Enhancing Quality in Higher Education

In October 2010, we as members of the audit panel visited three institutions for professional higher education in Croatia. We talked with management, staff and students, very quality driven here in Zagreb, especially dedicated in Slavonski Brod, and exceptionally energetic in Knin.
Now it is March 2011. The audit reports are written, the outcomes are known, strengths and weaknesses have been identified, recommendations are made. And during this conference today, we will join forces to take quality assurance in Croatian higher education one step further. We are able to do that thanks to the support of the Flemish Government in Brussels and the pilot project coordinated by NVAO in The Hague.

Participating in the event are not only the three institutions in Zagreb, Slavonski Brod and Knin, but all members of the Croatian Council of Universities and University Colleges of Applied Sciences, as well as quality experts from Agency for Science and Higher Education (ASHE) and NVAO. In bringing all these partners together this international pilot project is truly a joint effort in quality assurance.

During the audit process we had very interesting (and also very long) discussions about the criteria to be met and the recommendations to be made. Let me share some of the panel’s observations with you.

The institutional audits dealt with the quality assurance system of institutions, not with the quality of the individual programmes. More than once people the panel met were under the misapprehension that the quality of individual programmes was the subject on review rather than the quality assurance system of the institution.

All three institutions under review were founded only a couple of years ago, and are therefore quite young. Not only the institutions are recently started, also professional higher education is fairly new in Croatia. Without any doubt all three universities fulfil a task of great importance both from an educational and an economic perspective. Local and regional entrepreneurs are involved in many activities and show a keen interest in the institutions.

Indeed, as we witnessed in Slavonski Brod and Knin, professional education is of high importance for the development of the region, and the universities have the full support of the local and state government. I myself have been rector (or vice-chancellor) for 16 years of Hasselt University, established 40 years ago (in 1971) in a region less developed than the rest of Flanders. Compared to other universities like Leuven (founded in the Middle Ages) we are young. But the economic relevance is there, and higher education gave regional development a boost it so desperately needed; it still does.

Given the recent start of the Croatian institutions, obviously some quality related issues are not yet fully covered. Areas of interest for future development are for example the use of data and analyses in the monitoring of processes, the effective use of the PDCA -cycle, and the structural involvement of all stakeholders including students. At this stage, policies are still being developed or if developed, they are not yet fully implemented. Therefore, the effectiveness of some quality procedures could not yet be established.

At the start, surely huge efforts were needed to establish these new institutions for professional higher education. Indeed, a lot of work has been done to develop new type of programmes, to attract new staff and students, to deliver quality at very short notice and often with limited means. It is only due to great perseverance and great commitment that they have been able to fulfil this challenging task. Staff were found to be highly committed to their university, and took pride in the collective achievements. Their engagement and loyalty is certainly an asset to be valued.

When in Slavonski Brod, it was made clear that at the very beginning absolute priority was given to the basics, that is: offering learning opportunities to all incoming students. These basics imply dedicated staff and adequate facilities. Even now, this institution still has to cope with various difficulties related to basic teaching and learning provisions. As a result, the quality assurance system is still under construction.

Even so, all three universities managed to introduce a quality culture while building the institutions. Both management and staff seem to be determined to deliver quality programmes, and many activities are being developed to create a quality driven environment. The panel even identified a feature of good practice, here in Zagreb, where management and staff are fully committed to the college’s quality aims and objectives. They operate as a dynamic team of professionals sharing the same quality values and defining the college’s quality culture. And also stakeholders participate actively in the quality culture.

Student satisfaction at the three institutions we visited is high. Students we talked to were all very enthusiastic about their study programmes, and there was absolutely no doubt about their determination to make the most of the opportunities offered to them. They also declared either to be participating, or to be willing to participate, in various activities set up by quality units within the institutions. And students’ involvement in quality matters is a very comforting thought.

Another observation concerns the extent in which internationalisation is on the agenda. The panel feels internationalisation needs to be a priority as it is conducive to enhancing the overall quality of the teaching and learning opportunities, also at the bachelor’s level. All three institutions are internationally orientated in more than one way. Participating in this international pilot project is a good example. And all have a network of international contacts, agreements and partnerships. But internationalisation also holds constraints in terms of recent financial and economic setbacks. These obviously caused delays in the further internationalisation of activities.

The panel of course acknowledges that while building up the institutions, there were many challenges due to legal, logistic and financial constraints. At the same time, being still young institutions they can grasp this opportunity to introduce a quality system fit for purpose. In doing so, a challenge can be turned into an opportunity. And this might apply to all of you.

Of course the major challenge is the implementation of the Bologna process in Croatian higher education. The Bologna Declaration had a major impact throughout Europe, and also in Croatia. Bologna is about introducing standards for academic degrees, about introducing bachelor and masters and the European credit transfer system (ECTS). It’s is also – and that is the main topic for today – about quality assurance. And when we talk about quality assurance in higher education today, we immediately think in terms of the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG). It is the panel’s belief that ESG should be leading from the early start of every new institution for higher education aspiring to be full partner in the European Higher Education Area.

However, quality assurance is not a prerogative of Bologna. You all know quality systems such as ISO and quality instruments such as SWOT-analyses and PDCA-cycli. So what makes ESG so special? These standards and guidelines are developed by peers to the benefit of all institutions of higher education in Europe. These standards and guidelines provide a framework for a quality assurance system fit for purpose. And quite a number of the panel’s recommendations refer to this: a system fit for purpose. And being still young, some institutions might want to consider to join forces with external professionals for the further development and implementation of their quality system. The purpose is to ensure that you move in the right direction (of ESG), and fully profit from the outcomes of the pilot project. Also appropriate training facilities should be provided for staff and for all those active in the university’s quality system, and that includes students. Zagreb, for instance, already has experience in training its staff, but needs to develop plans to extend these training facilities to students.

Quality assurance also involves reviews. Internal and external reviews help the institution to identify strengths and weaknesses. Some of you underwent already various reviews, others are just starting. Reviews come in different forms and shapes, and can result in recommendations for improvement, in formal assessments, even in accreditation decisions. Whatever the purpose of the review, external validation is vital to create a climate of trust essential to all stakeholders, again including students. And when the management is capable of establishing a certain degree of trust it allows creative energy to be directed towards quality enhancement.

Trust will also see to it that work is done as a team, and we all know teamwork is needed to deliver quality. During the audits the panel was pleasantly surprised, therefore, that most activities were indeed the result of joint efforts although also in that area some points of improvement have been identified. A shared vision on quality, for instance, is not yet fully developed in all institutions. Also where there is trust and team spirit one can do with less rules and regulations, one can try to reduce the burden of bureaucracy and paperwork, and to simplify the procedures. As said before, it is the panel’s firm belief that a quality system should provide a framework for adequate quality management. It should be clear that the panel is not necessarily looking for additional documents. On the contrary, in the long run over regulation might undermine the institution’s flexibility and dynamics.

Another major objective of Bologna is related to mobility both inbound and outbound, both students and staff. At present, mobility in the institutions under review is primarily directed towards neighbouring countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. Access to each other’s educational programmes is easier because of the good understanding of the Croatian language in the region. Mobility is also restricted due to financial impediments. Even so, most of the institutions receive incoming students, and a limited number of visiting lecturers has been recorded.

In order to enhance mobility, however, extra efforts are needed in terms of offering courses in English and English languages courses, introducing ECTS and intended learning outcomes, and last but not least providing extra funding. Not easy to work on all these items at the same time, but it seems that all three institutions are moving in that direction, all be at a different pace.

During the audits, the panel noticed that the various constraints do not withhold the institutions from investing in a quality assurance system. A key role in a good functioning quality system is communication with stakeholders, that is with all stakeholders meaning staff, students and the professional field.

Being young institutions the number of programmes and the number of stakeholders is rather limited. Hence communication is mainly informal, and also quality issues are primarily discussed in an informal way. And although informal communication on quality assurance is essential major processes should be formalised. It is desirable, therefore, that institutions make more systematic, effective and evident use of data and analyses in monitoring its processes. In short, a prominent and active role for all relevant stakeholders is called for.

A network of stakeholders should be interpreted in the widest sense. It appears that most polytechnics in Croatia cooperate quite easily with universities. It would be interesting, though, to extend the institutional network more explicitly towards other polytechnics. Partnership with Croatian polytechnics can be highly beneficial to all partners concerned. After all, you all were founded a short time ago, and you all dealt with similar problems during the initial stages. But you not only suffered but certainly also gained from your fresh start and lack of past burdens. Working together on issues like defining intended learning outcomes or mobility of students can be conducive for the individual polytechnic and for professional higher education in Croatia at large.

And this institutional network needs to be developed not only within the region but also at a national and international level. The same applies for the network with the professional field. Zagreb, for example, has managed to involve major businesses, both national and international, in all quality matters and at all levels of the educational process.

Again, all stakeholders need to be involved. In order to achieve this goal, information on quality assurance should be made easily accessible for all stakeholders for reasons of transparency and maximum involvement of all stakeholders. Launching a special webpage with all relevant documents on quality assurance is a good start. A complete set of documents regarding the quality system and its various (sub)committees needs to be easily accessible preferably on the university’s website and preferably also in English. Especially students should be able to find all necessary information on student’s involvement without too much effort. The website is the perfect platform for publishing reports and the latest news on quality issues. And needless to say the information needs to be up-to-date in order to be relevant.

My last words are words of gratitude towards the three institutions participating in the pilot project, gratitude because they welcomed us most heartily within the walls of your institution, because they were open and frank, because they invited us to come and evaluate complicated and delicate matters, because they delivered all information needed even at the last minute (especially in the audit trails), because their professionalism made it possible to discuss matters as peers. And that’s an experience to be cherished.

Professor Harry Martens, PhD, Hasselt University, Belgium (chair audit panel)