Quality in Education
Tuning International Master's Programmes
13 December 2007
Pirjo Halonen
Head of Quality Assurance
Contents
 Quality concepts
 Background to Quality Assurance in
Education
 Quality - for whom?
 University of Jyväskylä
 Summary
Quality
 Degree to which a set of inherent
characteristics fulfils requirements
– Characteristics: distinguishing feature
– Requirements: need or expectation that is stated,
generally implied or obligatory
(ISO 9000)
Quality
 excellence
 value
 fitness for use
 conformity to requirement
 defect avoidance
 meeting customer’s expectations
 …
Quality Management
 Directing an organisation with regard to
quality to establish policy and objectives and
to achieve those objectives.
Quality Assurance
 Part of quality management focused on
providing confidence that quality
requirements will be fulfilled.
Quality Work
 means
–
–
–
–
planning
doing
checking (evaluating)
acting (developing, improving)
Background to Quality Assurance in
Education
 The Bologna process in 1999:
– The European Ministers of Education set a target to
realise a coherent and cohesive European Higher
Education Area (EHEA):
• Undergraduate and postgraduate levels in all
European countries
• European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
• Common framework of comparable degrees
(Diploma Supplement)
• Recognition of studies abroad
• Elimination of obstacles to the free mobility of
students and teachers
• European dimension in quality assurance
What is quality in education?
 Education quality is a multi-dimensional
concept and cannot be easily assessed by
only one indicator.
Quality in Education – for whom?
 Students
 Graduates
 Employers
 Stakeholders
 Teachers
 Administrative personnel
 Quality personnel
For students
 Quality of the lecturer
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Expertise
Teaching skills
Teaching methods
Communication skills
Approachability
Enthusiasm
Humour
Friendliness
Flexibility
For students, cont.
 Quality of the curriculum
–
–
–
–
Flexibility
Lifelong learning – varying student pathways
Appropriate contents of courses
Allowing to challenge practice when linking theory
to the real world
– Use of up-to-date evidence
For students cont.
 Quality of social support systems
– Student support units - health care, student unions
– Part time accepted
– Network of other students on the course - learning
from each other, motivation
For students, cont.
 The consequences are
– learning
– passing the examinations <-- motivation <-enthusiasm of the lecturer
 Word-of-mouth communication follows from
satisfaction with teaching.
For graduates
 More working life relevance than academic
relevance.
 Theoretical background.
 More guidance for studies. More time from
professors to students.
For employers
 Employers do not place emphasis on
information about the quality of a university.
 Most of them apply the reputation in their
decision making:
– “grapevine” knowledge, or word-of-mouth
communication
– personal, regional, professional networks
– performance of past graduates
– prejudice against new universities
For stakeholders
 In Finland, mostly The Ministry of Education.
 Young graduates.
 Moderate studying time.
 Given quantitative objectives to be fulfilled.
For administrative personnel
 Existing strategy for education improvement.
 Development and improvement of the quality
of academic programmes.
 Efficiency and effectiveness of organisational
structures within which the programmes can
be provided and supported.
 Responsibilities well-defined.
For administrative personnel, cont.
 Retaining students after a bachelor's degree.
 Excellent learning results.
 Excellent research results.
 Careful examination of opportunity costs.
In quality audits
 Instructions are extensive.
 The studying process from the student’s point
of view is clearly defined.
 Curricula and teaching are well-timed.
 The university utilise feedback from
graduates in their curriculum work.
 Definition, what kind of learning is expected –
“in-depth learning”.
In quality audits, cont.
 The learning path must be a process without
breaks between departments.
 Shared practices in departments:
–
–
–
–
–
personal curriculum (HOPS)
systematic feedback systems
curriculum process
course assessments
post-graduate studies
In quality audits, cont.
 Processes are well defined, assessed and
developed.
 Guidelines to assure quality of education.
 The responsibilities well defined.
 A department of students services have been
established and it has enough resources.
 A variety of teaching and testing methods are
used.
In quality audits, cont.
 Research of teaching  produces good
practices.
 Pedagogic strategy.
Two-way Quality!
 In a service process there are always two
parties.
 In education also the students have duties.
At the University of Jyväskylä
 Present practices are described in the quality
manuals.
 A new education strategy is needed.
 Evaluation policies of the education have to
be implemented.
 The education will be evaluated yearly.
 On the basis of the evaluation education will
be developed.
Summary
 The concept quality is defined in various
ways depending on the speaker.
 Several approaches are needed.
 All the parties have rights and duties.
 A firm strategy is necessary to improve the
quality.
 All the topics must be open for evaluation.
References
Alves H, Raposo M. Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher
education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2007;
18(5):571-588.
Hill Y, Lomas L, MacGregor J. Students' perceptions of quality in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education. 2003; 11(1):15-20.
Morley L, Aynsley S. Employers, quality and standards in higher
education: Shared values and vocabularies or elitism and
inequalities? Higher Education Quarterly. 2007; 61(3):229-249.
Ross R, Gruber V, Szmigin I. Service quality in higher education: The role
of student expectations. Journal of Business Research. 2007;
60(9):949–959
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher
Education Area. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education. EU Education and Culture. 2005.
Yin Cheong Cheng, Wai Ming Tam. Multimodels of quality in education.
Quality Assurance in Education 1997; 5(1):22–31.
Kekäle T, Ilolakso A, Katajavuori N, Toikka M, Isoaho K. (2006). Kuopion
yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi. Korkeakoulujen
arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 3:2006. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto.
Helsinki.
Wahlbin C, Hieikkilä J, Hellberg M, Lindroos P, Nybom J, Corrnér S. (2007).
Auditering av Svenska handelshögskolans kvalitetssäkringssystem.
Publikationer av rådet för utvärdering av högskolorna 3:2007. Rådet
av utvärdering. Helsinki.
Jokinen T, Malinen H, Mäki M, Nokela J, Pakkanen P, Kekäläinen H. (2007).
Tampereen teknillisen yliopiston laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän
auditointi. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 4:2007.
Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvosto. Helsinki.
Tuomela J. (2007). Jyväskylän yliopistosta vuonna 2005 valmistuneiden
maistereiden sijoittumisenseuranta. Tutkimus- ja rekrytointipalvelut.
Jyväskylän yliopisto. Jyväskylä.