№1, 2005 г. | ПРОБЛЕМЫ ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ:
•
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA
•
Lazar Vlasceanu, Laura Grunberg, Dan Parlea
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION: A GLOSSARY OF BASIC TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
•
EUA'S QA POLICY POSITION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BERLIN COMMUNIQUE 12 APRIL 2004
•
Leung Tin Pui
SOME THOUGHTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE NEW ERA
•
П. <...> Стрелецкая
ПРОБЛЕМА РЕЗУЛЬТАТА И КАЧЕСТВА АДАПТИВНЫХ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫХ СРЕД В СИСТЕМЕ
ДОПОЛНИТЕЛЬНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ.
•
Л. <...> Карелина
РЕЙТИНГ ВУЗОВ, ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫХ ПРОГРАММ КАК ОДИН ИЗ МЕТОДОВ ОЦЕНКИ КАЧЕСТВА ВЫСШЕГО
ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ В РАЗЛИЧНЫХ СТРАНАХ: АНАЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ ОБЗОР
•
С. <...> ПРОБЛЕМЫ ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
Âåñòíèê ÂÃÓ
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE EUROPEAN
HIGHER EDUCATION AREA
Foreword
In the Berlin communiqué of 19 September 2003 the
Ministers of the Bologna Process signatory states
invited the European Network for Quality Assurance
in Higher Education (ENQA) ‘through its members,
in cooperation with the EUA, EURASHE, and ESIB’,
to develop ‘an agreed set of standards, procedures
and guidelines on quality assurance’ and to ‘explore
ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system
for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies
or bodies, and to report back through the Bologna
Fol-low-Up Group to Ministers in 2005’. <...> The Ministers also asked ENQA to take due account ‘of the
expertise of other quality assurance associations
and networks’. <...> I would therefore like to extend
my thanks to the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB together
with the ENQA member agencies for their constructive and most valuable input to the process. <...> However, we expect the report
to achieve a wider circulation among those with an
interest in quality assurance in higher education. <...> It must be emphasised that the report is no more
than a first step in what is likely to be a long and
possibly arduous route to the establishment of a
widely shared set of underpinning values, expectations and good practice in relation to quality and
its assurance, by institutions and agencies across
the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). <...> What
has been set in motion by the Berlin mandate will
need to be developed further if it is to provide the
fully functioning European dimension of quality assurance for the EHEA. <...> Christian Thune
President <...>
Вестник_Воронежского_государственного_университета._Проблемы_высшего_образования_№1_2005.pdf
№1, 2005 г. | ПРОБЛЕМЫ ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ:
• STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA
• Lazar Vlasceanu, Laura Grunberg, Dan Parlea
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION: A GLOSSARY OF BASIC TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
• EUA'S QA POLICY POSITION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BERLIN COMMUNIQUE 12 APRIL 2004
• Leung Tin Pui
SOME THOUGHTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE NEW ERA
• П.Н. Бирюков, А.С. Запрягаев
ЕВРОПЕЙСКОЕ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВО В СФЕРЕ ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ. ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВО
РЕСПУБЛИКИ ЧЕРНОГОРИЯ
• И.Я. Львович, В.Н. Кострова
РАЗВИТИЕ МЕНЕДЖМЕНТА КАЧЕСТВА И ЕГО ИНТЕГРАЦИЯ С ОБЩИМ УПРАВЛЕНИЕМ ВУЗА
• С.А. Антипов, Я.Е. Львович, Л.В. Мозгарев, В.П. Панасюк, Ю.А. Савинков
ВНЕДРЕНИЕ РЕГИОНАЛЬНОЙ СИСТЕМЫ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ КАЧЕСТВОМ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ: ОПЫТ, ПРОБЛЕМЫ
• Е.П. Стрелецкая
ПРОБЛЕМА РЕЗУЛЬТАТА И КАЧЕСТВА АДАПТИВНЫХ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫХ СРЕД В СИСТЕМЕ
ДОПОЛНИТЕЛЬНОГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ.
• Л.И. Стадниченко, В.Н. Эйтингон, В.П. Бочаров
ДИНАМИКА ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫХ СПОСОБНОСТЕЙ СТУДЕНТОВ И МЕРЫ ПО РАЗВИТИЮ ИХ ТВОРЧЕСКОЙ
АКТИВНОСТИ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОГО ФАКУЛЬТЕТА ВГУ)
• И.Г. Карелина
РЕЙТИНГ ВУЗОВ, ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫХ ПРОГРАММ КАК ОДИН ИЗ МЕТОДОВ ОЦЕНКИ КАЧЕСТВА ВЫСШЕГО
ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ В РАЗЛИЧНЫХ СТРАНАХ: АНАЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ ОБЗОР
• С.А. Запрягаев
ТЕНДЕНЦИИ РЕФОРМИРОВАНИЯ СИСТЕМЫ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ РОССИЙСКИХ УНИВЕРСИТЕТОВ
• НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ ОТЧЕТ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ К СОВЕЩАНИЮ МИНИСТРОВ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ СТРАНУЧАСТНИЦ
БОЛОНСКОГО ПРОЦЕССА (за 2004-2005 годы)
ПЕРСОНАЛИИ
• ЛОМОВ А.М.
• ДОМАШЕВСКАЯ Э.П.
Стр.1
ПРОБЛЕМЫ ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
Вестник ВГУ
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE EUROPEAN
HIGHER EDUCATION AREA
Foreword
In the Berlin communiqué of 19 September 2003 the
Ministers of the Bologna Process signatory states
invited the European Network for Quality Assurance
in Higher Education (ENQA) ‘through its members,
in cooperation with the EUA, EURASHE, and ESIB’,
to develop ‘an agreed set of standards, procedures
and guidelines on quality assurance’ and to ‘explore
ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system
for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies
or bodies, and to report back through the Bologna
Fol-low-Up Group to Ministers in 2005’. The Ministers
also asked ENQA to take due account ‘of the
expertise of other quality assurance associations
and networks’.
This report forms the response to this mandate
and comes with the endorsement of all the organisations
named in that section of the communiqué. The
achievement of such a joint understanding is a tribute
to the spirit of co-operation and mutual respect
that has characterised the discussions between all
the players involved. I would therefore like to extend
my thanks to the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB together
with the ENQA member agencies for their constructive
and most valuable input to the process.
This report is directed at the European Ministers
of Education. However, we expect the report
to achieve a wider circulation among those with an
interest in quality assurance in higher education.
These readers will hopefully find the report useful
and inspirational.
It must be emphasised that the report is no more
than a first step in what is likely to be a long and
possibly arduous route to the establishment of a
widely shared set of underpinning values, expectations
and good practice in relation to quality and
its assurance, by institutions and agencies across
the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). What
has been set in motion by the Berlin mandate will
need to be developed further if it is to provide the
fully functioning European dimension of quality assurance
for the EHEA. If this can be accomplished,
then many of the ambitions of the Bologna Process
will also be achieved. All the participants in the work
to date look forward to contributing to the success of
that endeavour.
Christian Thune
President of ENQA February 2005
Executive Summary
This report has been drafted by the European Association
for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA)1
, through its members, in consultation and
co-operation with the EUA, ESIB and EURASHE
and in discussion with various relevant networks.
It forms the response to the twin mandates given
to ENQA in the Berlin Communiqué of September
2003 to develop ‘an agreed set of standards, procedures
and guidelines on quality assurance’ and ‘to
explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review
system for quality assurance and/or accreditation
agencies or bodies’.
The report consists of four chapters. After the introductory
chapter on context, aims and principles,
there follow chapters on standards and guidelines
for quality assurance2
quality assurance agencies; and future perspectives
and challenges.
The main results and recommendations of the
report are:
• There will be European standards for internal
and external quality assurance, and for external
quality assurance agencies.
• European quality assurance agencies will be
expected to submit themselves to a cyclical review
within five years.
• There will be an emphasis on subsidiarity, with
reviews being undertaken nationally where possible.
• A European register of quality assurance agencies
will be produced.
• A European Register Committee will act as a
gatekeeper for the inclusion of agencies in the register.
•
A European Consultative Forum for Quality Assurance
in Higher Education will be established.
When the recommendations are implemented:
• The consistency of quality assurance across
the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) will
be improved by the use of agreed standards and
guidelines.
ENQA’s General Assembly confirmed on 4 November 2004
the change of the former European Network into the European
1
Association.
2
The term ‘’qualiti assurance’’ in this report includes processes
such as evaluation, accreditiation and audit.
5
; a peer review system for
Стр.2
Вестник ВГУ
• Higher education institutions and quality assurance
agencies across the EHEA will be able to use
common reference points for quality assurance.
• The register will make it easier to identify professional
and credible agencies.
• Procedures for the recognition of qualifications
will be strengthened.
• The credibility of the work of quality assurance
agencies will be enhanced.
• The exchange of viewpoints and experiences
amongst agencies and other key stakeholders (including
higher education institutions, students and
labour market representatives) will be enhanced
through the work of the European Consultative Forum
for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
• The mutual trust among institutions and agencies
will grow.
• The move toward mutual recognition will be assisted.
Summary
list of European standards for
qua-lity assurance
This summary list of European standards for quality
assurance in higher education is drawn from Chapter
2 of the report and is placed here for ease of reference.
It omits the accompanying guidelines. The
standards are in three parts covering internal quality
assurance of higher education institutions, external
quality assurance of higher education, and quality
assurance of external quality assurance agencies.
Part 1: European standards and guidelines
for internal quality assurance within
higher education institutions
1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance:
Institutions should have a policy and associated
procedures for the assurance of the quality and
standards of their programmes and awards. They
should also commit themselves explicitly to the development
of a culture which recognises the importance
of quality, and quality assurance, in their work.
To achieve this, institutions should develop and
implement a strategy for the continuous enhancement
of quality. The strategy, policy and procedures
should have a formal status and be publicly available.
They should also include a role for students
and other stakeholders.
1.2 Approval, monitoring and periodic review
of programmes and awards: Institutions should
have formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic
review and monitoring of their programmes and
awards.
6
ПРОБЛЕМЫ ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
1.3 Assessment of students: Students should
be assessed using published criteria, regulations
and procedures which are applied consistently.
1.4 Quality assurance of teaching staff: Institutions
should have ways of satisfying themselves
that staff involved with the teaching of students are
qualified and competent to do so. They should be
available to those undertaking external reviews, and
commented upon in reports.
1.5 Learning resources and student support:
Institutions should ensure that the resources available
for the support of student learning are adequate
and appropriate for each programme offered.
1.6 Information systems: Institutions should
ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant
information for the effective management of their
programmes of study and other activities.
1.7 Public information: Institutions should regularly
publish up to date, impartial and objective information,
both quantitative and qualitative, about the
programmes and awards they are offering.
Part 2: European standards for the external
quality assurance of higher education
2.1
Use of internal quality assurance procedures:
External quality assurance procedures
should take into account the effectiveness of the
internal quality assurance processes described in
Part 1 of the European Standards and Guidelines.
2.2 Development of external quality assurance
processes: The aims and objectives of quality
assurance processes should be determined before
the processes themselves are developed, by all
those responsible (including higher education institutions)
and should be published with a description
of the procedures to be used.
2.3 Criteria for decisions: Any formal decisions
made as a result of an external quality assurance
activity should be based on explicit published criteria
that are applied consistently.
2.4 Processes fit for purpose: All external quality
assurance processes should be designed specifically
to ensure their fitness to achieve the aims and
objectives set for them.
2.5 Reporting: Reports should be published and
should be written in a style, which is clear and readily
accessible to its intended readership. Any decisions,
commendations or recommendations contained in
reports should be easy for a reader to find.
2.6 Follow-up procedures: Quality assurance
processes which contain recommendations for ac
Стр.3