recommendation on the Recognition of Joint Degrees, 2016(subsidiary text to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, LRC)

http://www.enic-naric.net/joint-programmes-and-joint-degrees.aspx

LRC Recommendation –Definitions

LRC Recommendation European Approach

Jointprogramme

… refers to a study programmedeveloped, co-ordinated andprovided jointly by at least twohigher education institutionsand leading to the awarding of ajoint degree.

… understood as an integrated curriculum coordinated andoffered jointly by differenthigher education institutionsfrom EHEA countries, andleading to double/multipledegrees or a joint degree.

Jointdegree

… is understood as referring toa higher education qualificationawarded jointly by at least twohigher education institutions,on the basis of a jointprogramme. A joint degree isissued on a single document.

A single document awarded byhigher education institutionsoffering the joint programme and nationally acknowledgedas the recognised award of thejoint programme.

LRC Recommendation

Relates primarily to joint degrees, but alsodouble/multiple degrees where applicable

Principle: treat the same as other qualifications from theHE systems to which the joint degree belongs

Calls on governments to review legislation, removeobstacles and establish legal basis for jointprogrammes/degrees

LRC Recommendation

Quality assurance Degrees quality assured in a single cross-border process

should be recognised, provided outcomes are officiallyrecognised in the countries of the HEIs

→ compatible with the European Approach

Otherwise, recognition may be conditional on all parts ofthe study programme being subject to transparent nationalquality assurance mechanisms

Information by awarding higher education institution Diploma supplement or some other comparable document

Use of the ECTS or other credit systems

European Approach

Steps in practice:

A) External quality assurance at programme level needed?

B) Consider legal frameworks involved

C) Choose a suitable EQAR-registered QA agency

D) Self-evaluation report [Procedure: 1]

E) Site visit by review panel [2, 3]

F) Public report and decision [4, 5, 7]

G) Recognition of decision

A) Scenarios

Cooperating HEIsneed programme

accreditation/eval.

Cooperating HEIs are “self-accrediting”for programmes, i.e. accredited/

evaluated/audited at institutional level

Single accreditation/eval.of JP, based on agreed

Standards & Procedure,by any EQAR-reg. agency

Joint internal QA reviewof the JP (in line with ESG), may use

agreed Standards, externalreview takes account of HEIs' internal

Recognised to fulfil QA require-ments in all countries involved

European Approach, based on ESG & QF-EHEA, and Bucharest Communiqué (“recognise QA decisions of EQAR-registered agencies on joint and double degree programmes“)

B) National recognition

All higher educationinstitutions are able touse the EuropeanApproach to satisfynational QArequirements█ recognition of single externalQA procedure for programmes

▒ HEIs being self- accrediting

Some higher educationinstitutions or onlyunder specificconditionsDiscussions ongoingCannot be used tosatisfy national QArequirements

C) Choosing a suitableEQAR-registered agency

Basic information(EQAR website) Methodologies and

approaches Specialisation (e.g.

disciplines) Countries where agency

has worked

Contact some agencies Ready to conduct review? Costs? Language?

Decision by consortium

43 registered quality assurance agencies

D) Self-evaluation report

European Approach Standards:

1. Eligibility1.1 Status1.2 Joint design and delivery1.3 Cooperation Agreement

2. Learning Outcomes2.1 Level [ESG 1.2]2.2 Disciplinary field2.3 Achievement [ESG 1.2]2.4 Regulated Professions

3. Study Programme [ESG 1.2]3.1 Curriculum3.2 Credits3.3 Workload

4. Admission and Recognition [ESG 1.4]4.1 Admission4.2 Recognition

5. Learning, Teaching and Assessment [ESG 1.3]

5.1 Learning and teaching5.2 Assessment of students

6. Student Support [ESG 1.6]

7. Resources [ESG 1.5 & 1.6]7.1 Staff7.2 Facilities

8. Transparency and Documentation[ESG 1.8]

9. Quality Assurance [ESG 1.1 & part 1]

E) Site visit by review panel

Panel members At least four members from at least two countries involved Expertise in the relevant subject(s) or discipline(s) Labour market/world of work Expertise in quality assurance Student Knowledge of the HE systems and language(s) of instruction

Site visit Interviews with management, staff, students and relevant

stakeholders Normally restricted to one location

F) Public report anddecision

Consortium may comment on draft report

Accreditation decision, if required Positive (valid 6 years)

With conditions

Negative

Right of appeal

Publication by the agency At least summary in English

G) Recognition of decision

Ideal: automatically recognised in all countries(see Bucharest and Yerevan Communiqués)

Possible in a limited number of countries Regard existing notification requirements

But: legal frameworks in many EHEA countries stillrequire changes → pragmatic approach Make arrangements for recognition before Contact with national ministry or QA agency Formal ratification decision might be an option Existing agreements between agencies could be used

Key Benefits

Jointness reflected in external QA

Reduced workload

Recognition

Attractive for prospective partners

Thank you for your attention!

Contact:colin.tueck@eqar.eu

+32 2 234 39 11

#EQAJP @ColinTueck @EQAR_he

www.eqar.eu/topics/joint-programmes.html