Paper presentation at the 5th European Quality Assurance Forum, Lyon 2010. By Fernando M Galán, María Cristina Pastor & Francesc Esteve.

1. 5th European Quality Assurance Forum
Experiences and
future challenges
Fernando M. Galán Palomares
Medical student
University of Cantabria
Mª Cristina Pastor Valcárcel
Law student
Miguel Hernández University
Francesc Esteve Mon
Psycho-pedagogical student
Jaume I University Lyon, 19th November 2010

2. Outline presentation
1. Background
2. The design of student
participation in QA
(2005-2007)
3. The involvement of
students as full members
(2008-2010)
4. Review of the experience
and future challenges
5. Overview
6. Questions for discussion
Campus / University of Cantabria 2

3. 1.- BACKGROUND
3

4. Spanish context
• 1975 Death of Francisco Franco
• 1977 1st democratic elections
• 1978 Spanish Constitution
• 1983 University Reform Law (LRU)
Internal democracy & Autonomy
• 1986 Accession to the European
Economic Community (EEC)
4

5. QA history in Spain
• Universities Council (Ministry of Education)
1992/1994 • Experimental Evaluation Programme of the University Quality
• Universities Council (Ministry of Education)
• 1st National Plan for the Evaluation of the Quality of Universities
1996/2000 (PNECU)
• Universities Council (Ministry of Education)  ANECA
nd
2001/2003 • 2 Universities Quality Plan (PCU)
• Council of Ministers
• Setting up of the National Agency for Quality Assessment and
2002 Accreditation (ANECA)
5

6. QA culture in Spain
• Very little experience in Quality Assurance.
• There was not a tradition of quality
assessment.
• Quality culture is not as rooted and
widespread as in other European countries.
6

7. Role of the students
What is a student?
Why should they
participate in the
University Governance?
Their opinions are not
useful for the Institution!
Why should we take
into account the
things that they say?
They cannot be full
members of the
university community!
7

8. Role of the students
• The student has not traditionally been viewed as
a full member of the university community.
• The students haven’t had got the same
representation rights as other members of the
community.
• Student participation was not formally
implemented in all universities.
• Nor consolidated participation nationwide.
8

9. The student movement
• There is not a hard tradition of participation.
• There are several students’ associations with really
different profiles.
• The Coordinating committee of Student
Representatives of Public Universities (CREUP) is
created in 2001, and represents the majority of the
students at national level. (Member of ESU)
• CREUP was focused on consolidating student
participation at institutional and national level, but
not in student participation in QA systems.
9

10. Changing roles…
• "World Declaration on Higher Education in the Twenty-first
Century: Vision and Action", by the World Conference on Higher
Education of UNESCO, recognizes students as one of the main
stakeholders in higher education. (1998)
• Into the Bologna Process: the statement of Prague in 2001
recognizes that students are full members of the university
community and constructive partners as subjects, active and
competent in the establishment and construction of the EHEA.
Student as USER of the Higher Education
Student as STAKEHOLDER in Higher Education
10

11. About student participation in QA
• The statement of Berlin, in 2003,
reminds that by the year 2005
national systems of quality
assurance should include, inter
alia, participation of students.
• By the Bergen Communiqué in
2005 the European ministers of
education endorse the document
"Standards and guidelines for
quality assurance in the European
Higher Education Area“, drawn up
by ENQA, and providing a
framework for quality assurance
systems that includes the
participation of students in these
systems.
11

12. A real need?
The student participation in Quality Assurance
in Spain in 2005 can be seen not as a real
demand from the Spanish students, universities
or QA agencies; but as a consequence of the
Bologna Process implementation in our
country.
12

13. 2.- THE DESIGN OF STUDENT
PARTICIPATION IN QA
(2005-2007)
13

14. 2005 “in the beginning…”
According to the “European Standards and
Guidelines”, and aware of the benefits to be
gained from incorporating the student point of
view in quality assurance policies, ANECA began
working on student participation,
but…
HOW TO DO IT?
14

15. Meeting the students…
IV ANECA Forum:
Students and quality policies (2005)
• Debate about student participation in
quality assurance policies in higher
education.
• Students and their representatives are
not often viewed as mature adults,
which hinders their participation.
15

16. GATPEPC (I)
ANECA Working Group for Student
Participation in Quality Policies (GATPEPC)
• Call for the students with interest in Quality
Assurance topics. (2006)
• Composition: ANECA’s staff (3) and
representatives of students (7).
• Aim: propose possible methods for student
participation in the processes of the quality
assurance agencies.
16

17. GATPEPC (II)
Working method
• Subgroup 1: searching existing European
documents on the involvement of students in
quality assurance processes and other useful
documents.
• Subgroup 2: analyzing the current situation of
student representation in Spain.
Reflection about the benchmarking and the
situation of student representation to propose
possible ways to improve the student participation
in QA.
17

18. International incomes
• ANECA hosted an ENQA workshop on the
topic "Student Involvement in the Process of
quality assurance agencies". (October 2006)
• ANECA external evaluation carried out by
ENQA, where the three students who
remained members of GATPEPC were invited
as audience by the External Evaluation
Committee. (June 2007)
18

19. UIMP Summer School
• Hosted by the International University Menéndez
Pelayo and co-organized by ANECA and the Ministry
of Education
• Focused on “Student participation in quality
assessment”.
• For student representatives, quality assurance
agencies, vice-rectors for QA and QA technical units.
• To create a space for reflection for the active
participation of university students in quality
assurance processes in higher education.
19

20. Institutional Evaluation Programme
• ANECA invited some students who
attended the UIMP Summer School.
• First experiences of student
participation in QA at national level in
Spain.
• Students as observer members of the
external review committees, but with
the same work as any other member of
the committee .
• Very positive experience for the
students, but also for the other pool
members, the agency and the evaluated
universities.
20

21. Thinking before acting…
1. Meeting the students.
2. Benchmarking.
3. Proposing possible ways.
4. Discussion about the
student participation.
5. Training for students
in QA issues.
6. Checking.
Everything is ready to improve it!
21

22. 3.- THE INVOLVEMENT OF
STUDENTS AS FULL MEMBERS
(2008-2010)
22

23. Ready, steady… GO!
• Successful participation of students in the IEP.
• Tiny student experts’ pool from the IEP
experience.
23

24. DOCENTIA programme
• Programme’s aim: teaching assessment.
• December 2007 (verification phase)
• 5 students as full members of the evaluation
committees. One per team.
Milestone
For the first time in Spain students
participated as full members of committees
24

25. VERIFICA programme
• Programme’s aim: to analyze and verify the new
proposed degrees and post-degrees that Spanish
universities want to introduce. (Official
programme by Royal Degree 1393/2007)
• Started on February 2008.
• 46 students as full members of the evaluation
committees. One or two per team.
The student's point of view takes on added
importance since they are familiar with the quality
of the university teaching, given that they are the
main receivers of this activity.
25

26. AUDIT programme
• Programme’s aim: to provide guidance in designing
internal quality assurance systems integrating all the
activities implemented up until the present time
related to degree programmes quality assurance.
• (2008)
• Students as full members of the evaluation
committees. One per team.
This programme contributes to promote
the student participation in the
internal quality assurance systems
designed by the universities.
26

27. Other student participation
• 2008, the Advisory Council of ANECA opened
a call for one Spanish university student to
attend its standing committee as invited
member.
• 2009, coinciding with the renewal of the
Advisory Council, ANECA appointed the
chairperson of CREUP as full member of this
Council.
27

28. Regional agencies (11)
• In Spain there are 17
autonomous regions,
11 of them with a QA
regional agency.
• Some of them are
making efforts in the
same line as ANECA.
• However, not all of
them have worked
along this line, but it
will become
necessary to do so in
the near future.
28

29. Spreading “quality culture”
• The lack of knowledge on quality
assurance among students and
students representatives was
one of the difficulties that
should be overcome.
• “Meetings on Quality in Higher
Education” organized by Spanish
universities and supported by
ANECA.
Some of them for students.
29

30. 4.- REVIEW OF THE EXPERIENCE
AND FUTURE CHALLENGES
30

31. It’s time to check…
The participation of students in QA programmes
are generally positive and really appreciated.
• Other evaluators, usually, consider that students play
a key role in the assessment and especially for the
relevant aspects to students.
• The QA agencies have shown an enrichment of the
evaluation reports, expanding and including other
aspects not previously taken into account, or which
have not been qualified in the same direction.
• Universities have welcomed this participation, for
them is an opportunity to expand the analysis and
therefore to improve their quality. 31

32. Strengths
GATPEPC VERIFICA
• Area of mutual • Possibility of universities
understanding between getting an unfavorable
agency and students. report for the
• A feedback forum on implementation of a
student participation in degree if it does not
ANECA.
include a set of minimum
IEP requirements.
• The students play an active
role during site visits. AUDIT
• Enrichment of the • To optimize the design of
evaluation reports. internal quality assurance
DOCENTIA systems.
• Recognition as full • Short-term improvement.
stakeholders . 32

33. Weaknesses (I)
Procedures for nomination and appointment
• It should be consistent and transparent.
• To define a selection profile is an important aspect of the
"legitimacy" of students’ presence in the process.
Training
• Training students in specific QA tools to enable them to
develop properly their roles as evaluators.
Human resources
• The students have a temporary feature in the time they
will spend at university. Regeneration and renewal.
• Is important to plan the human resources required while
taking into account the temporary nature of the students.33

34. Weaknesses (II)
Promotion of “quality culture”
• To encourage students who where involved in QA to
contribute for the training of their peers.
• To continue raising awareness among students that their
participation is important, that they have valuable
contributions to make and that their views can help to
develop and improve the system.
Development of involved students
• It’s necessary to provide the tools for effective participation
and to ensure such participation does not jeopardize any
aspect of student development (academic, social, etc.), since
it means an extra effort of those who are involved. 34

35. General review
• All of the above notes the progress that has
taken place in Spain regarding the issue of
student participation in QA processes; however,
there are still aspects that require improvement.
• It should not be forgotten that there are still
some participation levels to be achieved and
moreover, it is necessary to consolidate this
participation.
• We should overcome these first drawbacks,
making them lines of action and improvement,
becoming strengths of the process. 35

36. 5.- OVERVIEW
36

37. QA in Spain
For the Spanish higher education system, one
of the most important developments provided
by the Bologna Process is the establishment
and consolidation of quality assurance systems.
The quality assurance, according to standards,
procedures and guidelines, at European level,
constitutes a framework of mutual trust and
recognition, both for higher education
institutions and for the stakeholders.
37

38. Evolution of the process (I)
2005 2007 2009
38
Bologna Process Stocktaking Reports: Spanish Scorecards 2005/2007/2009

39. Evolution of the process (II)
The evolution of the process has been quite quick,
as noted by the "Bologna Process stocktaking"
reports by Bologna Follow-up Group and the
"Bologna with student eyes" reports by ESU.
• Starting from scratch, genuine student
participation in QA has been achieved in record
time.
• This has meant that sometimes the process was
running by its own inertia, and some mistakes
were made due to lack of well planning.
39

40. Future challenges
To monitor student participation in QA
• This is an important aspect for improving
student participation.
• It will help identifying possible gaps and
establishing plans for improvement, correcting
our weaknesses.
To consolidate and institutionalize
the participation of students in QA
• Not only at national level, also at regional and
institutional ones.
• To establish a Spanish quality assurance student
experts’ pool, as in other European countries. 40

41. 6.- QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
• How to extend and disseminate the
culture of quality among the
students?
• How to monitor and track student
participation in QA?
• Convenience (advantages and
drawbacks) of the creation of the
Spanish quality assurance student
experts’ pool?
How to do it? 41

42. “To be surprised, to wonder,
is to begin to understand.”
José Ortega y Gasset
Spanish philosopher
fernando-miguel.galan@alumnos.unican.es
dec.ssjj_elche@delegacion.umh.es
42