5th European Quality Assurance Forum

Fernando M. Galán Palomares

Medical student

University of Cantabria

Mª Cristina Pastor Valcárcel

Law student

Miguel Hernández University

Francesc Esteve Mon

Psycho-pedagogical student

Jaume I University

Experiences and

future challenges

Lyon, 19th November 2010

Outline presentation

1. Background

2. The design of student participation in QA (2005-2007)

3. The involvement of students as full members (2008-2010)

4. Review of the experience and future challenges

5. Overview

6. Questions for discussion 2 Campus / University of Cantabria

1.- BACKGROUND

3

• 1975 Death of Francisco Franco

• 1977 1st democratic elections

• 1978 Spanish Constitution

• 1983 University Reform Law (LRU) Internal democracy & Autonomy

• 1986 Accession to the European Economic Community (EEC)

4

Spanish context

5

QA history in Spain

1992/1994

• Universities Council (Ministry of Education)

• Experimental Evaluation Programme of the University Quality

1996/2000

• Universities Council (Ministry of Education)

• 1st National Plan for the Evaluation of the Quality of Universities (PNECU)

2001/2003

• Universities Council (Ministry of Education) ANECA

• 2nd Universities Quality Plan (PCU)

2002

• Council of Ministers

• Setting up of the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA)

• Very little experience in Quality Assurance.

• There was not a tradition of quality assessment.

• Quality culture is not as rooted and widespread as in other European countries.

6

QA culture in Spain

7

Role of the students

What is a student?

Why should they participate in the

University Governance?

Why should we take into account the

things that they say?

Their opinions are not useful for the Institution!

They cannot be full members of the

university community!

• The student has not traditionally been viewed as a full member of the university community.

• The students haven’t had got the same representation rights as other members of the community.

• Student participation was not formally implemented in all universities.

• Nor consolidated participation nationwide. 8

Role of the students

• There is not a hard tradition of participation.

• There are several students’ associations with really different profiles.

• The Coordinating committee of Student Representatives of Public Universities (CREUP) is created in 2001, and represents the majority of the students at national level. (Member of ESU)

• CREUP was focused on consolidating student

participation at institutional and national level, but not in student participation in QA systems.

9

The student movement

• "World Declaration on Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Vision and Action", by the World Conference on Higher Education of UNESCO, recognizes students as one of the main stakeholders in higher education. (1998)

• Into the Bologna Process: the statement of Prague in 2001 recognizes that students are full members of the university community and constructive partners as subjects, active and competent in the establishment and construction of the EHEA.

10

Changing roles…

Student as USER of the Higher Education

Student as STAKEHOLDER in Higher Education

• The statement of Berlin, in 2003, reminds that by the year 2005 national systems of quality assurance should include, inter alia, participation of students.

• By the Bergen Communiqué in 2005 the European ministers of education endorse the document "Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area“, drawn up by ENQA, and providing a framework for quality assurance systems that includes the participation of students in these systems.

11

About student participation in QA

The student participation in Quality Assurance in Spain in 2005 can be seen not as a real demand from the Spanish students, universities or QA agencies; but as a consequence of the Bologna Process implementation in our country.

12

A real need?

2.- THE DESIGN OF STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN QA

(2005-2007)

13

According to the “European Standards and Guidelines”, and aware of the benefits to be gained from incorporating the student point of view in quality assurance policies, ANECA began working on student participation,

but…

HOW TO DO IT? 14

2005 “in the beginning…”

IV ANECA Forum: Students and quality policies (2005)

• Debate about student participation in quality assurance policies in higher education.

• Students and their representatives are not often viewed as mature adults, which hinders their participation.

15

Meeting the students…

ANECA Working Group for Student Participation in Quality Policies (GATPEPC)

• Call for the students with interest in Quality Assurance topics. (2006)

• Composition: ANECA’s staff (3) and representatives of students (7).

• Aim: propose possible methods for student participation in the processes of the quality assurance agencies.

16

GATPEPC (I)

Working method

• Subgroup 1: searching existing European documents on the involvement of students in quality assurance processes and other useful documents.

• Subgroup 2: analyzing the current situation of student representation in Spain.

Reflection about the benchmarking and the situation of student representation to propose possible ways to improve the student participation in QA.

17

GATPEPC (II)

• ANECA hosted an ENQA workshop on the topic "Student Involvement in the Process of quality assurance agencies". (October 2006)

• ANECA external evaluation carried out by ENQA, where the three students who remained members of GATPEPC were invited as audience by the External Evaluation Committee. (June 2007)

18

International incomes

• Hosted by the International University Menéndez Pelayo and co-organized by ANECA and the Ministry of Education

• Focused on “Student participation in quality assessment”.

• For student representatives, quality assurance agencies, vice-rectors for QA and QA technical units.

• To create a space for reflection for the active participation of university students in quality assurance processes in higher education.

19

UIMP Summer School

• ANECA invited some students who attended the UIMP Summer School.

• First experiences of student participation in QA at national level in Spain.

• Students as observer members of the external review committees, but with the same work as any other member of the committee .

• Very positive experience for the students, but also for the other pool members, the agency and the evaluated universities.

20

Institutional Evaluation Programme

1. Meeting the students. 2. Benchmarking. 3. Proposing possible ways. 4. Discussion about the

student participation. 5. Training for students

in QA issues. 6. Checking.

Everything is ready to improve it! 21

Thinking before acting…

3.- THE INVOLVEMENT OF STUDENTS AS FULL MEMBERS

(2008-2010)

22

• Successful participation of students in the IEP.

• Tiny student experts’ pool from the IEP experience.

23

Ready, steady… GO!

• Programme’s aim: teaching assessment.

• December 2007 (verification phase)

• 5 students as full members of the evaluation committees. One per team.

Milestone For the first time in Spain students

participated as full members of committees

24

DOCENTIA programme

• Programme’s aim: to analyze and verify the new proposed degrees and post-degrees that Spanish universities want to introduce. (Official programme by Royal Degree 1393/2007)

• Started on February 2008. • 46 students as full members of the evaluation

committees. One or two per team. The student's point of view takes on added importance since they are familiar with the quality of the university teaching, given that they are the main receivers of this activity.

25

VERIFICA programme

• Programme’s aim: to provide guidance in designing internal quality assurance systems integrating all the activities implemented up until the present time related to degree programmes quality assurance.

• (2008) • Students as full members of the evaluation

committees. One per team.

This programme contributes to promote the student participation in the internal quality assurance systems

designed by the universities.

26

AUDIT programme

• 2008, the Advisory Council of ANECA opened a call for one Spanish university student to attend its standing committee as invited member.

• 2009, coinciding with the renewal of the Advisory Council, ANECA appointed the chairperson of CREUP as full member of this Council.

27

Other student participation

• In Spain there are 17 autonomous regions, 11 of them with a QA regional agency.

• Some of them are making efforts in the same line as ANECA.

• However, not all of them have worked along this line, but it will become necessary to do so in the near future.

28

Regional agencies (11)

• The lack of knowledge on quality assurance among students and students representatives was one of the difficulties that should be overcome.

• “Meetings on Quality in Higher Education” organized by Spanish universities and supported by ANECA.

Some of them for students. 29

Spreading “quality culture”

4.- REVIEW OF THE EXPERIENCE AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

30

The participation of students in QA programmes are generally positive and really appreciated.

• Other evaluators, usually, consider that students play a key role in the assessment and especially for the relevant aspects to students.

• The QA agencies have shown an enrichment of the evaluation reports, expanding and including other aspects not previously taken into account, or which have not been qualified in the same direction.

• Universities have welcomed this participation, for them is an opportunity to expand the analysis and therefore to improve their quality.

31

It’s time to check…

GATPEPC • Area of mutual

understanding between agency and students.

• A feedback forum on student participation in ANECA.

IEP • The students play an active

role during site visits. • Enrichment of the

evaluation reports.

DOCENTIA • Recognition as full

stakeholders . 32

Strengths

VERIFICA

• Possibility of universities getting an unfavorable report for the implementation of a degree if it does not include a set of minimum requirements.

AUDIT

• To optimize the design of internal quality assurance systems.

• Short-term improvement.

Procedures for nomination and appointment • It should be consistent and transparent. • To define a selection profile is an important aspect of the

"legitimacy" of students’ presence in the process.

Training • Training students in specific QA tools to enable them to

develop properly their roles as evaluators.

Human resources • The students have a temporary feature in the time they

will spend at university. Regeneration and renewal. • Is important to plan the human resources required while

taking into account the temporary nature of the students.

33

Weaknesses (I)

Promotion of “quality culture”

• To encourage students who where involved in QA to contribute for the training of their peers.

• To continue raising awareness among students that their participation is important, that they have valuable contributions to make and that their views can help to develop and improve the system.

Development of involved students

• It’s necessary to provide the tools for effective participation and to ensure such participation does not jeopardize any aspect of student development (academic, social, etc.), since it means an extra effort of those who are involved.

34

Weaknesses (II)

• All of the above notes the progress that has taken place in Spain regarding the issue of student participation in QA processes; however, there are still aspects that require improvement.

• It should not be forgotten that there are still some participation levels to be achieved and moreover, it is necessary to consolidate this participation.

• We should overcome these first drawbacks, making them lines of action and improvement, becoming strengths of the process.

35

General review

36

5.- OVERVIEW

For the Spanish higher education system, one of the most important developments provided by the Bologna Process is the establishment and consolidation of quality assurance systems.

The quality assurance, according to standards, procedures and guidelines, at European level, constitutes a framework of mutual trust and recognition, both for higher education institutions and for the stakeholders.

QA in Spain

37

38

Evolution of the process (I)

Bologna Process Stocktaking Reports: Spanish Scorecards 2005/2007/2009

2005 2007 2009

The evolution of the process has been quite quick, as noted by the "Bologna Process stocktaking" reports by Bologna Follow-up Group and the "Bologna with student eyes" reports by ESU.

• Starting from scratch, genuine student participation in QA has been achieved in record time.

• This has meant that sometimes the process was running by its own inertia, and some mistakes were made due to lack of well planning.

39

Evolution of the process (II)

To monitor student participation in QA • This is an important aspect for improving

student participation. • It will help identifying possible gaps and

establishing plans for improvement, correcting our weaknesses.

To consolidate and institutionalize the participation of students in QA

• Not only at national level, also at regional and institutional ones.

• To establish a Spanish quality assurance student experts’ pool, as in other European countries. 40

Future challenges

6.- QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION • How to extend and disseminate the

culture of quality among the

students?

• How to monitor and track student

participation in QA?

• Convenience (advantages and

drawbacks) of the creation of the

Spanish quality assurance student

experts’ pool?

How to do it?

41

“To be surprised, to wonder,

is to begin to understand.”

José Ortega y Gasset Spanish philosopher

42

fernando-miguel.galan@alumnos.unican.es

dec.ssjj_elche@delegacion.umh.es