1 / 14

Challenges of Quality Assurance in Finnish higher education Prof. Jussi Välimaa

Challenges of Quality Assurance in Finnish higher education Prof. Jussi Välimaa. Institute for Educational Research University of Jyväskylä, Finland. I European Contexts: the Bologna Process. the dynamics of standardization / homogenisation

jetta
Download Presentation

Challenges of Quality Assurance in Finnish higher education Prof. Jussi Välimaa

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Challenges of Quality Assurance in Finnish higher educationProf.Jussi Välimaa Institute for Educational Research University of Jyväskylä, Finland

  2. I European Contexts: the Bologna Process • the dynamics of standardization / homogenisation • emerging competitive horizons for academic basic units • different perspectives to which academic personnel can orientate their efforts in relation to the mission of the university (global, national, local)

  3. II Finnish Context: Confidence vs. Control • starting point: success in global educational markets • basic tension: evaluation as an instrument for development vs. accreditation of Quality Assurance (QA) Systems • Nordic traditions (equality & confidence) vs. Global competition (quality control) • -> FINHEEC will audit Institutional Quality Assurance Systems both in Polytechnics (or Universities of Applied Sciences) and in Universities by 2010 (Välimaa 2004)

  4. III Quality Assurance in Finnish Higher Education Institutions • Polytechnics are more advanced in the creation of quality assurance systems • they have (a forced) tradition to do it (licenses to operate based on institutional evaluation processes) • Polytechnics are oriented to teaching

  5. Universities lack both of these elements: • weak traditions in creating QA systems • advanced QA systems in research • -> confusion on how to do it in teaching and management activities • great variation among universities & basic units

  6. Quality assurance system assessed by the unit heads (N=235) Scale: 1=strongly disagree…. 5=strongly agree (Ursin 2006)

  7. The present state of the QA system at the basic unit and the university, % (Ursin 2006)

  8. Great variation among universities and their basic units related to: • 1) institutional traditions & • 2) disciplinary cultures • Main challenge in the institutional level: the creation of institutional quality assurance handbooks

  9. IV Challenges of QA in Teaching Activities • evaluations are normal routines in all universities • notion: evaluation (often) equals to a feedback questionnaire filled by a student

  10. Main Challenges: • 1. How to combine evaluation activities with the improvement of teaching • from the processes of evaluation to the structures of quality assurance ? • The role of underlying assumptions of teaching and learning in quality assurance-thinking: • behaviourist vs. constructivist ideas? (Ursin 2005)

  11. 2. How to improve university teachers’ pedagogical skills and qualifications • Pedaforum from the early 1990s • activities & structures (teaching development units) in all universities • -> pedagogical training courses & programmes • academic (research-based) career ladders • -> need for changes in legislation (?)

  12. 3. How to manage disciplinary-based variation in the definitions of teaching, teaching development & quality assurance • -internal (disciplinary & academic) vs. external (control oriented) criteria in quality assurance • The creation of a moderate understanding concerning the basic concepts (quality, assurance, teaching)

  13. 4. Confidence vs. Control? • quality assurance system: the instrument of control or improvement? • -> ownership of the institutional quality assurance systems • -> disciplinary sensitivity (not a strict standardised model) • -> flexible system (allows innovations)

  14. References • Ursin, J. (2005) Introducing Internal Quality Assurance into Finnish Universities –The Case of teaching and learning • Ursin, J. (2006) Lisäbyrokratiaa vai aitoa kehittämistä? Laadunvarmistujärjestelmä ainelaitoksen arjessa. Esitelmä Korkeakoulutuksen kohtauspaikalla 18.4.2006 • Välimaa, J. (2004) ‘Three Rounds of Evaluation and the Idea of Accreditation in Finnish Higher Education’, in Schwarz, S. & Westerheijden, D.F. (eds.) Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area.Dordrecht: Kluwer, 101-126.

More Related