Joint Programmes: a challenge with a future

March 2008 Luc François 1

Joint Programmes: a challenge with a future


Content

I. EUA-guidelines for Joint Programmes

II. Experiences from ‘the field’: Master in Euroculture

III. Manual for Joint Programmes (Flemish case)

IV. Questions


I. EUA guidelines for Joint Programmes

1. Basis assumptions and starting point↓

2. From planning to action ↓

3. Quality Assurance for JP ↓

4. Overview of steps to be taken


1. Basic assumptions and starting points (1/2)

Bear in mind: JP is a highly complex, coordinated activity of partners

Cooperation and coordination are crucial for realisation of a JP

Central coordination structure of JP: mostly happens alongside ‘own’ institutional structures

Good coordination on different levels is necessary and should be considered

Identify preconditions in order to ensure support of partnerinstitutions

See From Planning to Action


1. Basic assumptions and starting points (1/2)

Maintain and enrich the cultural heritage and diversity in a coherently structured programme

Cooperation on the principles of transparency and honesty

Permanent dialogue between all partners involved Sense of ‘common ownership’ of JP Will to work together in international context

(institutional mission statement) Broad involvement and participation of all relevant

stakeholders (students, staff,…) Quality assurance: shared and integrated

responsibility


2. From Planning to Action (1/2)

Shared understanding Language issues Technical terminology

Decision-making and levels of responsibility Decision-making structures: clear strategies

and communication policies Levels of responsibility:

Level Challenges and Actions (tasks)

Network Effective coordination

Subject Appropriate content

Institution Sustainable institutional anchoring


2. From Planning to Action (2/2)

Quality Assurance: coordination needed among the three levels (network-subject-institution)

Appointment of ‘agent’ at each level (competent, trained and responsible person) to assure coherent overall programme

Involvement of students In QA mechanisms Transport of information on good (and less good)

practices


3. Quality Assurance for JP (1/2)

Key questions should be posed:1. Have Learning Outcomes been defined?2. Is the curriculum coherent, target oriented and

sustainable?3. Has a consistent and suitable implementation of

the programme at all partnerinstitutions been ensured?

4. Does (or will) improvement take place in order to ameliorate the programme?


3. Quality Assurance for JP (2/2)

Because of broad ambition and complexity of JP, three additional elements must be considered:

5. Explicit unique dimension of the JP6. Different organisational cultures and values need

to be balanced7. Recognition issues need to be solved


4. Overview of steps to be taken

Setting up a new Joint Programme:1. Idea2. Concept (outline)3. Planning (in detail)4. Agreement 5. DOING the programme

Evaluation of a running Joint Programme1. Joint Analysis2. Action plan for improvement3. External evaluation


II. Experiences from the ‘field’: Master in Euroculture

° 1999 Aim: provide students good comprehension of

overall aspects in the European integration process

Partners in the Network: Groningen (Nl): coordinator Göttingen (G) Krakow (Pl) Olomouc (Cz.R) Strasbourg (F) Udine (I) Uppsala (Se)


Master in Euroculture

Structure of the Programme 90 ECTS 1st semester: home university Intensive Programme: organising partner 2nd semester: host university 3rd semester: internship-training and Master thesis Language: English

Selected as Erasmus Mundus Programme


Master in Euroculture: advantages and disadvantages

+ Partners ‘in crime’: same goal+ Interesting structure for students and staff:

international experience+ Selected as Erasmus Mundus- Ghent University left the network due to different

credits- Different legal regulations: difficult to find the

golden mean- Different tuition fees- Keeping up communication between all partners


III. Manual for Joint Programmes

1. Why a manual?2. Concept of the manual3. Partners involved4. Framework of the manual5. State of affairs


1. Why a manual? (1/2)

EU: promotion of structural cooperation between European institutions (and beyond)

Focus on different means of cooperation: Questions are raised:

Organisation: how to handle? Quality: how to assure? Legal framework: differences per countries Civil effect of diploma’s


2. Why a manual? (2/2)

Confusion of concepts: joint degree ≠ joint programme ≠ joint degree programme

Flanders: No manual available yet (only the EUA guidelines)

Task for the Flemish Bologna Experts!


2. Concept

Idea: website with hyperlinks Hard copy Translation in English (for interested partners)

Manual for interested teachers, staffmembers, …who have to start from scratch

Recommendations for the Flemish Ministry of Education regarding changes in Higher Education Act.


3. Partners involved

Small working group (led by Bologna-experts) but with large support from

International Relations Offices Quality Assurance Offices Legal Affairs Offices Student Administration Offices


4. Framework of the Manual (1/5)

Legal framework: explanation on:

≠ forms of diploma’s and ≠ forms of collaboration Specific legal framework in Flanders on education Specific laws on profession (if applicable) Specific linguistic regulations in Flanders Erasmus Mundus: specific legal elements to be

concerned



Choice of partners: possible ‘traps’:

≠ number of credits (60 vs 90 vs 120) ≠ organisational structure (profession-oriented vs

academic) Quality Assurance Structure of partners Programme: does it fit into the ≠ missions of the

institutions involved?



Development of a JP: steps to be taken

Ideas and expectation of JP Set up of a steering committee and support Set up of joint educational frame of reference Development of the programme: name, goals,

programme, organisational structure, admission requirements, financial matters, infrastructure, scholarships, diploma and diplomasupplement, …



Quality Assurance

Basis = shared vision on QA, transparancy on decision-making level, open communication and engagement

One model of QA for alle partners (incl. PDCA-cycle) Consolidation of JP Evaluation and improvement of JP External QA (visitation-accreditation process)



Cooperation Agreement Financial and legal implications On the institutional level Preferable: co-signed by the ‘agents’ (responsible

persons) of the programme Definitions and glossary Recommendations


5. State of Affairs

Draft has been read by external experts from VLIR (Flemish Interuniversitary Council) VLIR-UOS (University Development Cooperation) VLHORA (Council of Flemish Unversity Colleges) NVAO (Dutch-Flemish Accrediaton Organisation) Department of Education, Flemish Ministry of

Education Adjustment of the Manual based on

recommandations of the external experts Translation of the Manual: foreseen in the near

future Public Presentation: April 2008


Thank you for your attention!

Joint Programmes: a challenge with a future

Documents

Transcript of Joint Programmes: a challenge with a future