Quality assurance

from control to quality

Bert van der ZwaanRector Magnificus

23 november 2015, UKÄ conference, Stockholm Sweden

2

Outline

o The current international debate on quality assurance in a nutshell

o A very brief summary of the Dutch system

o Utrecht University: - The UU-backbone of quality assurance- Step by step interventions since 2002- Next steps

3

The international debate: between two extremes

Quality assurance always moves between two extremes: (external) control and sanctions on the one hand, and realising an internalized quality culture on the other

* Control and sanctions: high cost, encroachment on the freedom of the professional. Has to be repeated continually but is easy to carry out

* Quality culture: lower cost, bigger commitment of the professional. Requires constant maintenance and is difficult to achieve

4

Tendency today: a shift away from external pressure

Autonomy and co-regulation are identified (e.g. HEFCE) as the most important principles for quality assessment:

o The main responsibility for quality is seen to rest with each provider

o Autonomy is seen to allow institutions to develop in line with their individual strategy and mission

o Co-regulation is seen to have a supportive role behind the primacy of institutional autonomy, helping to maintain high standards and providing additional, external support

Source: HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England 2015: Consultation Document

5

The Dutch quality assurance system

Programme accreditation in combination with an assessment of the institution. However, the Dutch universities prefer full institutional accreditation, autonomy and “couleur locale”

There is a lot of debate on increased bureaucracy and limited effect of inspection. Hence, decreasing commitment and support

Current debate: what is the value of this “inspection circus”?

6

Utrecht University: general philosophy of quality assurance

Gradual decrease of control and sanctions on the one hand, and stepwise increase of selfregulation and enhancement of a quality culture on the other.

We hope that by emphasizing the importance of a quality culture, the organisation develops:

o from individual to collective professionalism;

o towards a safe working environment focussed on learning from and with each other, stimulating improvement and development.

7

Utrecht University

Mission:

Academically train young people, challenge them to explore the boundaries of their talents, and prepare them for the rest of their lives where they will be able to contribute meaningfully to the society of the future

8

Utrecht University: from theory to practice

o The mission on teaching and education should be widely supported within the university (it is!). Important: the mission puts the professional in the driver’s seat

o The mission has been translated into a directive regarding education which is binding: the limits of freedom are clear.

The directive deals with philosophy, form and shape of teaching, not with content

o The directive is constantly being evaluated and renewed

All programmes within the university are checked against the stipulations of the directive before being approved (internal certification system)

9

From theory to practice: the work never stops

Stepwise interventions since introduction of the Bologna model:

2002: First elements of the Utrecht education model

2007: Evaluation and further improvement

2011: Great overhaul of the system

10

The backbone (2002)

The first elements of Utrecht education model

o Make a clear distinction between bachelor and master

o Provide flexibility and choice for the student (including strong role for tutors)

o Aspire to teach in a personal and activating manner. This requires commitment of both students and teachers, small groups and innovative didactics

o Focus on staff development (BKO/SKO: teaching qualifications)

11

Steps in 2007: first step towards trust as basis for governance

o Try to find tailor-made approaches - close to the teaching practice, recognize the “couleur locale”

- focus on What, not on How

o Set up of strong informal networks next to the formal one

o Strengthen position of study director as linking pin

12

Interventions in 2011: overhaul of the system

Further on the road of stimulating a quality culture by

- financial incentives

- measures dealing with the process of quality assurance

- enhancing professionalism

13

Financial incentives

• Teaching innovation fund (2 Meuro/yr)

• More money available for teaching in small groups (10 Meuro/yr)

14

Process

• Improved planning and control cycle; closed plan-do-check-act cycle

• Introduction balanced scorecard, provides a benchmark

• Annual meeting between rector and dean on quality assurance, using the balanced scorecard and the outcome of the P&C-cycle

• Internal audits by peers (“critical friends”)

• Maximum of transparency about mishaps and improvements (naming and a bit of shaming)

15

Empowerment of faculty

o Expand the Center of Excellence in University TeachingTeaching fellowsTraining programme for study directorsTeaching Academy Utrecht University (TAUU)

o Create more Teaching Professorso Strengthen the informal networks: annual 24 hour meeting of rector

with study directors, networks of study directors and vice-deans, “breakfast with the rector”, continue and expand the annual teaching fair

Effect: increase exchange of best practices and collective professionalism

16

Interventions underway……..

o Invest in increasing student involvement- audits carried out by students- better participation in course evaluations- organise a better feedback loop- increase transparency surrounding measures to improve

o Improve (and expand) peer review by critical friends

o Mandatory refresher courses BKO en SKO

o Tenure track Teaching Professor

……..because good education is always work in progress

17

Bert van der Zwaang.j.vanderzwaan@uu.nl

Thank you