Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698059884261.pdf (Liberia)
13/11/2015 Overview of the presentation The Icelandic Quality Enhancement Framework: The self-reflection process from a European perspective • The Icelandic self-reflection process • The European QA framework Andrée Sursock Senior adviser, EUA November 2015 • Five European-wide challenges with the new ESG-Part 1 • Concluding remarks about the Icelandic QEF …2… 1.
The Icelandic self-reflection process The Icelandic self-reflection process: basis for my observations • Desk research:  Quality Enhancement Framework Handbook  Clever Data Report  The Institution-Wide reports • 7-11 June visit:  Meeting with groups of (about 35) stakeholders: National Rectors’ Conference, students, ministry staff, Quality Council, Quality Board  Attending the Quality Board meeting, the annual QEF conference and two annual meetings (Reykjavik University and Agricultural University of Iceland) Consultation process • Consultation of the sector was externalised to Clever Data: data collected and analysed independently • Consultation queried about key aspects of the QEF • Excellent return rate • Board discussed systematically and thoroughly all the implications arising from the Clever Data report • Board presented preliminary findings at the annual conference in June (University of Iceland) Onsite visit: key findings •Strongest areas of consensus:  The principles of QEF  Its focus on the students’ learning experience  The need to promote students’ involvement  The need to clarify the criteria for the confidence judgment  The need to renew the Quality Board membership •Under discussion in June:  Whether and how to include research?
 Whether and how to publish the subject review reports?

 The link between QEF and the accreditation process?

1 13/11/2015 Self-reflection process • Objective, thorough and transparent • Showed the Quality Board to be a “learning organisation” 2.
The European QA framework • Demonstrated the commitment of the universities and the students to QEF and its further development • Revealed that the sector recognised the need to improve some processes while preserving the founding principles of QEF Based on “Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities” Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA (ESG) • HEIs have primary responsibility for the quality of their provision and its assurance • QA supports the development of a quality culture • QA responds to and respects the diversity of HE systems, institutions and programmes • QA involves stakeholders and takes into account the expectations of all stakeholders and society QA: a key reform of the recent years …10… Q51: Institutional QA policy and procedures 3.
Five European-wide challenges with the new ESG Trends 2015, Q51: N= 419 …11… Based on “ESG Part 1: Are Universities Ready” 2 13/11/2015 European-wide challenges with the new ESG-Part I 1) The ability of the QA system to generate information that is valuable for both internal decision-making and external stakeholders  Collect the information that is useful and makes sense for own context and purposes  Do this through a variety of information sources and methods in order to ensure a comprehensive and objective view of institutional activities  Communicate the findings to a variety of stakeholders 2) Ensuring the quality of student experience and success  Give high priority to good teaching  Supporting students and staff, tracking student success, etc.
3) Strengthening the link between quality assurance and the quality of learning and teaching  Require expertise typically located outside the QA unit => important to strengthen cooperation among different institutional actors • Learning outcomes • Student-centred learning and teaching  How are programmes designed, delivered and monitored?

How will universities demonstrate to external reviewers and stakeholders that they take into account the many aspects covered by the ESG?
…13… …14… 4) Demonstrate that institutions have put in place robust measures to review their programmes  Lack of data at European level on how this is done in practice  Put in place clear mechanisms for linking programme review to strategic management and decision-making 5) The need to link internal quality assurance to institutional strategic management  Analyse how this happens and whether the link could be strengthened through a re-design of the internal QA system …15… 4.
Concluding remarks The Icelandic QEF Questions about the future • Stresses the role of universities in QA and respect their autonomy • The result of ongoing partnership and dialogue, including with students • Focused on the the quality of the learning experience and academic standards • Enhancement-led • International • Does the scope and approach of the future quality assurance system support each institution’s strategic development effectively?

Within a well-designed higher education system?


• Is it sufficiently context-sensitive and mission-led?

• Are the available resources adequate to enable institutions to implement the recommendations that they receive?

• Does the QA approach promote trust?


3 References • Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA (ESG) 2015 • Sursock A (2015) Trends 2015: Learning and Teaching in European Universities, Belgium: European University Association • Gover A, T. Loukkola & A Sursock (2015) ESG Part 1: Are Universities Ready?

Belgium: European University Association 13/11/2015 4