Transparantie Hoger Onderwijs - Vlor

Transparantie Hoger Onderwijs

VLOR Studiedag

28 november 2011

Noël Vercruysse

Departement Onderwijs en Vorming - Hoger Onderwijs

Wat is transparantie

• Transparantie: van buitenaf inzicht geven in: – Wat een entiteit is: profiel – Wat een entiteit doet – Hoe de entiteit dat doet – Wat de entiteit realiseert – Op een vergelijkbare wijze

• Transparantie is niet normatief, niet voorschrijvend wel minimale afspraken binnen elk systeem over de gebruikte terminologie

• Veronderstelt correcte, verifieerbare gegevens • Doel: informatie vertrekken en diversiteit zichtbaar

maken


Werkgroep Transparency tools

• Leuven Communiqué: • “Improved and enhanced data collection will help monitor progress

made in the attainment of the objectives set out in the social dimension, employability and mobility agendas, as well as in other policy areas, and will serve as a basis for both stocktaking and benchmarking.”

• “We note that there are several current initiatives designed to develop mechanisms for providing more detailed information about higher education institutions across the EHEA to make their diversity more transparent. These transparency tools … should be based on comparable data and adequate indicators to describe the diverse profiles of higher education institutions and their programmes.”


Werkgroep Transparency tools (2)

• Mandaat werkgroep: – To monitor the development of transparency tools

and mechanisms both the purposes and the objectives(information, accountability, quality) and the indicators and criteria used (input/processes, output/outcomes)

– To make a report to the 2012 ministerial conference


Werkgroep Transparency tools (3)

• Definitie van transparantie • Wat zijn transparantie-instrumenten • In welke mate zijn de traditionele Bologna

instrumenten functioneel tav transparantie • Kan het transparantiepotentieel van de Bologna-

instrumenten verhoogd worden • Wat zijn de ontwikkelingen sedert Leuven • Nood aan een Europees Transparantieraamwerk

en een Europees indicatorenraamwerk voor hoger onderwijs


Omschrijving transparantie

• Waartoe dient transparantie: verstrekken van informatie en het vervullen van de behoefte aan informatie van de verschillende partijen die bij hoger onderwijs betrokken zijn: studenten, werkgevers, overheid, andere instellingen, samenleving


Transparantie-instrumenten

• Bologna-instrumenten • Studiegidsen • Jaarverslagen instellingen • Classificaties • Rankings • Databanken: DHO, FRIS • Visitatie- en accreditatierapporten • Registers van geaccrediteerde instellingen en

opleidingen • ISI Thomson databank: wetenschappelijke publicaties

en citaties


Bologna-instrumenten

• Matrix: kwaliteitszorg, kwalificatieraamwerk, degree structure, recognition, ECTS, DS, learning outcomes

• Uitgezet tegenover : – Wat was de doelstelling ervan – Verband met andere Bologna-instrumenten – Doelgroep in termen van informatievoorziening – Sterkten in termen van informatievoorziening – Wat is bepalend voor de effectiviteit ervan – Bruikbaarheid als transparantie-instrument

• Bologna instrumenten moeten als 1 geheel (soort Bologna Proces infrastructuur)beschouwd worden; alleen samen bieden ze enige transparantie maar geven geen informatie over heel wat andere dimensies: arbeidsmarkt, studentenvoorzieningen, student/staf ratio, excellentie, performance….


Share of programmes using ECTS credits for accummulation and transfer for all elements of study programmes

No

data

<50%

programmes

51-74%

programmes

75-99%

programmes

100%

programmes


Extent to which ECTS credits are linked with learning outcomes

No

data

No

programmes

<5%

programmes

5-50% of

programmes

50-100% of

programmes

All of

programmes


ECTS – a common currency

?Problems of cross-national compatibility and comparability?


Learning outcomes

• Multiple definitions of learning outcomes, some of them compatible with each other, some of them not necessarily compatible –

• It is questionable how far those definitions are known, understood (comprehensibility?) and actually applied in practice (opaque?)

• ?problems of cross-national compatibility and comparability?

Departement Onderwijs en Vorming -

Hoger Onderwijs

Analysis of the DS submitted (12 countries)

• 5 provided the QA status

• 4 provided the entrance qualification required

• 4 mentioned learning outcomes

• In 3 countries (of 4) the LO are rather aims of the programme

The QF WG addressed LO meaningful implementation and coordination with QA


Conclusion

“…the Diploma Supplements in many cases are not prepared properly and hence do not provide the expected information to the users. A much wider dissemination of the Diploma Supplement explanatory notes is as well as training of the appropriate staff is needed to make HEIs aware of how to fill Diploma Supplements properly.”


DS effectiveness as transparency tool

• 6 countries launched studies to monitor ow employers use DS/ 4 finalized

• 2 countries: no more than 10% employers are aware of DS

• 1 country: employers want more detailed DS

• Less than half countries monitor the use of DS in HEIs/ 4 presented outcomes


QA – publication of critical and negative reports

• 22 countries: none of HEIs publish such reports

• 10 countries: less than 25%

• 7 countries: 25% to 99%

• 6 countries: 100%


Qualifications frameworks

• Some EHEA countries have yet to finalize their national qualifications frameworks and some seem unlikely to do so by the end of 2012

• As member countries develop their national qualifications frameworks, attention should shift from developing structures to ensuring coherent implementation of these structures.

• The continuing development of transparency tools such as ECTS and the Diploma Supplement should reflect the development of qualification frameworks and the emphasis on learning outcomes.


“Transparency” recommendations

• A website on and for their own national framework catering to the different needs of the different stakeholders, both for their national needs but also as an information tool for foreigners who would like to study or to live in the country.

• Information material in non-technical language describing the main features of qualifications frameworks and their value to learners, employers and others. Such descriptions should be prepared for the QF-EHEA as well as for individual national frameworks.


Ontwikkelingen sedert Leuven

• AHELO • THE • CHE • Shanghai ranking • EUMIDA • U-Map • U-Multirank • Unesco conferentie • IREG standaarden voor audit van rankings • Vergaderingen DG hoger onderwijs: België en Polen


Ontwikkelingen bestaande rankings

• Meer interactief en gebruiksvriendelijker: gebruiker kan eigen ranking maken

• Breder: volledige instelling, disciplines, onderwijs • Meer gebaseerd op harde en vergelijkbare feiten dan

op subjectieve meningen; verifieerbare feiten; alleen gegevens van derden niet van de instellingen

• Ranking van vergelijkbare instellingen • Methodologie transparanter • Worden nationaal, Europees en internationaal als een

aanvaard transparantie-instrument beschouwd


EUMIDA: Core set of data collected for all institutions

Descriptive • Institution Name, NUTS Region, Legal Status, Current Status Year, Foundation Year,

Distance Education, Research Active (y/n), University Hospital (y/n) • Education Fields (9 fields, y/n) • Highest Degree Awarded (BA/Masters/PHD) Student enrolment • Total students ISCED5 and ISCED6 • National and international students ISCED 5 and ISCED 6 • Students ISCED 5 and ISCED 6 by field of education (9 fields) Student graduation • Total Degrees by level (Dipl, BA, Master, Master w/o first level, PhD) • National and international degrees by levels (5 levels)

Total Degrees by level and fields of education (9 fields) Total Staff


Extended set of data for research-active institutions

Expenditure • Total Expenditures, Personnel Expenditures, Non-personnel

Expenditures, Capital Expenditures Revenue • Total Income, Core Funding, Third Party Funding, Fees Staff • Non-academic Staff, Academic Staff, Foreign Academic Staff • Staff by field of science (5 fields) Research involvement • R&D expenditure • Patent Applications, Spin Off Companies, Funding Private Sector


Selected results Number of TEI • Total 2,457 institutions covering all EU Member States (except DK and FR). If include

DK and FR, estimated 2,900. • There were 1,364 research active institutions Highest degree awarded • 840 institutions (34%) deliver up to the bachelor • 675 (28%) up to the master • 892 (36%) up to the doctoral degree Size of TEIs • two thirds of European TEIs are small (< 5,000 students enrolled) • 18% medium sized (5,000-15,000 students) • 10 % large (15,000-30,000 students) • 4% very large (> 30,000 students).


Key Information Set (KIS)

• Based on research commissioned by the Higher Education Public Information Steering Group on the needs of prospective students

• KIS for each course in England and NI, including:

• Course information and satisfaction • Costs • Employability

• Designed to aid prospective student choice, needs may

evolve over time


Proposed features of the KIS

• One KIS for every under-graduate course (a course

being something a student applies to) • All HE courses longer than one year FTE • Published on institution’s websites and accessible

via UCAS • Data renewed once a year • Will be part of QA review


Levels of information on the KIS:

Institutional

Level

Subject

Level

Course

Level

• Accommodation costs • Students’ union data

• Student satisfaction (NSS) • Employment and salary (DLHE)

• Learning & teaching methods • Assessment methods • Professional accreditation • Student fees/bursaries/scholarships


IREG audit

• 20 criteria verdeeld over 5 generieke kwaliteitswaarborgen: – Doel, doelgroepen en algemeen design – Methodologie: multidimensionele karakter van kwaliteit,

validiteit en relevantie indicatoren, meerdere perspectieven (studenten, werkgevers, belastingsbetaler, …), gekende wegingsfactoren, geauthoriseerde gegevensbronnen,

– publicatie en presentatie van de gegevens: mogelijkheid van eigen ranking te maken, publicatie van de scores op alle gebruikte indicatoren

– Transparantie en responsiveness tav de instellingen – Interne kwaliteitszorg

Departement Onderwijs en Vorming

- Hoger Onderwijs

DG meetings

• Going beyond rankings • Betere definitie van de gebruikte indicatoren • Nood aan de gemeenschappelijk Europees

transparantieraamwerk om de diversiteit op de verschillende niveaus inzichtelijk te maken: wat zijn de kernindicatoren op: – Instellingsniveau – Programmaniveau – Systeem niveau


Waar willen we naartoe?

• Europees transparantie-raamwerk voor hoger onderwijs: – Indicatoren met beleidsdoelstellingen verbinden

– Meten wat zinvol is

– Gebruik van benchmarking om kwaliteit en capaciteit systeem te verbeteren

– Minimum standaarden voor kwaliteit van informatievoorzieningen


Transparantie Hoger Onderwijs - Vlor

Documents

Transcript of Transparantie Hoger Onderwijs - Vlor