Erasmus+: Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees Coordinators' Conference, 17/11/2016, Brussels

1. European Quality Assurance
Register for Higher Education
Accreditation and Recognition – Reflecting
Jointness in External Quality Assurance
Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees Coordinators' Conference
Brussels, 17 November 2016
Colin Tück

2. European Framework for
Quality Assurance in HE
Standards and Guidelines
for Quality Assurance
in the EHEA (ESG)
European Quality
Assurance Register
for HE (EQAR)
Qualifications Framework
of the EHEA (QF EHEA)
European Approach for
QA of Joint Programmes
Criteria for
registration
Based on
ESG & QF
Applied by
EQAR-reg. Agencies
Referred in
standard 1.2

3. Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the European
Higher Education Area (ESG)
Purposes:
 Common framework
 Enable quality assurance and
improvement
 Support mutual trust, facilitate
recognition and mobility
 Provide information
Principles:
 HEIs' primary responsibility
 Responds to the diversity of
systems, institutions,
programmes and students
 Support the development of a
quality culture
 Take into account the needs and
expectations of students, all other
stakeholders and society
 Developed by stakeholders, adopted by governments
 Initially adopted 2005, revised in 2015 to reflect EHEA progress

4. European Quality Assurance Register for
Higher Education (EQAR)
 Established by E4 at
Ministers' request, jointly
governed by stakeholders
and governments
 Non-profit and
independent, acting in the
public interest
 Mission: enhancing trust
and confidence in EHEA
 Main role: to manage a
register of QAAs that
comply substantially with
the ESG
Registration based on
external review
Annual updates on
reviews/countries
Substantive change
reports
Third-party complaints
Periodic renewal every
5 years

5. Background
 Approaches and pilots for single reviews of joint programmes
 Developed and tested by QA agencies and stakeholders (e.g. JOQAR)
 Working, but complex
 Need to accommodate different national criteria
 Not always quality-related, but often structural
 Sometimes contradictory (e.g. # of ECTS Master thesis)
 Make sense nationally, but difficult to understand for foreign peers
 Consequence: “fragmented” external QA a common solution
 Different agencies looking at bits and pieces
 “Jointness” not reflected

6. Background (II)
 Policy: Bucharest Ministerial Communiqué (2012)
 “We encourage higher education institutions to further develop joint
programmes and degrees as part of a wider EHEA approach. We will
examine national rules and practices relating to joint programmes and
degrees as a way to dismantle obstacles to cooperation and mobility
embedded in national contexts.”
 “In particular, we will aim to recognise quality assurance decisions of
EQAR-registered agencies on joint and double degree programmes.”

7. European Approach for QA of
Joint Programmes
 Developed 2012 – 2015, aiming to:
 Ease accreditation of joint programmes
 Enable single reviews, reflect the joint character also in QA
 Concept: one agreed, consistent European framework
 Standards for quality assurance of joint programmes
 Procedure for quality assurance of joint programmes
 Based on ESG & QF-EHEA – applied to a specific case
 No additional national criteria
 Adopted by EHEA ministers in Yerevan (May 2015)
 For details see: www.eqar.eu/topics/joint-programmes.html

8. In a nutshell
Before After
Multiple, fragmented reviews Single review
Combining various national rules
and criteria
Agreed Standards, based on ESG
& QF-EHEA
Complex procedures, ad hoc
design
Agreed Procedure

9. Recognition
“It often seems more difficult to obtain recognition of a
joint degree than of a national qualification. This is in
contradiction with the overall policy goal of fostering
mobility and institutional and international co-
operation.”
Revised Recommendation on the Recognition of Joint Degrees, 2016
(subsidiary text to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, LRC)
http://www.enic-naric.net/joint-programmes-and-joint-degrees.aspx

10. LRC Recommendation –
Definitions
LRC Recommendation European Approach
Joint
programme
… refers to a study programme
developed, co-ordinated and
provided jointly by at least two
higher education institutions
and leading to the awarding of a
joint degree.
… understood as an integrated
curriculum coordinated and
offered jointly by different
higher education institutions
from EHEA countries, and
leading to double/multiple
degrees or a joint degree.
Joint
degree
… is understood as referring to
a higher education qualification
awarded jointly by at least two
higher education institutions,
on the basis of a joint
programme. A joint degree is
issued on a single document.
A single document awarded by
higher education institutions
offering the joint programme
and nationally acknowledged
as the recognised award of the
joint programme.

11. LRC Recommendation
 Relates primarily to joint degrees, but also
double/multiple degrees where applicable
 Principle: treat the same as other qualifications from the
HE systems to which the joint degree belongs
 Calls on governments to review legislation, remove
obstacles and establish legal basis for joint
programmes/degrees

12. LRC Recommendation
 Quality assurance
 Degrees quality assured in a single cross-border process
should be recognised, provided outcomes are officially
recognised in the countries of the HEIs
→ compatible with the European Approach
 Otherwise, recognition may be conditional on all parts of
the study programme being subject to transparent national
quality assurance mechanisms
 Information by awarding higher education institution
 Diploma supplement or some other comparable document
 Use of the ECTS or other credit systems

13. European Approach
Steps in practice:
A) External quality assurance at programme level needed?
B) Consider legal frameworks involved
C) Choose a suitable EQAR-registered QA agency
D) Self-evaluation report [Procedure: 1]
E) Site visit by review panel [2, 3]
F) Public report and decision [4, 5, 7]
G) Recognition of decision

14. A) Scenarios
Cooperating HEIs
need programme
accreditation/eval.
Cooperating HEIs are “self-accrediting”
for programmes, i.e. accredited/
evaluated/audited at institutional level
Single accreditation/eval.
of JP, based on agreed
Standards & Procedure,
by any EQAR-reg. agency
Joint internal QA review
of the JP (in line with ESG), may use
agreed Standards, external
review takes account of HEIs' internal
Recognised to fulfil QA require-
ments in all countries involved
European Approach, based on ESG & QF-EHEA, and Bucharest Communiqué
(“recognise QA decisions of EQAR-registered agencies on joint and double degree programmes“)

15. B) National recognition
All higher education
institutions are able to
use the European
Approach to satisfy
national QA
requirements
█ recognition of single external
QA procedure for programmes
▒ HEIs being self- accrediting
Some higher education
institutions or only
under specific
conditions
Discussions ongoing
Cannot be used to
satisfy national QA
requirements

16. C) Choosing a suitable
EQAR-registered agency
 Basic information
(EQAR website)
 Methodologies and
approaches
 Specialisation (e.g.
disciplines)
 Countries where agency
has worked
 Contact some agencies
 Ready to conduct review?
 Costs?
 Language?
 Decision by consortium
43 registered quality assurance agencies

17. D) Self-evaluation report
European Approach Standards:
1. Eligibility
1.1 Status
1.2 Joint design and delivery
1.3 Cooperation Agreement
2. Learning Outcomes
2.1 Level [ESG 1.2]
2.2 Disciplinary field
2.3 Achievement [ESG 1.2]
2.4 Regulated Professions
3. Study Programme [ESG 1.2]
3.1 Curriculum
3.2 Credits
3.3 Workload
4. Admission and Recognition [ESG 1.4]
4.1 Admission
4.2 Recognition
5. Learning, Teaching and Assessment
[ESG 1.3]
5.1 Learning and teaching
5.2 Assessment of students
6. Student Support [ESG 1.6]
7. Resources [ESG 1.5 & 1.6]
7.1 Staff
7.2 Facilities
8. Transparency and Documentation
[ESG 1.8]
9. Quality Assurance [ESG 1.1 & part 1]

18. E) Site visit by review panel
 Panel members
 At least four members from at least two countries involved
 Expertise in the relevant subject(s) or discipline(s)
 Labour market/world of work
 Expertise in quality assurance
 Student
 Knowledge of the HE systems and language(s) of instruction
 Site visit
 Interviews with management, staff, students and relevant
stakeholders
 Normally restricted to one location

19. F) Public report and
decision
 Consortium may comment on draft report
 Accreditation decision, if required
 Positive (valid 6 years)
 With conditions
 Negative
 Right of appeal
 Publication by the agency
 At least summary in English

20. G) Recognition of decision
 Ideal: automatically recognised in all countries
(see Bucharest and Yerevan Communiqués)
 Possible in a limited number of countries
 Regard existing notification requirements
 But: legal frameworks in many EHEA countries still
require changes → pragmatic approach
 Make arrangements for recognition before
 Contact with national ministry or QA agency
 Formal ratification decision might be an option
 Existing agreements between agencies could be used

21. Key Benefits
 Jointness reflected in external QA
 Reduced workload
 Recognition
 Attractive for prospective partners

22. Thank you for your attention!
Contact:
colin.tueck@eqar.eu
+32 2 234 39 11
#EQAJP @ColinTueck @EQAR_he
www.eqar.eu/topics/joint-programmes.html