Claus Nygaard Associate professor, ph.d., senior advisor CBS Learning Lab

1. Claus Nygaard Associate professor, ph.d., senior advisor CBS Learning Lab Copenhagen Business School Denmark

2. Agenda • Systematic and Continuous • Quality Enhancement at CBS • Presentation at OAQ-CRUS Conference in Bern • 2 December 2005 • Internal quality assurance at higher education institutions - requirements and good practices • About CBS • Organisation • Facts and figures • Quality Enhancement • Mission statement • Aims of the learning university • Quality enhancement – a bottom up perspective • Important lessons? • What can be learned from CBS?

3. About CBS

4. CBS Organisation • Staff unit for internal quality enhancement • Consultancy • curriculum development • from teaching to learning • pedagogical issues • supervision • e-learning (design and implementation) • project management • task forces and project groups • Competence development • courses for teachers and administrative staff • supervision • Development of new knowledge and methods • International research, articles, papers

5. CBS key figures (2004)

6. Student enrollment at CBS (2004) (6.055) Study programs at CBS (2004) (45)

7. Administrative full-time staff at CBS (2004) (582) Academic full-time staff at CBS (2004) (443)

8. Full-time and part-time academic staff at CBS (2004)

9. Quality Enhancement

10. Quality enhancement at CBS • Quality is about creating a culture • isembedded in the CBS-mission and strategic focus areas • has strong support from CBS leadership and management • is located at and supported by CBS Learning Lab • involves the university as a whole • is a continuous, systematic activity • requires a focus on both quality enhancement and quality assurance • has an international orientation • is stakeholder-related • usesexternal quality expertise

11. Integrated aspects

12. Mission statement • CBS wants to be among the best higher education institutions in Europe • To be a major contributor to value creation in business and society • Train graduates who will be competitive in the international job market • Develop new research-based knowledge in partnership with companies and • other organizations • Strategic goals • International profile based on a regional foundation • Intensified partnership with the business community • Being a Learning University

13. Quality aims • Develop CBS as a learning university • Empower CBS students to be reflective practitioners • Enhance quality in all study programmes so we educate students who are • competitive on the job market • Develop an internal quality culture safeguarding institutional autonomy and • public accountability • Stimulate internal capacity for self-reflection and change • Promote the exchange of ideas, experiences and good practice

14. CBS Learning Lab • The primary aim of CBS Learning Labs is to work for a continuous enhancement of quality in study programs and teaching on Copenhagen Business School. • Quality indicators: • Study programs have relevant and operational goals • Variation in forms of teaching and examination with integration of ICT • Teaching is oriented towards practise • Teaching is research-based • High student activity based on students being responsible for their own learning processes • Study programs are interdisciplinary • Consistency between goals, study activities and forms of examination

15. CBS’ Quality Circle 5. Transformation - empower students 1. Exceptional - ambition to be among the best in Europe Quality circle 4. Value for money - payback to stakeholders 2. Perfection - develop as a learning university 3. Fitness for purpose - stakeholder-related quality enhancement

16. Students • Academic partners • Corporate partners • Ministry • Students • Teachers • Researchers • External examiners • Advisory Boards 5. Transformation 1. Exceptional Quality circle • Academic staff • Administrative staff • Students • Government • Ministry • Parliament • Taxpayers • Students • Graduates • Employers 4. Value for money 2. Perfection • Students • Business community • Corporate partners • Ministry 3. Fitness for purpose Key Stakeholders

17. Students • Academic partners • Corporate partners • Ministry • Quality as Exceptional- ambition to be among the best in Europe • Learning features: • CEMS Benchmarking (1995) • CRE-Audit (1996), CRE Follow-Up (1998) (now EUA) • EQUIS Accreditation (1999/2000) • EQUIS re-accreditation (2004/2005) • ESMU Benchmarking Programme (since 2002) • Internal Research evaluation (with international peers) – ongoing since 1994 • EVA-Audit of masters’ and bachelor programmes - ongoing, latest 2005

18. Students • Academic partners • Corporate partners • Ministry • Quality as Exceptional- ambition to be among the best in Europe • Example: ESMU Benchmarking • Strategic Management • Management of Teaching, Learning and Assessment • Marketing the University • Internal Quality Assurance • Student Services • Management Information Systems

19. Academic staff • Administrative staff • Students 2. Quality as Perfection - develop as a learning university • Learning features: • Staff recruitment • Staff development • Benchmarking (internal and external) • Quality culture • Curriculum development

20. Academic staff • Administrative staff • Students 2. Quality as Perfection - develop as a learning university • Example: CBS Teaching and Learning Committee • www.CBSEVALUERING.dk • a survey of the dropout rate of students at the Faculty of Languages, Communication and Cultural Studies • CBS ’good practices’ for the embedding of transferable skills in the curriculum according to the educational objectives of the university • Example: CBS Learning Lab • Assistant professor programme in teaching and pedagogical competence • Implementation of SiteScape Forum on all study programmes • Development of a LEARNING STRATEGY FOR CBS (discussed with board of directors, deans, study boards, head of departments, student organisations, assistant professors participating in the assistant professors programme)

21. Student online activities • Our use of SiteScape in a bachelor course: • 1+2 semester 2002-2003: • Ca. 65 students, 11 weeks course, 622 online posts in total • 3+4 semester 2003-2004: • Ca. 55 studerende, 15 weeks course, 458 online posts in total • All users (teachers and students) receive an e-mail digest with all new posts each morning at 5.00 am. • The course is constantly in the mind of the students • Teachers get insight into the knowledge of the students and the development of the course • Students get insight into the knowledge of each other • Studens get access to teachers corrections of assignments and marking • Students get a sense of belonging to a group / the course

22. Students • Business community • Corporate partners • Ministry 3. Quality as fitness for purpose - stakeholder-related quality enhancement • Learning features: • Dialogue with the Business Community • Dialogue with graduates (alumni) • Advisory Boards • Life-long learning

23. Students • Business community • Corporate partners • Ministry 3. Quality as fitness for purpose - stakeholder-related quality enhancement • Examples: • 16 corporate partners • 22 alumni organisations • Career Office (graduate placement) • International CaseCompetition • (100% student run) • Students have internships in companies • (master program in HRM, bachelor program in • business economics and communication) • Students are assigned a mentor from a company • (master program in HRM)

24. Government • Ministry • Parliament • Taxpayers • Students • Graduates • Employers 4. Quality as value for money - payback to stakeholders • Learning features: • External evaluations by the national quality agency (EVA) • Performance indicators (2005-2006) (Ministry) • Performance agreement (2000-2003) (Ministry) • Internal evaluations – feedback to students on webpage • Multiple focus group interviews with employers and alumni regarding drop-out rates, curriculum development, competencies of graduates • Bi-annual qualitative study of the ”learning environment” at CBS (2004)

25. Students • Teachers • Researchers • External examiners • Advisory Boards 5. Quality as transformation - empower students to learn to learn • Learning features: • Continuous quality improvement • Curriculum development with focus on learning rather than teaching (example of our philosophy is in the article by Nygaard & Andersen distributed to this workshop) • Evaluation of transformative learning • Embedding transferable skills into the academic curriculum • Benchmarking (internal and external) – transfer of ’good practice’ • Use of an external expert

26. Students • Teachers • Researchers • External examiners • Advisory Boards 5. Quality as transformation - empower students • Example: CBS Learning Lab • Development and implementation of a learning strategy for the entire organisation • Development of courses for teachers in case-based teaching, applied pedagogics, on-line teaching, supervision, examination • Close links to student organisations (members of the two student organisations on the CBS LL board) • Membership on the Teaching and Learning Committee • Seminars for student members of study boards (”problem oriented learning”, ”to serve as a member of a study board”) • CBS CaseCompetition will be physically located at CBS LL in December 2005 (25 students in their organisation) • Development of ad-hoc inputs and whitepapers for faculty and study boards working with the implementation of a ”learning based pedagogy”

27. Important Lessons?

28. Strengths identified at CBS: • a coherent quality system, systematically applied; • an established quality culture; • good involvement of stakeholders; • the learning lab initiative and the students’ involvement in its inception and management; • effective use of results from quality reviews and processes for the dual purpose of quality improvement and organisational learning; • use of the above for opening up a high level of dialogue between staff and between staff and students; • a strong focus on student outcomes; • effective feedback loops; • transparent information. - Report from Nordic Project on Quality Assurance in Higher Education Institutions (2005)

29. ApproachesHierarchical vs. OrganicTop-down vs. Bottom-up

30. Bad quality enhancement • When it doesn’t work so well: • Projects are run by single • people or a group of people • who are put together because • they have formal positions of • power that gives them ”the right” • to participate. Due to the formal • structure of the group, the decision • power stays within the frame of the • organisation chart, and key actors • have difficulties in changing the • direction, be innovative if they are • not powerful per se.

31. Good quality enhancement • When it works well it is: • Project based, organised • in loosely-coupled networks • of hand-picked key actors • with motivation, drive, and • expert knowledge within the • field in question. Projects • are following the overall • strategy, but decision power • and autonomy is given to the • key actors in the projects. The • formal organisation is put aside, • and groups are manned due to • competencies and ideas.

32. The CBS philosophy • Successful quality enhancement is to be made from an organic, • bottom-up approach where focus is on key stakeholders • An organic, bottom-up approach leads to commitment and • sense of ownership • Quality enhancement in multiple parts of the organisation • requires a well-developed information system • Key stakeholders and key actors have to be brought together • in coordinating the quality enhancement process • Strategy formulation and implementation need constantly to • run throughout the entire organisation