Internationella rapporter och dokument
På denna sida finns läsvärda internationella rapporter och dokument av olika slag samlat. Här finns också skrivelser och andra dokument som av SUHF översatts till engelska. De är sorterade i grupper år för år med nyast överst. Dokumenten finns även i mapparna längst ned på sidan.
Översatta SUHF-dokument
A long-term position adopted by the Swedish Association of Higher Education (SUHF) regarding a national quality system for higher education.
The text below is a translation of a proposal made by SUHF:s expert group on quality to the General Assembly of SUHF. In 2013 on October 23 rd the General Assembly adopted the long term position proposed by the expert group.
Background
Over the years, Sweden’s different national quality assessment systems for higher education have been subject to discussion and in many cases heavily criticised. In addition, the present system has been deemed incompatible with the Standard s and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Sweden is currently in need of a sustainable and internationally accepted assessment system. SUHF should take a long - term position regarding the required characteristics of such a system. Accordingly, in 2012 SUHF:s expert group on quality was commissioned to propose such a position. This paper is a summary of the work of the expert group o n this issue. The proposals made were adopted by the General Assembly of SUHF on October 23rd, 2013.
A national quality system for higher education consists of different processes for assurance and further development of the quality of the education. Many of these processes are implemented at the individual higher education institutions. The system also includes the activities of the national evaluation agency . A core principle for the work of SUHF:s expert group on quality h as been that the different parts of the total system must be designed in accordance with each other for the system to function optimally.
Activities
The expert group has carried out three types of activities to underpin a proposal. Firstly, we have studied the design of quality systems in a number of countries. The countries were chosen after consultation with EUA’ s quality unit, with the main criterion that the systems must be well functioning. Study visits have been made to the Netherlands, Scotland, Ontario (Canada), Australia and Iceland. Comparisons with Finland and Denmark have also been made. The experiences ga ined are presented in the report Internationel la utblickar i kvalitetssäkring av högre utbildning . Secondly , we have arranged three consultation meetings with Swedish higher education institutions. Thirty-nine out of 40 higher education institutions were represente d at the meetings by at least one representative. Purposes and principles of quality systems, as well as relevant assessment methods, were discussed at the meetings, and they started with a presentation of the systems observed in the studied countries. Thirdly , we have considered the results of our activities within the framework of our assignment to monitor the present quality assessment system...
Comparability and resource allocation
One feature of the present system , that a system based on the proposed allocation of rol es would lack, is the possibility to make comparisons between higher education institutions within each main field of study. A related difference is that the proposed structure would require a different system for allocation of resources than the present. This system distributes a small part of the total budget for higher education in Sweden to the institutions where programs receive a “pass with distinction”.
However, a troubling problem with the present system seems to be maintain ing a common quality standard across different main fields of study. This is concluded in an evaluation initiated by the expert group and Uppsala University. Another conclusion is that the grade assigned an entire study programme often depends on the extent to which individual degree projects correspond to individual learning targets. Overall, the evaluation questions the narrow basis for assessing the quality of a study programme. The same observation is made in the review upon which ENQA’ s remarks about the Swedish system are based. Thus, the basis on which the quality of Swedish higher education is assess ed, and in turn on which part of the allocation of resources is determined, is fragile. It is certainly possible to find clear examples of ‘low quality’ and ‘very high quality’ progr ammes, but these cannot be taken to indicate that the entire system is working well.
Prior to the launching of the present system, many actors in the sector questioned that the quality assessment system was going to be linked to allocation of resources. Critical voices were for example heard at the expert group’s consultation meeting with higher education institutions in spring 2009. It was a common opinion that the system would not yield a sufficient basis for the allocation, and there were strong doubts t hat the system in the end would benefit the development of Swedish higher education. It can instead be argued that the study programmes that should be offered should have solid financial support and be subject to quality reviews.
Other programmes should be cancelled rather than starved to death. This view remained strong at the expert group’s consultation meeting in spring 2013, although the higher education institutions that had been allocated additional resources of course were appreciative of the extra contribution. The expert group proposes that SUHF’s standpoint should be that quality assessments should be separated from the funding issue. If the Government remains interested in finding a basis for resource allocation other than quantitative p erformanc e, SUHF should dis cuss this with the Government as a separate issue.
Download A long-term position adopted by the Swedish Association of Higher Education (SUHF) regarding a national quality system for higher education.
From 13 to 14 February 2014, an Induction Working Group took place at the University of Bergen, Norway, for the pilot group selected to participate in the FRINDOC (Framework for the Internationalisation of Doctoral Education) project. The pilot group consists of experts in doctoral education and internationalisation from 28 universities across Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.
/https%3A%2F%2Fprofilepics.canalblog.com%2Fprofilepics%2F1%2F0%2F1076071.jpg)