TEEP II A Pilot Evaluation of Joint Degrees

1
TEEP II A Pilot Evaluation of Joint Degrees

• Staffan Wahlén

2
Why joint degrees?

• Great interest on the part of
• - Many universities
• - Ministers since the the Sorbonne
  Declaration
• - the European Commission (Erasmus Mundus)

3
TEEP II

• Transnational European Evaluation Project
• Aim to develop a methodology for external
  evaluation of joint Masters degrees
• Evaluates three programmes
• CoMundus Media and Communication
• EMLE European Master in Law and Economics
• EuroAquae Water Management

4
Three different programmes

• Length Comundus 3 semesters (90 ECTS)
• EMLE 1 year (60 ECTS)
• EuroAquae 2 years (120 ECTS)
• Coherence CoMundus 4 main areas, 2 locations
• EMLE 2 main areas, 2 3 locations
• EuroAquae different specialities, 3 locations,
  professional practice

5
Three different programmes

• Number of partners
• CoMundus 7
• EMLE 10
• Euroaquae 5
• Age
• CoMundus since early nineties
• EMLE since late 80s
• Euroaquae - new

6
Joint European project

• Involves six quality assurance agencies
• Based on the European standards and guidelines
• Criteria inspired by the Dublin descriptors and
  the EUA Golden Rules

7
Evaluation process

• European Standards and Guidelines
• - Self-evaluation
• - Team of experts (peers)
• - Site visit
• - Public report
• - Follow-up

8
Criteria

• Inspiration from
• - The Dublin Descriptors for the masters degree
• -The EUA Golden Rules
• - TUNING

9
Organisation and management

• Both professional and academic aims
• Different levels of institutional support
• Different mechanisms for cooperation, information
  sharing
• Student support services
• Different conditions for EU students and non-EU
  students

10
Programme and programme delivery

• The international environment provides added
  value and personal development
• Harmonisation of teaching and assessment methods?
  Common textbooks exams?
• Common core diversification?
• Computer based learning platforms
• Staff development and exchange

11
Quality assurance

• Joint quality assurance
• Quality assurance practices involving students,
  staff and external stakeholders (alumni,
  potential employers)
• Student involvement and influence

12
Lessons learned

• The importance of institutional commitment and
  support
• The importance of consistent and regular
  co-operation, information exchange and compliance
  with agreements Programme coordinator, local
  coordinator, teachers, students

13
Lessons learned 2

• Roles of each partner clearly defined
• Legal problems must be defined and solved
• - Joint, double, multiple degree?
• Practicalities information, accommodation
• Common core vs special profile

14
Lessons learned 3

• Agreement on and awareness of teaching and
  assessment methodologies
• Use of ICT, electronic platforms
• Role of thesis, supervision and assessment
• Agreement on standards in terms of learning
  outcomes among staff and coordinators
• Opportunities for staff development and staff
  exchange

15
Lessons learned 4

• Importance of a joint quality assurance strategy
• Students, teaching staff, management, alumni,
  employers involved in quality assurance
• Regular course evaluations (electronic
  questionnaires), monitoring and external
  evaluations

16
Special challenges

• Who should evaluate or accredit joint programmes?
• Financing for EU students and non-EU students
• Different legislation in different countries
  (special requirements for number of credits, for
  thesis)
• Language policies English and/or diversity