Table 2

As a result of using a learning outcomes/competencies approach to what extent do you agree with the following?

%	1 — Yes	2 — Somewhat	3 — No	I don’t know*	USA Mean	EU Mean
The learning outcomes / competences approach drives the way I structure my courses	EU 56.1% Tot. 61.3%	EU 39.3% Tot. 32.3%	EU 3.7% Tot. 5.5%	EU 0.9% Tot. 0.9%	1.43	1.45
I make adjustments throughout the term in my teaching when I see the students are not achieving the learning outcomes	EU 34.9% Tot: 52.1%	EU 43.1% Tot. 35.2%	EU 21.1% Tot. 12.3%	EU 0.9% Tot. 0.5%	1.42	1.88
I have broadened my perspective of the entire curriculum by tailoring my specialization to the needs of the degree program	EU 34.9% Tot. 39.7%	EU 49.1% Tot. 38.8%	EU 12.3% Tot. 15.9%	EU 3.8% Tot. 5.6%	1.74	1.76
My assessments are based on learning outcomes	EU 62.6% Tot. 71.4%	EU 31.8% Tot. 21.2%	EU2.8% Tot. 5.1%	EU2.8% Tot. 2.3%	1.33	1.31
Student engagement has improved	EU 34.3% Tot. 38.5%	EU 34.3% Tot. 34.9%	EU20.4% Tot. 15.6%	EU11.1% Tot. 11.0%	1.69	1.83
Student learning is a central indicator of quality	EU 55.7% Tot. 66.5%	EU 37.7% Tot. 26.0%	EU 4.7% Tot. 3.7%	EU 1.9% Tot. 3.7%	1.29	1.43
There is an opportunity for an end of course open dialog with students to discuss the extent to which learning outcomes have been achieved	EU 45.4% Tot. 40.5%	EU 38.9% Tot. 28.9%	EU12.1% Tot. 27.5%	EU 3.7% Tot. 3.2%	2.0	1.67

NB: the extent was rated on a scale from 1 to 3, see Table headings. The Mean, which is shown in the two last two columns reflects the answer of respondents on this scale.

* Please, note that “I don’t know” responses were eliminated in Mean calculation

As a result of using a learning outcomes approach, the majority of respondents felt that student learning is an indicator of quality, the learning outcomes/competences approach drives the way they structure their courses and that assessments are based on learning outcomes. Fewer participants felt that they had tailored their specialisation to the needs of the degree programme.

Respondents felt that the most positive impact from applying a learning outcomes approach came from the way they assess learning (40.7%), the way they present their course materials (48.2%) and state course outcomes (50.9%), the alignment of the curriculum and courses to the learning outcomes (43.5%), the way they teach (55.6%) and discussions with students (49.1%). Student engagement (31.5%), type of discussions with colleagues in the field (24.1%), the impact on quality assurance mechanisms (28.8%) and the development of a common language in the discipline scores significantly lower (19.4%). The impact on the quality of programme scores 41.7%. The figures for the USA are significantly lower.

SURVEY 2: the EU students

Out of a total of 666 respondents, 86% were from the first or second cycles (53% and 33% respectively). Short cycle, doctoral candidates and ‘traditional’ long or single cycle students were also represented. Respondents were also from every year of study (1 to 6) and from across the spectrum of subject areas (architecture to zoology).

When asked how their curriculum is defined, 67.1% said learning outcomes but 70.3% said objectives with 57% stating competences. This is at variance with the responses from academic staff/faculty (see above) and also with the findings from the visits (see later).

To test the levels of communication a series of questions were asked of the students, as illustrated by Table 3.

Table 3

Levels of communication

	Not at all	Somewhat	Very much	Don’t know
When I was advised on course unit selection there was a focus on the competences I would gain	10.3%	53.9%	26.2%	9.6%
My discipline/degree programme has a clear statement of expectations	4.7%	39.2%	52.6%	3.6%
I understand why I am required to take the course units needed to earn my degree	6.1%	35%	56.1%	2.9%
My workload is appropriate to achieve the learning outcomes of the course unit	10.1%	37.6%	49.8%	3.6%
Advisors are able to provide a clear explanation of how course units fit into a bigger picture	14.1%	46.8%	33.1%	6%
The course catalogue states the learning outcomes for each unit	10.4%	36.7%	46.2%	6.8%
The course catalogue states the learning outcomes for my degree	9.2%	38.3%	44.4%	8.1%
Progression routes to a degree are clearly stated and explained	13.5%	36%	43.4%	7.2%

 

In only two cases do more than 50% of the students believe ‘very much’ that they are getting a clear explanation of what they need to do and why they need to do it to achieve their degree. ‘Somewhat’ figures are large in all categories but the visits show that often ‘somewhat’ is a kind way of saying ‘no’. This indicates a gap[34] (‘disconnect’) between what academics and management believe and what the students perceive and believe they are experiencing.

It does appear that the level of discussion of learning outcomes in class (23.9% saying ‘very much’ and 75% stating ‘not at all’ or ‘somewhat’) and at the end of the course (24.4% saying ‘very much’ and 70% ‘not at all’ or ‘somewhat’) is disappointing. The connection between the learning outcomes and the assignments is slightly higher (41.8% saying ‘very much’) but even so disappointing (once again the meaning of ‘somewhat’ is a problem).

51% of the academic staff state they discuss learning outcomes with students ‘very much’ and 39% ‘somewhat’ compared to the 23.5% and 51% respectively felt to be the case by the students. The gap shows. Moreover, 45.4% of academic staff state that there is ‘very much’ an opportunity for an open discussion with students at the end of the course whereas only 24.4% of the students feel this is the case. The gap (‘disconnect’) is writ large.

Some main conclusions can be drawn from the surveys. The results in Europe and the USA are largely comparable. However, it is clear that care must be taken when interpreting these survey/questionnaire results because earlier examples in the Bologna Process show there is a tendency to overestimate one’s own performance to leave a more positive impression, even if this is subconscious. This has been noticed with regard to both the official Stocktaking and the TRENDS Reports over the years.[35] This seems also to be the case with these surveys if compared with the outcomes of the in-depth visits (see below). This seems not only to be the case in the ‘yes’ responses, but in particular in the ‘somewhat’ responses.

VI. Visits process and results

VI.1. Process

As has been said (see above) setting up the visits proved to be very difficult. Some institutions actually stated that they felt they were not ready for such “scrutiny” (term used by them, although we kept stressing — at every stage of communication with all approached — that these visits were research visits and not, in any way, shape or form validation or providing feedback to any outsiders or agencies, but that, on the contrary, the visits were learning opportunities because of the feedback). Others prevaricated such that time ran out (giving a feeling of not wanting to take part) and some made every effort to accommodate the visit and to lay themselves open to analysis in the true spirit of the visits and the research objectives.[36] To these we are indebted and once again say ‘Thanks’.

In the end 14 visits across all EU took place, from research intensive universities to those with a teaching only mission, encompassing a wide breadth of missions and sizes. There was no visit to a private for profit institution, but this was not for the lack of asking.

In the set up phase the same information was sent to each institution approached as well as a suggested format for a single full day visit. The categories of persons the team hoped to see were stated but whom the team did see was up to the institution, depending on the availability in different subject areas. This led to a wide range of subject staff and students being seen but also some repetition of subject areas — this did not matter because the original evaluation had been that, apart from subjects directly involved in Tuning, Thematic Network Programmes (TNPs) or ECTS projects from a particular institution, the methodology was unlikely to have been influenced apart from by national policies (the national qualifications framework, quality assurance mechanisms, diploma supplement, continuing professional development requirements etc.).

Once the visit date had been agreed (and researchers allocated — from a calendar of availability) an internet search of the institution took place. This looked at references to the national qualifications framework, diploma supplement (examples and availability), quality assurance mechanisms (internal and external), availability of in-house staff development, degree profile, curriculum, unit learning outcomes, any sample assessments etc. This formed Part 2 of the institutional feedback report and informed the researchers (and institution) of the public face of the institution.

At the end of each visit the researchers gave informal feedback to the institution — to whom this was given varied by institution as it was for them to decide. The next step was that a draft report be sent for correction of factual elements. Following any required amendments of fact, the final report was sent.

It is important to note that anonymity was promised, no institution or individual would be identified or identifiable. Each institution received a copy of the final report.

VI.2. Findings

There are certain recurring themes from the visits (and these do actually show to varying extents but are nonetheless present across the continents). The main headlines are:

VI.2.1. Varied institutions display varied behaviour

Higher education activity still falls largely in to three categories: teaching, research, administration. The nuances of each of these have changed over the years and continue to change. Institutions have proliferated and with that (and the change in most places to mass participation systems even where there is still selection based on prior educational achievement) the variety of missions has changed and the mix of the elements. However, there are students in universities and they are there to learn. The mission of the university will impact on the learning process as will funding patterns, the political will of the state, the background of the student population, etc. However, as was stated in Modernisation of Higher Education (2013):[37] “With this report, we put quality of teaching and learning centre stage” and “Our focus, therefore, is on the quality of teaching and learning for those who enter or who hope to enter higher education in the future.”

Some institutions visited were highly micro managed — this impacted upon the curriculum, staff development, the mix of workload for staff, student staff ratios, assessment calendar, appraisal systems, internal quality assurance etc. Across the spectrum then there were: central macro management, devolved management, self-management within institutional parameters. All styles leading to varied operating environments.

What is clear is that there is a disconnect between what different tiers of responsibility believe/imagine is the higher education landscape and what those who actually participate in the learning process experience. This appeared to some extent in each and every institution visited. If one looks at 2015 statements regarding the Bologna Process at the higher policy levels, awareness about its implications is writ large, with the corresponding “font size” diminishing progressively down the levels until there is — in some places, it has to be said — a total lack of actual experience by the students of any active knowledge of, and participation in, the learning outcomes process.

This metaphor recognizes that there is a lack of progress but, as the research results show, not the full extent of the actual lack of progress.

VI.2.2. Insufficient learning alignment

By learning alignment is meant the continuum of the learning environment from learning outcomes (LO) to the learning activities (LA) to the all essential learning assessment (LA), hence the frequently used term of ‘LO,LA,LA’. None of these segments is free standing and can make any meaningful contribution to the learning process without the other two. Learning outcomes are not a passive ossified artefact but must be active (and thus subject to re-evaluation and change after an appropriate feedback loop). The learning activities must reflect the learning outcomes and are now required (European Standards and Guidelines 1.3 2015) to: “encourage students to take an active role in creating the learning process” leading on to learning assessment that “reflects the approach” (that is reflects the student involvement).

Once again there was a disconnect here; it varied in magnitude as did the institutions vary. However, although a few institutions were making very positive (in some cases strident) requirements of their staff to engage in all aspects of learning alignment, there remained a lack of report back from students that they could see the connection and that there had been continued efforts to both engage them in the process and to continually communicate with them. So, even where efforts were clear and demonstrable there was still a lack of meaningful penetration. Imagine how disappointing it was where there was no management drive or institutional buy in to ensuring that the learning outcomes approach and learning alignment were embedded in the warp and weft of the learning experience. Such a situation was sometimes totally obvious and showed no signs of there being a “learning spring” around the corner.

In some sessions the lack of engagement by staff involved in pedagogics with the learning outcomes approach was clear (“what do we want to know about learning outcomes for?”). If those who are custodians of the development of learning show a total disregard for student-centred/learning outcomes, what hope is there for a paradigm shift?

Where staff development was taking place which engaged with why and how the change from didactic expert driven delivery to student centred/learning outcomes facilitation of learning (with learning alignment) many staff did both welcome this and fully engage with it. Where there was active engagement in mentoring/coaching, this too made a positive difference. Where there had been involvement in projects such as Tuning or in the past ECTS, that also made a positive difference. Where there was institutional indifference or mere lip service, that, not surprisingly, had a negative impact.

VI.2.3. Vocabulary, semiotics, messaging and communication

Any systematic search through university websites reveals much. Of course there are claimed problems with updating, editing, proof reading. However, the evidence on the websites (prior to a visit) is then confirmed by the visits — there is a lack of consistency in the use of terminology and vocabulary and then documents, web pages, course handbooks, and study manuals. Discussions then did confirm the confusion. Does this matter? Yes, it does matter because confusion abounds when terms are used inconsistently, interchangeably and incorrectly.

There is no single definition of terms such as ‘competences’, ‘learning outcomes’, ‘learning alignment’, ‘student-centred learning’ but there are recognized definitions used consistently in policy documents and working documents (for example ECTS Users’ Guide 2015, Tuning documents, Frameworks etc.). Adherence to these more commonly used and available definitions with the phrase ‘for the purpose of this document we use the following definitions’ would at least start to eliminate wider confusion and would certainly limit internal institutional confusion.

At meetings on the visits staff commonly used ‘competence’ and ‘learning outcome’ as interchangeable terms. Slipping back in to the language of the former paradigm (expert driven delivery), for example ‘learning goals/objectives’ rather than the language of the new paradigm, for example ‘learning outcome’ is more than a slip of the tongue. The semiotics of this is one of confusion, lack of clarity, lack of determination to join the paradigm shift and therefore lack of consistency.

This confusion is commonplace. The lack of consistent messaging and communication does lead the stakeholders (across the spectrum) to lack in belief that a paradigm shift is underway, let alone that it has been achieved. This also leads to the question (see above) of how can there be learning alignment when there is a lack of clarity as to what it is that is being aligned. These are more than issues of editing and proof reading; they are issues of a true buy in to the paradigm shift.

VI.2.4. Staff development

Staff development is a crucial issue. Without staff development the change in paradigm will remain stalled but it must encompass the “why and how” not merely the process of form filling. There must be engagement with the staff and this was said and gained in the visits. Where there was active engagement in mentoring/coaching, involvement in projects (such as Tuning or in the past ECTS), that made a positive difference but institutional indifference or lip service that made a negative difference.

Those members of the staff who want to engage and master the learning outcomes approach, and many interviewed were of that mind, felt stranded both by lack of training and by the pull towards research and away from teaching as a career enhancement. It was often mentioned that at the outset of the introduction of their national qualifications frameworks and learning outcomes, there had been some training. From what was said, such development was either viewed as a done deal or any attempt to deal with concepts, benefits etc. was abandoned and replaced by process training. This was anathema to the staff. They want concepts, benefits, links etc. and not form filling to comply with internal QA and audit requirements.

Where new projects were launched (for example joint degrees, centres of excellence in teaching etc.) there did tend to be a reinvigoration of training, or often what was much liked was in-house mentoring/coaching and peer-to-peer activities and evaluation of documents. These ventures were both cost effective and engendered a collegial spirit.

A main challenge for Higher Education Institutions is that too often there is lack of a well-established unit for staff-development. Some examples of excellent staff development provision were found either at university or faculty/school level. Some provision was also at country level. In general, it has to be noted, however, there is low priority for establishing and sustaining such centres. In many institutions there was a lack of informed trainers. As mentioned above, staff will not accept sub-standard process driven ‘training’. They want to understand the concept and benefits of the new paradigm. Without this, it is feared that this shift will not take place. Use should be made of examples of good practice, which for some of the countries visited will be in other countries and therefore require an international endeavour.

VI.2.5. Student reaction

All meetings with students were interesting, stimulating and regrettably confirmed beyond reasonable doubt the disconnect that exists between even the most pessimistic of the 2015 reports cited above (BWSE linked to the ESU country coordinator reports) and the reality shown on the ground by the responses of the student interviews. The disconnect was confirmed by the consistent themes that they disclosed, namely: lack of (perceived) communication; lack of understanding of the gains to be had from having a good understanding of their studies and of what they would know, understand and be able to do on completing units of learning; that they displayed learning behaviour immersed in the former paradigm — what are we told, what information do we have, what are the past assessments, how can we best get through this subject. Thus in terms of the learning outcomes approach there was only evidence of a lack of penetration and understanding at first cycle in the vast majority of cases and at second cycle with some evidence of impact, particularly amongst mature students. In terms of student-centred learning, of course the European Standards and Guidelines 1.3 2015 is too recent to have impacted on process, but, notwithstanding this, at first cycle level there was very limited evidence of this shift, at second cycle there were some green shoots of development.

Students were not convinced that there was any link between what was demanded of them and any description, or analysis, of what outcomes they would achieve by the end of their learning. Some knew that they had been told by some staff of the learning outcomes at the start of their studies but few felt there was consistent communication and messaging about this. Those who did placements (work based learning, internships, stages etc.) did not make any link between learning outcomes and the skills/competences that they could offer an employer. Even where they had been provided with CV writing guidance this link had not been made, nor had the simple benefits they would gain by using such language and demonstrating the competences they had gained from their studies been pointed out.

In terms of their studies, there was little perceived link to workload from the credits allocated to a unit of study. Some students did know what the norm should be (28 hours per credit being often quoted) but few felt this was in any sense realistic. Most felt that the workload demanded of them was less than that quoted. However, there was a general feeling that the smaller the credit allocation was, the heavier the workload/credit required to achieve the learning outcomes was (in their terminology ‘to pass’). All institutions operated a post learning review in one form or another; this varied from the very tightly prescribed in terms of scheduling, analysis of responses and feedback to rather haphazard process and follow up, with all shades of process in between. All students felt that if their views were sought (which they were) then there should be some clear line of follow up — analysis of returns, discussion of the data, action plan, action and communication of what had happened and why. Once again the extent of this line of action being in place varied greatly — at one end of the spectrum staff was replaced if the feedback and data was very negative, at the other no action appeared to be taken or follow up communication made.

VI.2.6. Impact of the National Qualifications Framework and ECTS

In particular management and senior staff with management experience, or duties, acknowledged the impact that the introduction of their national framework had made. The link to ECTS in terms of programme structure and profile was also acknowledged. However, those engaged in the teaching did not often see this — of course if the university regulations required a certain format then that in reality is enough (and often this was the case).

The Frameworks had been, without exception, a catalyst for change in terms of levels, outcomes (the Dublin Descriptors were often cited as being a significant agent of change), and, of course, creating a fundamental and often fraught change to a 3 cycle system with the consequences of this still reverberating around some country systems.

VI.2.7. Impact of Tuning

Senior management at all institutions were aware of Tuning, some simply because of having received the documents for the initial approach and others because of involvement over the years with projects or having attended conferences. Staff who had already undertaken the on-line survey had some awareness of Tuning as did those who had been involved in projects, however, others were not aware of the process. Students were unaware of the process, as they were largely unaware of the learning outcomes approach.

There was little brand awareness of Tuning, but where there was awareness and where there had been participation in projects there was great brand loyalty, much more so to Tuning than to any passing knowledge of the learning outcomes approach.

VI.2.8. Disconnect

This term has become the by-word for the overall findings of the research (a stronger version than ‘gap’ from TRENDS III, see above). By the term is meant the inability to have, throughout the tiers of a higher education institution (and indeed beyond that throughout the European Higher Education Area), a consistent awareness let alone ‘buy-in’ and adherence to the learning outcomes approach. Given that this is a core element of ECTS, of Frameworks and the European Standards and Guidelines, this has to be both disappointing and indeed a shock and a wake-up call.

VII. Examples of good practice

On the basis of the visits the team has been able to identify a number of good practices that are relevant to the whole sector. Each institution had examples of good practice but not one was exemplary. Nevertheless, from these instances it proved to be possible to aggregate cognate areas and thus produce the following list:

 

a) A well-defined university policy on learning, teaching and assessment in accordance with the mission of the institution. However, this policy must be put into action right through the institution. Having the policy is not sufficient, the institution has to be sure that there is wide acceptance and, indeed, ‘buy in’ to the policy and the action resulting from it. The need for good communication is essential to ensure that all stakeholders are involved, aware and committed to the actions.

It can be noted that where a clear policy has been defined and followed through there is a shift of paradigm underway, however, even in these institutions this remains patchy at implementation levels. This means that constant attention to the policy implementation is required for continuing development and success.

b) Some universities are working with fixed templates for describing the curriculum as well as its modules and units. These require statements of the profiling of the programme and its learning outcomes as well as the learning outcomes for individual units, plus the learning and teaching methods and the forms of assessment. It is crucial that these are shared with potential as well as actual students. In the set up phase it is essential that these are viewed by the staff as something more than just a ‘tick box administrative task’ but as an integral part of the curriculum development owned by the staff who develop them and then facilitate the, hopefully, aligned learning.

c) Staff development is an essential component for enhancing study programmes and their delivery that will meet the needs of all stakeholders (both internal to the university and its students as well as external, for example employers and professional organisations). Staff development can have many different forms. What seemed to work best was a central policy underpinned by central funding, the actual staff (who took part in training, advising, mentoring, supporting) was based in a central unit but with well organised and defined links to individual departments, faculties etc. The staff, of course, should be well versed in the paradigm shift taking place and able to communicate this whilst fully understanding the university policies and their place within the wider world. Staff often acted as the ambassadors for the university in national and regional bodies and activities.

Decentralised models do exist and where there was alignment with university policies and excellent internal communications with some central coordination they too did work effectively. Activities that these models might deliver include: international staff mobility, courses, workshops, peer mentoring, continual professional development, learning gatherings (often ‘learning lunches’), team building, allotting credits to activities to enable staff to accumulate credit to achieve a qualification etc.

d) With activities such as curriculum development the building of Teams (including staff, students, central staff development representative, employers, professional body representatives etc.) to take responsibility for defining, organising, implementing and delivering the learning in all of its aspects. This ensures collegial ‘buy in’.

e) Structured links to employment and the world of work, including: alumni tracking, visiting lecturers, CV coaching, staff communication on learning outcomes, competences and professional standards, relations with employers, internships/placements, entrepreneurship labs etc. All of these assist the students to understand their place within their studies and how to best present themselves when applying for internships/placements, jobs, further studies.

f) National initiatives — these can provide impetus and re-launch the conversation about the paradigm shift. New initiatives are needed on a regular basis because otherwise other new ideas push the ‘older’ ones down the memory and institutional/personal priorities. Such initiatives have included: centres of excellence, ‘lecturer of the year’, ‘best university’ etc.

VIII. Conclusions and next steps

‘A long way to go …” reflects the findings of this study. This is in terms of the findings in the inner but in particular in the outer instruments, the surveys and site visits respectively. It is fair to conclude that the discourse about the shift of paradigm is taking place to various degrees, amongst management and to a lesser extent staff, but much less amongst students. There is a long way to go but there is no certainty that the shift will be achieved, indeed it seems that it is finely balanced and could, without additional and continued support, fail. Making it work is the responsibility of all levels involved and cannot be simply left to the academic staff responsible for delivering the programmes. The evidence clearly shows the disconnect between the rhetoric, political ambitions and reality. This has already been reported on in the already quoted ‘2015 analyses’ of progress. At a policy level, examples of the perception of success in implementation of a student-centred learning approach are reported by: the Bologna Implementation Report 2015: “lack of recognition of the value of student evaluation, independent learning and the use of learning outcomes”; the TRENDS VII (2015): “not all these positive developments are common everywhere and, therefore, more progress is needed”; and the Bologna With Student Eyes 2015: “there has clearly been some progress; … 50% of respondents think that progress is slow; … the other half...are still not convinced that student-centred learning has been made a priority in higher education.”

These statements are confirmed by this study. In fact, the actual level of penetration is lower than that which was stated in those documents. The main cause of this has been the insufficient communication between the political players and university hierarchies and the academic staff, as highlighted in the Yerevan Communiqué.

There has been a failure to engage with and convince academic staff about the necessity and advantages of this paradigm shift. Many initiatives have been taken in terms of national and international cooperation but have not received the endorsement and support required by the political policy makers. Seed corn funding has proven to be of help in the launch of relevant activities but a long-term commitment is the only way to achieve changes of this magnitude across such a broad spectrum of higher education systems.

It has been underestimated by all involved in the process how crucial a commitment to staff training and development is. It must be remembered that most staff in higher education have had no pedagogic/andragogic education and training — most staff are indeed ‘driving without a licence’, they base their own teaching on their own experiences as a student. The world has changed but not — in the vast majority of countries and cases the training for life as a university academic involved in facilitating learning and then assessing the achievement of the learning outcomes. What came as a shock was that many ‘trainers/professionals’ interviewed were actually themselves still operating in, and indeed wedded to, the old paradigm of expert driven delivery. Many institutions proved not to have any form of a well working Staff Development Unit with a focus on the new paradigm and all that it entails, including the many benefits to both staff and students. If this is not remedied the future looks bleak. However, any such Units must be positive, well informed, truly engaged and truly serve the needs of the staff and their students in line with institutional policies. They must not be perceived as a ‘side show’. Recognition of such a Unit’s value and ability to enhance and add value to the learning is vital. Success without these factors is unlikely. Full engagement by all actors is a sine qua non for success.

Without engaging students and employers in programme design, implementation, delivery and quality assurance there will not be the required level of progress. Good initiatives in this respect are there, but it is a patchwork rather than all pervasive.

Given the financial situation, students show, for obvious reasons, concern about their future role in society. What they observe is a flexible labour market in which they are expected to demonstrate a sufficiently wide range of general competences and where possible some work experience. They know they need subject specific knowledge and skills but do also desire the wider outcomes of learning. In today’s ever changing job market and challenged society it is of crucial importance to involve employers and societal leaders in the educational process, if possible in a structured way. They should be seen as advisers in this process, not decision makers in what should be taught and learnt, something which is a collective responsibility but must have at its core the academic staff. Nevertheless, their involvement as guest lecturers and placement/internship providers adds great value. Many institutions have already recognised this and taken appropriate steps in that direction.

To achieve these enhancements follow-up steps are required. The programme of visits was able to engage the institutions once more with the required paradigm shift and to re-launch the dialogue as well as allowing the researchers to analyse the state of play and the needed enhancements. The most important of these are:

 

• A stronger commitment at national level to achieving the paradigm shift, which is, in any case in the national interest in terms of economic prosperity and a sustainable society.

• European, as well as national, support to create better conditions for success. This can be both organisational and financial. This also implies a well-defined strategy for communicating the benefits of the paradigm shift at national, institutional and personal level. This might require tailored taskforces to operate at all those levels.

• Renewed institutional commitment and stronger leadership to achieve the paradigm shift, including adopting those good practices that already exist. This requires serious investment in targeted staff development and effective structures for curriculum development and learning backed by an effective quality culture.

• A systematic approach for analysing the reality of what is happening in practice. This could make use of the robust instruments developed, tested and used in the framework of this study. Site visits by an international team have proven to be of great value both in the analysis that takes place but also in the heightened awareness created. It seems to be the best way to obtain a reliable picture of what is happening and allows for relevant and useful constructive feedback.

 

Bibliography

Adelman, Cliff. The Bologna Process for U.S. Eyes: Re-learning Higher Education in the Age of Convergence. Washington, 2009.

Arreola, Raoul A. Writing Learning Objectives. A Teaching Resource Document from the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Planning and Academic Support, The University of Tennessee, Memphis, s.a.: https://www.uwo.ca/tsc/graduate_student_programs/pdf/LearningObjectivesArreola.pdf

Bologna Process website: http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=87

CEDEFOP. Terminology of European education and training policy. A selection of 130 key terms. Second edition, Luxembourg, 2014.

Education International and European Student Union, Time for a new paradigm in education: student-centred-learning. Learning SCL toolkit, s.a. (2010): http://www.esu-online.org/pageassets/projects/projectarchive/100814-SCL.pdf.

European Student Union. Bologna with Student Eyes 2015. Time to meet the expectations from 1999, Brussels, 2015: http://www.esu-online.org/asset/News/6068/BWSE-2015-online.pdf

European University Association, TRENDS III: Progress towards the European Higher Education Area. By Sybille Reichert and Christian Tauch, 2003: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/EUA%20TRENDS/TRENDS_III-July2003.pdf

——— TRENDS IV: European Universities Implementing Bologna.
By Sybille Reichert and Christian Tauch, 2005: http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/TRENDSIV_final.1114509452430.pdf

——— TRENDS V: Universities shaping the European Higher Education Area.
By David Crosier, Lewis Purser & Hanne Smidt, 2007: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/EUA_TRENDS_Reports/Final_TRENDS_Report_V_May.pdf.

——— TRENDS VI (2010): A decade of change in European Higher Education. By Andrée Sursock & Hanne Smidt, 2010: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/TRENDS2010

——— TRENDS VII (2015): Learning and Teaching in European Universities. By Andrée Sursock, 2015: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications-homepage-list/EUA_TRENDS_2015_web.

European Commission. The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). Luxembourg, 2008: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/news/EQF_EN.pdf.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. The European Higher Education Area in 2015: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015.

Froyd, Jeffrey and Nancy Simpson. Student-Centered Learning Addressing Faculty Questions about Student- centered Learning. Texas A&M University, 2010: http://ccliconference.org/files/2010/03/Froyd_Stu-CenteredLearning.pdf.

Gonzalez, Julia and Robert Wagenaar, eds. Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, Final Report. Bilbao and Groningen, 2003.

——— Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, Universities’ contribution to the Bologna Process, Final Report Phase 2. Bilbao and Groningen, 2005.

High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. Report to the Commission on Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. June 2013. Luxembourg publications office or http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/modernisation_en.pdf.

Lokhoff, Jenneke, Bas Wegewijs, Katja Durkin, Robert Wagenaar, Julia González, Ann Katherine Isaacs, Luigi F. Donà dalle Rose and Mary Gobbi, eds. A Guide to Formulating Degree Programme Profiles. Including Programme Competences and Programme Learning Outcomes. Bilbao, Groningen, The Hague, 2010.

Lumina Foundation website: www.luminafoundation.org

McKiernan and Birtwistle.”Making the Implicit Explicit: Demonstrating the Value Added of Higher Education by a Qualifications Framework.” In: The Journal of College and University Law. Notre Dame, 2010: http://www3.nd.edu/~jcul/files/Birtwistle_McKiernan.pdf.

MHEC website: http://www.mhec.org/programs/tuning (accessed 18 May 2016).

Millett, Catherine M., David G. Payne, Carol A. Dwyer, Leslie M. Stickler, Jon J. Alexiou, A Culture of Evidence: An Evidence-Centered Approach to Accountability for Student Learning Outcomes. ETS, Princeton, 2008: https://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/COEIII_report.pdf.

PASCL (Peer Assessment of Student Centred Learning) Website: http://pascl.eu/publications/overview-on-student-centred-learning-in-higher-education-in-europe/ (accessed 18 May 2016).

“Realising the European Higher Education Area.” Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/mdc/berlin_communique1.pdf 016.

Rogers, C., As a teacher, can I be myself? In: Freedom to learn for the 80s. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1983.

Serbati, Anna. “Implementation of Competence-Based Learning Approach: stories of practices and the Tuning contribution to academic innovation.”Tuning Journal for Higher Education 3, no.1 (2015).

‘The Bologna Process 2020 — The European Higher Education Area in the new decade’. Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April 2009: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/leuven_louvain-la-neuve_communiqué_april_2009.pdf.

The Glossary for Education Reform website: http://edglossary.org/learning-objectives/.

Tuning Educational Structures in Europe website: http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/.

Tuning Europe website, EU/US research project: http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/component/content/article/385-euus-research-project.html.

Tuning International Academy website: http://www.tuningacademy.org/.

Tuning Russia website: http://www.tuningrussia.org/index.php?lang=ru.

About the Authors

Tim Birtwistle (tim.birtwistle@hedconsultant.co.uk), is Emeritus Professor of the Law and Policy of Higher Education (Leeds Beckett), Visiting Fellow Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Jean Monnet Chair and consultant to Lumina Foundation (USA). He has published widely on the law, policy, process and change of higher education covering, inter alia, academic freedom, university liability, risk, dispute resolution, qualification frameworks, credits, learning, assessment and trans-Atlantic issues of convergence and divergence in journals, professional publications, book chapters and handbooks.

Courtney Brown (cbrown@luminafoundation.org) is the Director of Organizational Performance and Evaluation at the Lumina Foundation in the United States. In this role she works across the Foundation to provide strategic direction using evidence from evaluation, data and metrics. She oversees the evaluative work on the development, outcomes, and impact of the work the Foundation conducts. In addition, she manages the performance measurement system of metrics the Foundation uses to measure progress toward GOAL 2025, to increase the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025. Dr. Brown received a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia (USA) in Educational Evaluation and Research. 

ROBERT WAGENAAR (r.wagenaar@rug.nl) is a historian and at present Director of the International Tuning Academy Groningen by appointment of the Executive Board of the University of Groningen. He is also a member of the Editorial Board of the Tuning Journal for Higher Education (TJHE). From 2003 until 1 September 2014 he was director of Undergraduate and Graduate Studies (Dean of Studies) at the Faculty of Arts of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Wagenaar is an external Higher Education expert for the European Commission and has been involved in main initiatives to harmonize European Higher Education, such as the development of a European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) since 1988, the Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education Area and a European Qualifications Framework for LLL. He also chaired from 2004 to 2014 the Dutch team of experts for the implementation of the ‘Bologna Process’ in Dutch Higher Education institutions by appointment of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Per January 2015, he has been appointed by the same Ministry as member of the Dutch Higher Education Experts team in the framework of Erasmus +. Furthermore, he is the president of the Erasmus Mundus Master Programme of Excellence Euroculture: Europe in the Wider World (since 2006). Together with Julia Gonzalez and Pablo Beneitone (University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain), Wagenaar elaborated, designed and coordinates the large scale innovative project Tuning Educational Structures in the World.

 

 

Copyright

Copyright for this article is retained by the Publisher. It is an Open Access material that is free for download, distribution, and or reuse in any medium only for non-commercial purposes; provided any applicable legislation is respected, the original work is properly cited, and any changes to the original are clearly indicated.