Bologna process developments in the period between Berlin and Bergen ministerial conferences (2003-2005) and half-way stocktaking

by Andrejs Rauhvargers[1] and Olga Dementjeva[2]

Acronyms:

BFUG / – the intergovernmental Bologna Follow-up group
EHEA / – the European Higher Education Area,
ENIC and NARIC / – the European recognition networks of the Council of Europe and
UNESCO (ENIC) and the European Union (NARIC)
ENQA / – European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
ESIB / - European Association of National Students Unions
EUA / - EuropeanUniversity Association
EURASHE / - European Association of Higher Education Institutions
HEI / – higher education institution,
JD / - joint degrees,
LLL / – lifelong learning,
LRC / – the Lisbonrecognition Convention,
quality assurance / – quality assurance,
QF / – qualifications framework.

Tasks, priority areas and monitoring tools

In their Berlincommuniqué of 20 September, 2003 European ministers responsible for higher education set three interim priority areas of the Bologna process: the degree system, quality assurance and recognition of degrees and study credit points. Besides, they made a number of provisions regarding their expectations for progress in creation of the Europea Higher Education Area in the period between their Berlinconference and the next ministerial conference on Bolognaprocess in Bergen on May 19-20, 2005.

The actual progress in implementation of Bologna process has been monitored in several ways described below.

Bologna Socktaking

In their Berlin Communiqué ministers requested to undertake a stocktaking exercise on the progress made in the three priority action lines – quality assurance, two-cycle degree system and recognition of degrees and periods of study.

In March 2004 a working group to carry out the stocktaking exercise was established. The stocktaking working group mainly based its work on: the 2005 national reports[3] on the implementation of Bologna process, for which the stocktaking group had prepared a common format questionnaire, on the results of another questionnaire circulated and analyzed by the Eurydice as well as on the findings of Trends IV report. The stocktaking group presented its report [1] to the Ministerial Meeting in Bergen on May 19-20, 2005.

Trends IV study

Trends IV is already the fourth report in the EUA series of Trends and learning structures in Higher Education reports[4]. Trends IV report differs from its predecessors. The previous Trends reports were based on the information gathered through questionnaires that were initially addressed to the national ministries in charge of higher education and later to both ministries and the rectors’ conferences of the respective countries.

Trends IV study was aimed at providing up-to-date information on changes taking place insideEurope’s HEIs in this collective process of reform. It has therefore been undertaken through extensive field research, with 62 site visits to universities/ HEIs in 29 European countries. Visiting researchers conducted small group interviews with different groups of institutional actors. All groups were asked questions along a common framework. For compatibility with the stocktaking exercise, the questions addressed the implementation of two-cycle structures, recognition, and quality assurance. The selection of institutions for site visits was based upon creating a theoretical sample of different types of institutions (university and non-university, comprehensive and more specialised, metropolitan and regional, research intensive and teaching-oriented).

Bologna seminars

The Bologna follow-up programme for 2003 – 2005 period included fourteen seminars[5]related to different Bologna process aspects: degree structure –seminars ‘Using Learning Outcomes (Edinburgh, 1-2 July 2004) [2]and ‘’Frameworks of Qualifications’ (Copenhagen, 13-14 January 2005) [3], doctoral programmes (Salzburg, 3-5 February 2005) [4], further clarification of bachelor’s degree (St. Petersburg, 25-26 November 2004) [5], new developments with regard to joint degrees (Stockholm, 6-7 May 2004) [6], e-learning and distance education (Ghent, 4-5 June 2004) [7], quality assurance and accreditation– (Santander, 28-30 July 2004 [8] and Warsaw, 14-16 February 2005[9], recognition (Riga, 3-4 December 2004) [10], mobility (Noordwijk, 10-12 October 2004) [11], employability (Bled, 22-23 October, 2004) [12], public responsibility for higher education (Strasbourg, 21-22 September 2004) [13], the social dimension of the EHEA (Paris 27-28 January 2005) [14] and the new generation of higher education legislation (Warsaw, 4-6 November 2004) [15].

The results of these seminars have been summarized in the 2005 Bologna Secretariat General report [16] by Per Nyborg and the most important recommendations have been taken up by the ministers in their Bergen Communiqué [17].

results in the interim priority areas

In their Berlincommuniqué ministershad set three interim priority areas: the degree system, quality assurance and recognition of degrees and study credit points. The following chapters will reflect on the results with regard to these three priority areas, showing the findings of the Stocktaking report, Trends IV report, other reports andresults of the appropriateBologna official seminars.

Quality assurance

While quality assurance has beena Bologna process action line already from the beginning of the process, in the 2003 Berlin communiqué [18] the ministers stated very concrete tasks for the next two-year period.

They stressed that, consistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself and this provides the basis for real accountability of the academic system within the national quality framework. This statement of ministers actually provides for developing quality assurance systems where the primary quality assurance is carried out through the internal quality assurance mechanisms inside the institutions – which is also considered the best way with a view of permanent quality improvement.

The ministers stressed the need to develop mutually shared criteria and methodologies of quality assurance.They agreed that by 2005 national quality assurance systems should include:

  • A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved,
  • Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the publication of results,
  • A system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures,
  • International participation, co-operation and networking.

At the European level, Ministers asked to develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance, to explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies. ENQA was charged with the responsibility for this task which it had to fulfil in cooperation with the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB.

The progress in establishing national quality assurance systems is mainly reflected in the Bologna stocktaking report, while the developments in internal quality assurance of the HEIs and its relation with the external quality assurance systems – in the EUA Trends IV report. Two Bologna seminars have provided input at European level. Finally the European cooperation in quality assurance, including the European standards and guidelines is reflected in the ENQA report.

Findings of the 2005 stocktaking exercise with regard to quality assurance

Existence of a quality assurance system. The stocktaking working group gathered information on the success in the quality assurance priority from two main sources. the Eurydice that gathered information through the national Eurydice agencies, and the national reports prepared according to the format set by the stocktaking working group. The main findings regarding quality assurance were the following [1]. In 22 countries, a quality assurance system is in operation atnational level, it is applied throughout higher education andthere is a clear definition of the responsibilities of agencies andinstitutions. A further 6 countries have a quality assurance system in operation,but it is not applied to all higher education programmes.In 13 countries, the legislation or regulations are adopted or close to adoption and awaiting implementation, or being reviewed inaccordance with Bologna action lines. Still here are 2 countries, where planning or debate on quality assurance system has just begun.

As regards the organisational models in quality assurance agencies,many are entirely independentagencies (as actually required for ENQA membership), and have been set up specifically for the purpose of managing quality assurance. Others may have quality assurance as one of their several duties. In some countries, the quality assurance agency is located withina Ministry or agovernment agency overseeinghigher education.

Key elements of evaluation systems. The stocktaking exercise also checked the implementation of the five key elements of the QA systems:internal assessment, external review, participation of students and international participation.

In 18 countries, all five elements are fully implemented in all highereducation,further 8 countriesare following closely with either all of the elements being in placebut not yet in operation in all higher education, or four of the fiveelements being in operation.

In 9 countries, implementation of an evaluation system including two orthree of these elements has begun, and in 7 countries, implementation ofan evaluation system including one of these elements has begun, orat least preliminary planning is in progress for implementing an evaluationsystem including these elements. In just one country, there is noevaluation system in place at all.The most frequently missing element is the student participation.

Some conclusions from the stocktaking on quality assurance. It is evident that the implementation of quality assurance systems is evolving, there is definitely a huge progress over the past two years and it seems that there are good chances to implement quality assurance systems across the Bologna area over the next coming years. Yet, the countdown for the present moment shows that slightly above half of the countries participating in the Bologna process have implemented quality assurance systems already. This means that, for instance, recognition of individual qualifications can be based on quality assurance for qualifications inabout half of the participating countries.

The stocktaking working group also concluded that there is a risk that excessive emphasis on theprocess could actually displace the end objective – namely, theenhancement of quality in higher education. It is important, therefore, torealize that progress in establishment of quality assurance system it isnot yet an evidence that the culture of quality assurance has filtered through allstrands of the higher education life. In other words, one could say that establishing external quality assurance systems is not enough - theultimate success of ensuring quality higher educationrelies on the willingness of institutions, their staff and their students toembrace systematic quality assurance.

Quality assurance inside the institutions – results of Trends IV study

One clear conclusion of Trends IV [19] study is that universities are increasingly aware of the importance of improving the quality of their activities, and this is expressed in a wide range of processes that go far beyond formal and obligatory responses to the requirements of external quality assurance.

An interesting finding is that there are important differences regarding the effect of Bologna reforms on quality. While at some institutions the external pressures and benchmarks of Bologna process enabled targets to improve quality to be set and reached more quickly, at other institutions, it was felt that improvements in quality had not been considered strategically or in central policy-making, but had rather been dominated by structural discussions concerning which course units to offer at what level.

The results of Trends IV show that the level of activity regarding internal quality processes at higher education institutions hasclearly grown in all parts of Europe, but also that the focus of such activity is largely restricted to teaching andlearning processes. Only one third of HEIs undertake any internal qualityactivity related to research.Much more frequently research is evaluated using peer review, which can be initiated internally by the institution or externally by a national authority and most often involves both an external and an internal evaluation. Internalquality reviews of administration and support services are even rarer.

Student evaluation questionnaires are a tool used everywhere, but there is a wide range of practice in how they are used. At many institutions, faculties and even individual professors may decide whether questionnaires are actually handed out and analysed, and can also influence whether and how the results are taken into account.

Trends IV study showed that the attitude towards the relationship betweeninternal quality and external quality assurance was quite divergent across Europe. The relationship between internal and external quality mechanisms seems to work well in those cases where internal quality processes are still being established. Where the internal quality culture is well established, external quality assurance is often seen as a bureaucraticburden of limited use for institutional development.Institutions find that a well developed internal quality culture should be associatedwith a light external quality approach.Self-evaluation reports provide an interface between internal and external quality assuranceprocesses and are seen as the most usefulpart of quality assurance –on condition that they lead to follow up and concrete implementation.

Institutions were more often critical of programme accreditation. HEIs complainede.g. about the practice of prescribing a list of subjects in which programmes can be offered orpreventing interdisciplinary programmes from being established because of accreditation committees’disciplinary prejudices.

Trends IV research also found clear evidence that success in improving quality within institutions is directly correlated with the degree of institutional autonomy- institutions which display the greatest ownership for internal quality processes are also those with the most functional autonomy.

Seminars on quality assurance

Two of the official Bologna seminars of the 2003-2005 period were related to quality assurance/ accreditation. The seminar “Methodological instruments for assessment and accreditation” was held in Santander on 28-30 July 2004 [8]. It reconfirmed that the networks of agencies will have an important role to play in the establishment of common accreditation criteria and methodologies that may lead to the mutual recognition of their decisions. At the same time it was made clear that in defining these common criteria and methodologies it is necessary to take into account the diversity of the various systems and traditions that will go into the construction of a comparable framework. It also stressed the need for active participation of governments, higher education institutions, quality agencies, teachers and students to establish an effective culture of quality. It stressed the importance of mutual trust among institutions and QA agencies on a basis of greater transparency in accreditation processes and the essential role of promoting peer review process among agencies.

The other seminar concerning accreditation and cooperation of accreditation agencies was held in Warsaw on 14-16 Feb 2005 [9].It stressed the benefits that mutual acquaintance and trust among quality assurance systems can give to recognition of qualifications and encouraged mutual recognition of accreditation decisions. The seminar recommendations also specify the types of cooperation necessary for mutual recognition of accreditation decisions e.g.: regular sharing of information with regard to education and accreditation systems, mutual visits, joint training of experts.

Warsawseminar also recommended, yet not unanimously, that a higher education institution might apply for accreditation from an accreditation body from outside the country and that such external quality assurance can be accepted and recognised if the external accreditation body is recognised by national authorities.

European standards and guidelines for quality assurance

According to the mandate given by the ministers in their BERLIN Communiqué, ENQA in cooperation with EUA, EURASHE and ESIB worked out standards and guidelines for quality assurance [20]. To avoid misunderstandings, it is possibly worth underlining that the standards and guidelines are indeed targeted at quality assurance and not quality as such.Thus, they comprise generic statements on how quality assurance should be organized rather than benchmarks for programmes or institutions. The report providesthree sets of standards and guidelines: for the internal quality assurance of the HEIs, for the external quality assurance of higher education, and for the quality assurance agencies. It is also proposed that European quality assurance agencies will be expected to submit themselves to a cyclical review within five years and that a European register of quality assurance agencies will be established.

Standards for internal quality assurance cover the areas of policy and procedures for quality assurance, approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards, assessment of students, quality assurance of teaching staff, learning resources and student support, information systems and public information.

Standards for external quality assurance include use of internal quality assurance procedures, development of external quality assurance processes, criteria for decisions, processes fit for purpose, reporting, follow-up procedures, periodic reviews and system-wide analyses,

Standards for quality assurance agencies include use of external quality assurance procedures for higher education, official status of the quality assurance agencies, activities of the agencies, resources at their disposal, mission statement, independence, external quality assurance criteria and processes used by the agencies, accountability procedures.

It is supposed that, when the recommendations on standards and guidelines are implemented, the use of agreed standards and guidelines will improve the consistency of quality assurance across the EHEA and provide common reference points to HEIs and to quality assurance agencies. The peer assessment of the agencies and the register should allow to identify credible agencies, improve mutual trust among the agencies and stimulate mutual recognition of quality assurance/ accreditation results. At the end of the day, all those improvements should also provide better information on quality for the assessment of individual qualifications and thus work towards fair recognition.

Degree systems

In their Berlin communiqué [18] ministershave made de3cisions in the following main directions:

  • Implementation of the two –cycle degree system has to be at least started by 2005.First and second cycle degrees should have different orientations and various profiles in order to accommodate a diversity of individual, academic and labour market needs;
  • Doctoral level was included as the third cycle in the Bologna Process with a view of strengthening the role of research and research training, increasing mobility at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels and cooperation of HEIs concerned in doctoral studies and the training of young researchers;
  • Ministers called to elaborate national frameworks of comparable and compatible qualifications, which should describe qualifications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, competences and profile,
  • A commitment was made to elaboratea more general overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area that would be suitable to accommodate the national frameworks and serve as a reference at interpreting the qualifications between higher education systems.

The success in these areas is reflected in the Stocktaking report, Trends IV [19] report, report of the Bologna working group on qualifications frameworks[21] and in the results of the official Bologna seminars on Using Learning Outcomes (Edinburgh, 1-2 July 2004) [2] and Frameworks of Qualifications (Copenhagen, 13-14 January 2005) [3], doctoral studies (Salzburg, 3-5 February 2005) [4], further clarification of bachelor’s degree (St. Petersburg, 25-26 November 2004) [5].