TEMPUS LEBANON HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM EXPERTS

1
TEMPUS LEBANONHIGHER EDUCATION REFORM EXPERTS
Bologna Process
By Mazen Elkhatib Dean Faculty of Education
Lebanese University

2
Agenda

• Bologna Process
• Sorbonne 1998
• Bologna 1999
• Prague 2002
• Berlin 2003
• Berggen 2005
• London 2007
• Lebanon and Bologna process

3
Sorbone Declaration 1998

• In May 1998 the ministers in charge of higher
  education of France, Italy, the United Kingdom
  and Germany signed the so-called Sorbonne
  Declaration on the harmonisation of the
  architecture of the European Higher Education
  System at the Sorbonne University in Paris.

4
Sorbonne Declaration focused on

• a progressive convergence of the overall
  framework of degrees and cycles in an open
  European area for higher education
  
• a common degree level system for undergraduates
  (Bachelor's degree) and graduates (Master's and
  doctoral degree)
  
• enhancing and facilitating student and teacher
  mobility (students should spend at least one
  semester abroad) removing obstacles for mobility
  and improving recognition of degrees and academic
  qualifications.

5
Bologna Declaration 1999

• In June 1999, 29 European ministers in charge of
  higher education met in Bologna to lay the basis
  for establishing a European Higher Education Area
  (EHEA) by 2010 and promoting the European system
  of higher education world-wide.

6
Bologna Process Goals

• Adopt a system of easily readable and comparable
  degrees
  
• adopt a system with two main cycles
  (undergraduate/graduate)
  
• establish a credits system (such as ECTS)
• promote mobility by overcoming obstacles
• promote European co-operation in quality
  assurance
  
• promote European dimensions in higher education.

7
Prague 2002

• In Prague in May 2001, the ministers of higher
  education of 33 European signatory countries met
  to follow up the Bologna Process and to set
  directions and priorities for the following
  years.
• reaffirmed their commitment to the goals of the
  Bologna Declaration
  
• appreciated the active involvement of the
  European University Association (EUA) and the
  National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB)

8
Prague 2002 (contd)

• Furthermore they emphasised the following points
  as important elements of the European Higher
  Education Area
  
• lifelong learning
• involvement of students
• enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness
  of the European Higher Education Area to other
  parts of the world (including trans-national
  education).

9
Berlin 2003 (contd)

• In Berlin in September 2003, the ministers
  identified three intermediate priorities for the
  next two years
  
• Promote effective quality assurance systems
• Improve the recognition system of degrees and
  periods of studies
  
• step up effective use of the two-cycle degree
  system

10
Berlin 2003 (contd)

• Quality Assurance systems should include
• A definition of responsibilities of the bodies
  and institutions involved
  
• Evaluation of programmes or institutions
  internal assessment, external review,
  participation of students and publications of
  results
• A system of accreditation, certification or
  comparable procedures
  
• International participation, co-operation and
  networking

11
Berlin 2003 (contd)

• Recognition of degrees and periods of
  studiesMinisters underlined the importance of
  the Lisbon Recognition Convention, which should
  be ratified by all countries participating in the
  Bologna Process. Every student graduating as from
  2005 should receive the Diploma Supplement
  automatically and free of charge.

12
Berlin 2003 (contd)

• The third cycle
• Ministers considered the necessity to go
  beyond the focus on two main cycles of higher
  education to include the doctoral level as the
  third cycle and to promote closer links between
  the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the
  European Research Area (ERA). This added a tenth
  action line to the Bologna Process
• Doctoral studies and the synergy between EHEA and
  ERA.

13
Berlin 2003 (contd)

• Ministers charged the Follow-up Group with
  organising a stocktaking process in time for
  their summit in 2005 and undertaking to prepare
  detailed reports on the progress and
  implementation of the intermediate priorities set
  for the period.

14
Bergen 2005

• Ministers responsible for HE in the participating
  countries of the Bologna Process, met in Bergen
  in 2005, for a mid-term review and setting goals
  and priorities toward 2010

15
Bergen 2005 (contd)

• Emphasized the central role of HE institutions
  and their staff and students as partners in
  Bologna process
  
• Called for greater sharing of expertise to build
  capacity at both institutional and governmental
  level
  
• Adopted a framework for qualifications in the
  EHEA comprising three cycles with generic
  descriptors based on learning outcomes and
  competencies

16
Bergen 2005 (contd)

• Adopted the standards and guidelines for quality
  assurance in EHEA as proposed by ENQA (European
  Network of Quality Assurance European
  Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
  Education)
• Welcomed the principle of a European Register of
  QA agencies

17
Bergen 2005 (contd)

• Called on national authorities and stakeholders
  to improve the quality of the process associated
  with the recognition of foreign qualifications
  and joint degrees
• Saw the development of national and European
  frameworks for qualifications as an opportunity
  to further embed lifelong learning in higher
  education
• Underlined the importance of research in
  underpinning higher education for the economic
  and cultural development of societies and for
  social cohesion

18
Bergen 2005 (contd)

• Considered the need for structured doctoral
  programmes to promote interdisciplinary training
  and the development of transferrable skills to
  meet the needs of wider employment market
• Renewed commitment to making quality higher
  education equally accessible to all
  
• Reconfirmed commitment to intensify efforts to
  lift obstacles to mobility
  
• Ensured that higher education institutions should
  have autonomy and sustainable funding to
  implement reforms

19
London 2007

• In May 2007, Ministers responsible for higher
  education in the countries participating in the
  Bologna process, met in London to review progress
  made in the last two years
• Confirmed there has been good overall progress. A
  significant outcome is the move towards
  student-centered higher education and away from
  teacher driven provision

20
London 2007 (contd)

• Mobility among obstacles to mobility are issues
  relating to immigration, recognition,
  insufficient financial incentives
  
• Degree structure efforts should concentrate on
  removing barriers to access and progression
  between cycles and on proper implementation of
  ETCS based on learning outcomes and students
  workload
• Recognition national and institutional
  approaches to recognition need to be more coherent

21
London 2007 (contd)

• Qualifications frameworks emphasise that QF
  should be designed so as to encourage greater
  mobility of students and teachers and improve
  employability.
• Lifelong learning flexible learning paths to
  support lifelong learning and improving
  recognition of prior learning need to be developed

22
London 2007 (contd)

• Quality assurance acknowledge the progress made
  with regard to mutual recognition of
  accreditation and quality assurance decisions and
  encourage continued international cooperation
  amongst quality assurance agencies.
• Doctoral candidates invite HEIs to embed
  doctoral programmes in institutional strategies
  and polices and to develop career paths and
  opportunities for doctoral candidates and early
  stage researchers

23
London 2007 (contd)

• Social dimension efforts should be continued to
  provide adequate student services, create more
  flexible learning pathways, and widen
  participation at all levels on the basis of equal
  opportunity
• EHEA in global context acknowledge efforts that
  have been made in some countries in other parts
  of the world to bring their higher education
  systems more closely into line with the Bologna
  framework

24
London 2007 (contd)

• Priorities for 2009
• Mobility
• Social dimension
• Data collection
• Employability
• EHEA in global context

25
London 2007 (contd)

• Looking forward to 2010
• Reaffirm the commitment to higher education as a
  key element in making our societies sustainable
  at national as well as at European level

26
Lebanon and Bologna process

• Higher Education
• Lebanese University
• Obstacles

27
Higher Education in Lebanon

• Shift of some Francophone universities to the
  three cycle system.
  
• Conduction of several seminars addressing quality
  assurance in higher education.
  
• Conduction of self-assessment by several
  universities.
  
• Endorsement of accreditation system by the
  American University of Beirut.
  
• Attempts of several universities to receive
  international accreditation, similar to the
  American University of Beirut.

28
Lebanese University

• Issuing of decree no. 14840 dated 28/6/2005 by
  the Council of Ministers to establish a unified
  system of teaching based on the LMD system
  
• Forming a central committee whose task is to lay
  out the framework for applying the LMD system
  
• Forming a committee in each of the faculties of
  the Lebanese University to help in the smooth
  transition to the LMD system and updating degrees.

29
Lebanese University (contd)

• Forming specialized sub-committees in each
  faculty to set the curricula for each major in
  accordance with the degree scale at the Lebanese
  University.
• Conducting seminars to the Lebanese university
  staff to expose them to the philosophy of the
  credit system and the three-cycle system.
  
• Launching of the three-cycle system in some
  faculties of the LU (Faculty of Science- Faculty
  of Business Administration). All faculties are
  expected to adopt this system in 2008-2009.

30
Obstacles

• Ambiguity of the goals of Bologna process held by
  some universities that applied the three-cycle
  system.
  
• The current application of the LMD is being
  incomplete and incompatible with the announced
  goals.
  
• Lack of standards that can control degrees and
  equivalence of certificates (recognition).

31
Obstacles (contd)

• Lack of institutional system, standards, and laws
  pertaining to quality assurance in higher
  education.
  
• Lack of involvement of economical and social
  sectors in the reform project of higher
  education.
  
• Absence of National Qualification Frameworks.