the future (challenges) student-centred learning in...

25/04/2016

1

Student-centred learning (SCL)in relation to

Learning Outcomes (LO) &Quality Assurance (QA)

Lucien BollaertInternational QA expert

BFUG7 March 2016Amsterdam

THE FUTURE (challenges)of (subject-specific) QA

in the EHEA afterYerevanLucien Bollaert

independent international QA expert

ECTN Conference/GA25 April 2016

Gdansk

the future QA contents

The European successful(?) QA short story

The future challenges (revised ESG) Student-Centred Learning (SCL) Learning Outcomes (LO) EQA – Transparency & Independence International EQA (recognition)

New concepts of quality & QA & QC Opportunities and threats of subject-

specific QA The QA of the future Conclusions

25/04/2016

2





THE FUTURE (challenges) of (subject-specific) QA

in the EHEA afterYerevan

The European successful(?) QA short story

1999 2000 2003

Berlin

communiqué

ESG

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2015

the future QA European QA short story

25/04/2016

3


Stage of development of EQA against ESG 2013/14

Implementation report 2015, fig. 3.8, p. 98Source BFUG questionnaire


Published institutional strategies for continuous enhancementin the past 5 years 2013/14


25/04/2016

4







The future challenges/revised ESGStudent-Centred Learning

(SCL)

the future QA revised ESG : SCL

Importance of SCL elements in EHEA countries group A(countries where steering docs mention SCL)

Implementation report 2015, p. 73Source BFUG questionnaire

25/04/2016

5

Importance of SCL elements in EHEA countries group B(countries where steering docs do not mention SCL)

Implementation report 2015, p. 74Source BFUG questionnaire


the future QA revision ESG : SCL

Yerevan Conference : approval of revised ESGESG Standard 1.3 :

Student-centred Learning, Teaching and Assessment

“Institutions should ensure that the programmes are delivered in a way that encouragesstudents to take an active role in creating the learning process, and that the assessment of students reflects this approach.”

agreed & proposed by E4+ (incl. EUA, EURASHE & EI)

25/04/2016

6


Guidelines 1.3 :“Student-centred learning and teaching plays an

important role in stimulating students’ motivation, self-reflection and engagement in the learning process. (…)

The implementation of student-centred learning and teaching

- respects and attends to the diversity of students and their needs, enabling flexible learning paths;

- considers and uses different modes of delivery, whereappropriate;

- flexibly uses a variety of pedagogical methods;- encourages a sense of autonomy in the learning, while

ensuring adequate guidance and support from the teacher; (…)

agreed and proposed by the E4+ (incl. ESU)

SCL Survey Analysis 2011 SCL Theory & Practice 2011

SCL Toolkit 2014


25/04/2016

7

“Student-Centred Learning represents both a mindset and a culture within a given highereducation institution and is

learning approach (…) characterised by innovativemethods of teaching which aim to promotelearning in communication with teachers and other learners and which

take students seriously as active participants in theirown learning,

forstering transferable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking and reflective thinking.”

Time for Student-Centred Learning (T4SCL) Toolkit, 2011

QUALITY CULTUREthe future QA revised ESG : SCL

“Student-centered instruction (SCI) is aninstructional approach in which students influencethe content, activities, materials, and pace of learning. (…)

The instructor provides students with opportunitiesto learn independently and from one another and coaches them in skills they need to do soeffectively. (…)

Properly implemented SCI can lead to increasedmotivation to learn, greater retention of knowledge, deeper understanding, and more positive attitudes towards the subject beingtaught.”

Collins & O’Brien(2003),Greenwood Dictionary of Education,Westport


25/04/2016

8

5 Characteristics of Learner-centered teaching

1. SCL engages students in the hard, messy work of learning.

2. SCL includes explicit skill instructions.3. SCL encourages students to reflect on what they

are learning and how they are learning it.4. SCL motivates students by giving them some

control over learning processes.5. SCL encourages collaboration.

Weimer, M. (2015)


SCL integral components FLEXIBILITY and freedom in terms of time & structure of

learning; More and better QUALITY TEACHERS who strive to

SHARE their knowledge; A clear UNDERSTANDING of students by teachers; A FLAT HIERARCHY within HEIs; Teacher RESPONSIBILITY for student EMPOWERMENT; A continuous ongoing IMPROVEMENT process; A POSITIVE ATTITUDE by teachers & students with the aim

of improving the LEARNING EXPERIENCE; A relationship of MUTUAL ASSERTIVENESS between

students & teachers; A focus on LEARNING OUTCOMES which enable

GENUINE LEARNING & DEEP UNDERSTANDING;Student-Centred Learning (T4SCL) Toolkit, 2011, 2014


25/04/2016

9

The Learning Pyramid

10%20%30%

50%75%90%

National Training Laboratories, Bethel, Maine








The future challenges/revised ESGLearning Outcomes

(LO)

25/04/2016

10

Standard 1.2 :

Design and Approval of Programmes“(…) The programmes should be designed so

that they meet the objectives set for them, including the intended learning outcomes. (…)

the future QA revised ESG : LO

Steering and/or encouraging LOs in national policy 2013/14



25/04/2016

11

Learning outcomes : need of common languageneed of common understanding

21

LO = what a learner is supposed to know &be able to do after a successful study

competence = ability to integrateknowledge, skills & attitude to be successfulin a certain context


New competences needed Communication, problem-solving, creativity, team-work

Research skills, both academic as well as ‘mode 2’ (applied) and mixtures

Inter-disciplinary but with skill and attitude to go deep into a particular discipline

Meta-cognition

Willingness to change, risk-taking, entrepreneurial

‘Global competences’ (e.g. computer skills)

Visionary & inspirational leadership

HOW YOU ENGAGE IN THE WORLD

= ATTITUDES! CHARACTER! PERSONALITY(see HRM in industry and business)

CERTAINLY ON TEAM LEVEL


25/04/2016

12

More or other knowledge & skills are not enough!

23


http://www.iftf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/images/whatwedo/IFTF_FutureWorkSkillsSummary.gif 24

Technology is not the only motor of innovationthe future QA revised ESG : LO

25/04/2016

13

Competences that make the difference betweeninnovative professionals & others

1,56

1,76

1,76

1,81

1,94

1,95

1,97

1,98

1,99

2,00

2,02

2,05

2,11

2,15

2,18

2,24

2,34

2,44

2,97

1,00 2,00 4,00

assert your authoritynegociate

knowledge of other fieldsperform under pressure

write reports or documentswork productively with othersmobilize capacities of others

use time efficientlymake your meaning clear

use computers and internetwrite and speak a foreign language

coordinate activitiesmaster of your own field

analytical thinkingpresent ideas in audiencealertness to opportunities

willingness to question ideasacquire new knowledge

come with news ideas/solutions

25

OECD


26

Innovative teaching & learning processes

OECD


25/04/2016

14

congruence between LO, learning & assessment LO T & L forms assessment

cognitive lecture end of course exam

tutorials multiple choice

discussions essays

laboratory practical assessment

fieldwork

affective clinical work clinical practice

seminar presentation

peer group project work

presentation co- or peer- &

psychomotoric overall assessment

Kennedy (2007)

DemonstrateKnowledge

ComprehensionApplication

AnalysisSynthesisEvaluation

Integration of beliefs, ideas &

attitudes

Acquisition of physical skills


Standard 1.2 : Design and Approval of Programmes“(…) The programmes should be designed so that

they meet the objectives set for them, includingthe intended learning outcomes. (…)

Guideline 1.3 :Student-centred learning, teaching and

assessment“(…) The assessment allows students to

demonstrate the extent to which the intendedlearning outcomes have been achieved. (…)”


25/04/2016

15

Steering and/or encouraging assessment of LOs 2013/14



Good practices LOs & assessment

https://www.nvao.net/system/files/pdf/Programme%20with%20Case%20Studies-Presenters-List%20of%20Participants.pdf

https://www.nvao.net/peer_learning_event


25/04/2016

16

g

e

n

e

r

i

awards c

s

p

e

c

i

f

i

c

EQF (LLL)

QF EHEA

disc specLO

disc specLO

disc specLO

disc specLO

HEI LO

STPLO

STPLO

STPLO

STPLO

STPLO

Key LO

cLO

cLO

cLO

cLO

cLO

NQF

i n t

(i) n t

H E I

STP

T


Learning outcomes : need of common languageneed of common understanding

32

LO = what a learner is supposed to know &be able to do after a successful study

competence = ability to integrateknowledge, skills & attitude to be successfulin a certain contextMake of the LO LIVING things that are formulated bythe stakeholders concerned, passionately shared bythe whole team and shaping the teaching, learningand assessment practices & formats accordingly !


25/04/2016

17







The future challenges/revised ESGExternal Quality Assurance (EQA)

transparency & independence

the future QA revised ESG : EQA

ESG 2015 part 1 : IQA

ESG 2015 part 2 : EQAStandard 2.1 : Consideration of IQA

“External quality assurance should address the effectiveness of the internal quality assuranceprocesses described in Part 1.”

25/04/2016

18

the future QA revised ESG : EQA - transparency

Standard 2.6 : Reporting

“Full reports by the experts should bepublished, clear and accessible to the academic community, external partners and other interested individuals. If the agency takes any formal decision basedon the reports, the decision should bepublished with the report.”

Publication of critical and negative outcomes by HEIs 2013/14


the future QA revised ESG : EQA - transparency

25/04/2016

19

the future QA revised ESG : EQA - independence

Standard 3.6 : Independence

“Agencies should be independent and act autonomously. They should have full responsibility for their operations and the outcomes of those operations without third party influence.”

Guideline : organisational independence;operational independence; Independence of formal outcomes.

Main outcome of EQA by QAA (2013/14)


the future QA revised ESG : EQA - independence

25/04/2016

20







The future challenges/revised ESGExternal Quality Assurance (EQA)

international

the future QA revised ESG : EQA - international

Yerevan 2015 : approval of the “Europeanapproach of QA of Joint Programmes” :Use & interpretation of ESG in order to audit

a joint programme through through a single audit …

by a(n) (international) panel … coordinated by an EQAR-registered QAA.

But a lot still needs to be done :National frameworks, legislation &

competence; Promotion & information : EQAR PLAGood practices

25/04/2016

21


RIQAA project (2014)

Final report p. 9


Yerevan 2015 communiqué : II. Commitments (the last…)

“to enable our higher educationinstitutions to use a suitable EQAR registered agency for their externalquality assurance process, respecting thenational arrangements for the decisionmaking on QA outcomes.”

25/04/2016

22

Scorecard indicator n°6: level of openness to cross border QA by EQAR registered QAAs









New concepts of quality, QualityAssurance

and Quality Culture

25/04/2016

23

Q as concept of Q QM concept“Exceptional” externally recognised Q control with standards

as high class & benchmarking excellence

“perfect or focus on process with TQM: process control & consistent” everybody involved assessment

training & culture

“fit for Q is functional service satisfaction purpose”customer requirements frameworks & PDCA provider’s needs(mission) strategic TQM

“value for accountability & change & Q competitionmoney” effectiveness against performance indicators

cost = efficiency audits

“transforming” qualitative change enhancement by em-powered participant

Harvey & Green (1993), Harvey (1999), Newton (2007) quality culture

the future QA new concepts of quality, QA & QC

Paradigm shift in concept of Q & QA(M)

early opinions new views

Quality is absolute and fixed Q is relative & multi-

layered

One standard is dominant… QA has many aspects

& determined by the producer Starting point = customers’ needs

The final product is central… Service is vital

and should be inspected Q = result of processes

Quality requirements are fixed Q requirementschange & raise

Quality control by quality unit Q = everybody’s


25/04/2016

24

New definition of quality :

• Quality, as defined by its stakeholders (= international minima standards), is the addedvalue between input and output.

• Quality is the added value between the LOsof the incoming student and those achievedby the outgoing student in relation to whatall stakeholders want and need.


Dirk Van Damme (OECD)

QUALITY

EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIC CHOICE and REALITY

secondary

secondary

QF minimum standard/LO

excellence

HE a

HE b

secondary

HE c

Secondary minimum leaving standards/LO


25/04/2016

25

Q(A) development phases# management & processes results1. Q is result of individual commitment Q is variable

2. Beginning or thinking in processes Q is result of start of systematic approach

3. Organisation is managed Q is guaranteedprofessionally taking into considerationthe existing and wanted quality culture

4. Organisation & management are Q is continuouslysystematically renewed improved with

innovation

5. Organisation is outward-oriented & Q is recognized bystrives towards excellence externals as excellent

international example


intended LO

LO new students study programme achieved LO

use standards& indicators

influenced by

development phase

input outputprocesses

Internal Quality Assurance (QA)

transformation = value added

methodology

tool tool tool tool tool


“QA is a management approach to focus on the quality of theorganisation and is based on participation of all stakeholders in order to

satisfy their expectations and aims as long as possible” (ISO)

25/04/2016

26

“You shouldn’t value what you measure, but you should measure what you value.”

(Headgraves)


intended LO


mission strategy & policies results


influenced by

development phase




methodology



“QA is a management approach to focus on the quality of theorganisation and is based on participation of all stakeholders in order to

satisfy their expectations and aims as long as possible” (ISO)

25/04/2016

27

New vision, mission & (strategic) policy of HE(I)

• Traditionally :

Education : gone global with new stress on globalcompetences fit for global knowledge society of the 21st century

Research : more global than ever through rankings new continuum from fundamental to applied fit for globalchallenges & innovation

Social services/impact : from regional to global

• New vision & mission?

HE(I) as a open & global community of co-creation withall the stakeholders underpinned by a quality culture


“We prepare the leaders of tomorrow.” “We nurture lifelong learners.” “We aim to have a global impact, while serving our local

community.” Gallup (2015) found that more than 50% of vision or

mission statements of HEI share striking similarities, regardless of size, public or private, land-grant status or religious affiliation, or for-profit or not-for-profit.

They may accurately represent the broad views andaspirations of education leaders and their institutions, andthey probably differentiate the institutions from financial services and retail companies…

BUT THEY OFFER LITTLE GUIDANCE TO CURRENT AND FUTURE STUDENTS (and staff).

54

www.gallup.com/businessjournal/184538/hard-differentiate-one-higher-brand.aspx


25/04/2016

28

GALLUP’s RECOMMENDATIONS : Establish a clear and differentiated purpose by

answering the questions: “Why do we exist?” and “Whatvalue do we provide to the world?”.

Align the brand by telling the outside world what theinstitution is and what it will deliver. (see mission)

Support identity with engaged culture primarilyincluding the student experiences that should support the HEI’s purpose and brand.

Gallup (2015)www.gallup.com/businessjournal/184538/hard-differentiate-one-higher-brand.aspx

55


START WITH THE QUESTION “WHY ?”THEN ASK “HOW ?”

FINALLY ASK “WHAT ?”Simon Sinek (2009)

56


25/04/2016

29

“You have to earn trust by communicating and demonstrating that you share the same values and beliefs. You have to talk about your WHY and prove it with WHAT you do. Again, a WHY is just a belief. HOWs are the actions we take to realize that belief, and WHATs are the results of those actions. When all three are in balance, trust is built and value is perceived.”

Simon Sinek (2009), p. 84-85

57


Why do we need quality (assurance) management?

Why do we want quality?Why are we in (higher) education?Why do we want a better society?Why do we need a better world?Why do we want a better life?

58


25/04/2016

30

intended LO


mission strategy & policies results


influenced by

development phase

influence on

development

phases




underlying principles

underlying (hidden) values

methodology



Underlying principles & values

Leading with vision, inspiration and integrity by leaders acting as a role model for their values and ethics (responsibility, people management…)

Managing through structured and strategically aligned processes using fact-based decision making

Integrated system interconnecting all processes and measuring theirperformances;

Trust in continuous improvement;

Succeeding by people who are valued in a culture of empowerment forbalanced achievement of organisational and personal goals

(democracy)


25/04/2016

31

“A company is a culture. A group of people brought together around a common set of values and beliefs. It’s not products or services that bind a company together. It’s not size and might that make a company strong, it’s the culture – the strong sense of beliefs and values that everyone, from the CEO to the receptionist, all share. So the logic follows, the goal is not to hire people who simply have a skill set you need, the goal is to hire people who believe what you believe.”

Simon Senik (2009), p. 90

61


“A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked and, therefore, to be thought to new members as the way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.”

Schein (1985, 2004 3rd ed.), Organisational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, p. 90

62


25/04/2016

32

Short story of Quality Culture in Europe

Harvey &

Stensaker

Quality

Culture

organizational QA in HE Flanders

culture Bologna

Berings

project

1970s-80s 2002-06 2006 2008 2009-12 20131980s-90s


Quality Culture (existing & desired)

dr. Berings, Dries (2011)


25/04/2016

33

Elements of quality culture


Sattler, Götzen & Sonntag (EQAF 2013), University of Heidelberg


25/04/2016

34

quality as resultQC + QA = presumable quality result

O + M + ++

M + O + ++

O + M - +

M + O - presumably + (variable)

O - M + presumably - (variable)

M - O + presumably - (variable)

O - M - --

M - O - --O = overwhelming M = minor (strength)

Bollaert, L. (2014), A Manual for Internal QA in HE, Berlin/Brussels


There always is a quality culture, just as there always is an organisational culture.There can be a positive or negative quality

(sub)culture.There is no one-to-one relationship between

quality culture, QA and the resulting/existing quality.The relationship between quality, quality culture and

QA is dialectic.“A (positive) Quality Culture is that part of organisational

culture in which all stakeholders concerned engage for the creation of quality and the ambition of continuing enhancement through quality assurance.” Lucien Bollaert (2014)

68


25/04/2016

35







Opportunies and threatsof subject-specific Quality Assurance

Swing to QA institutional level, more generic standards & ownership of EQA improve the need of subject-specific peers & expertise. Working with learning outcomes improves the need

of subject-specific expertise to combine with transferable competences needed in study programmes, assessment, IQA & EQA.The choice of the HEI to choose a more suitable

EQAR-registered agency opens opportunities to subject-specific QA.The revised ESG as well as ENQA full membership

and EQAR registration brings new challenges to subject-specific QA (independence, reporting, student participation).

70

the future QA O & T subject-specific QA

25/04/2016

36

Possible EQA activities of subject-specific QAAs

ECTN itself : ESG, EQAR registration, recognition of (international) decision, only label? In collaboration with the (inter)national QAA :

subject-specific & international peers out of ECTN pool, training, label at the same time? IQA or enhancement : ECTN subject-specific &

international peers & QA experts, knowing subculture of chemistry studies (laboratories), but making clear difference between consultancy and assessment.Eurolabels : credibility

71

the future QA O & T subject-specific QA







The Quality Assurance (QA)of the future

25/04/2016

37

dimensions of quality & QA

GLOBAL SOCIETY

21st c competences

research & innovation

services to society

input processes output

QA (management) system

mission/input LO

ach.LO/results

methodologyinstruments & tools

underlying principlesunderlying values

Q U A L I T Y

C U L T U R E

QUALITY

learner

teacherL

environment

IQF

NQFinput LO

NQF

IQF

ach.LO

the future QA QA of the future

• Still important potential but conditions of its initial design have changed. So a new vision if needed, not just technicaadjustments.

• Policy making is hindered by the lack of sufficient evidence.

• One of the main shortcomings has been the exaggerated emphasis on structures and bureaucratic ways of implementatioat the detriment of content and substance.

• Advance excellence in teaching and learning in European HE

•The challenge is to continue the push for excellence while respecting autonomy and the culture of self-development.

•Rankings provide a partial picture of what a university is and does. It remains an open question whether ranking measures arerelated to QA or organizational effectiveness.

Future of HE – 2nd Bologna Process Researchers’ Conference (Bucharest, 24-26 November 2014) :


25/04/2016

38

Findings : QA is applied very differently and it is

reflected in different policies and practices. ESG guide national and institutional

practices, but are not commonly known outside the QA community.

There is a need to pay more attention to the role of students

Transnational QA has both benefits and challenges. In many countries national legislative framework is inhibiting such reviews.


QA recommendations to HEIs: Use revised ESG for creating a quality

culture with all stakeholders Define critical points in students’

experience and put in place more innovative support structures to equip students with threshold capital.

Improve communication and information internally & externally.

Improve data collections.


25/04/2016

39

QA recommendations to governments:

Create national QA forums for dialogue and communication

Find solutions for opening HE systems to cross-border QA

Reduce bureaucratic QA reporting requirements

Consider for the purpose of QA broader contexts and factors, such as: demography, globalisation, technology, HEI’s social responsibility, poverty, climate, sustainable development

Consider that quality is a multidimensional concept determined by other processes outside QA as well.

Create avenues for a better dialogue between research and decision-making using the new ESG.








Conclusions

25/04/2016

40

the need of a new generation of QA taking into account new contexts, challenges, concepts of

contextual quality, the dimension of quality culture, and stakeholders’ involvement and commitment

doing away with bureaucratic window-dressing

replacing it with innovative means of ownership of quality, quality policy and QA by those who create quality and all stakeholders concerned using meaningful indicators vs national metrixs

related to the vision, mission, (strategic) policy of a HEI/study programme and its students’ life-times and employability

linked with research and social responsibility/relevance

breaking QA open internationally ...

not in a free market, but one regulated by ESG & EQAR

the future QA conclusions

Quality Assurance of the near future : ARE WE READY?

From study programme to institutional level : ready? robust?

Global mission & (strategic) policy vs budget cuts!

Vision of co-creative community with all stakeholders education –(applied) research – impact to society (from local to global)

Student-centred learning, co-creation of learning (revised ESG)

Learning outcomes : 21st century competences really achieved | LLL | Social relevance - employability

More generic & less standards – essential indicators : risk based approach (metrixs) vs own (strategic) indicators

Increase of professional control & labels

Internationalisation of QA : joint programmes, QAAs, international recognition through single audit

Quality culture : acknowledge existing & wanted, shared values

80

The future QA conclusions

25/04/2016

41



25/04/2016

42

THANKS

Q & A

the future (challenges) student-centred learning in...

Documents