1. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 1
Bologna Regional
Workshop
Belfast – 02 May 2013

2. The Proposal (1)
Erasmus for All: Ambitions
• Simplify current education and training
programme structure
• Improve access and reinforce lifelong learning
aspect
• Simplify operation/implementation
• Broaden scope for structured partnerships
(including between different sectors and with
business)

3. The Proposal (2)
Architecture:
This diagram demonstrates the
proposed changes under the
Erasmus for All proposal.

4. The Proposal (3)
Key Action 1 - Learning Mobility (66%):
• Remains core element of programme
• Significant share of budget
• Aspiration to support c 5m individuals, c 135,000
international
• Strong emphasis on mobility in HE
• Mobility within coherent institutional development strategy
• Quality as a criterion of funding (content, teaching and
learning methods, recognition, preparation...)
• [Erasmus Masters student loan guarantee scheme]

5. The Proposal (4)
Key Action 2 - Co-operation for innovation and good practice
(26%):
• Strategic partnerships, incorporating mobility between
education establishments and other relevant bodies
• Large scale partnerships between HE and business
('Knowledge Alliances') - aim to increase Europe's
capacity for innovation
• IT support platforms - includes e-courses and virtual
mobility
• Capacity-building in third countries (focus on
neighbourhood countries) to enhance quality, relevance
and governance of HE - link to mobility - to incorporate
other HE programmes of the EC

6. The Proposal (5)
Key Action 3 - Support for policy reform (5%):
• Support to activities which help develop and
direct EU agenda for education, training and
youth
• Support to specific policy agendas for thematic
priorities (including modernisation, Bologna
process)
• Greater policy dialogue with third countries and
neighbourhood countries

7. The Proposal (6)
The Budget:
• 19 billion euros ??? - proposed
• c70+% increase on current equivalent budget
• Mobility (Key Action 1) 66%
• Higher education: 25%
• Vocational education and training: 15%
• School education: 7%
• Adult education: 2%

8. The Proposal (7)
Implementation:
• Emphasis on streamlining, simplification and
performance-based allocation
• Reduction in types of activity, 75 to 11 (4 mobility,
4 co-operation and 3 policy support)
• More flat-rate grants, especially for mobility
• Budget allocation for international dimension to
follow geographic, development and policy
priorities for EU external action

9. The Proposal (8)
Strengths:
•Significant budget increase (proposed)
•Enlargement of geographic scope
•Integration of EU HE programmes
•[Support for European Masters level mobility]
•Simplification of administration and management
•Greater decentralisation
•Increased support for university-business co-operation
But
•Wholesale integration, loss of sectoral definition
•Many details unknown

10. What now?
• Debate in European Parliament (CULT
Committee voted December – EP plenary vote
February?)
• Return to Council in February (?)
• General budget discussions through Spring
• Decision by mid-2013?

11. erasmus@britishcouncil.org
02920 924311
www.britishcouncil.org/erasmus
Thank you

12. Challenges 1: Establishing successful joint
programmes

13. The Challenges
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 13
• Why develop joint programmes? Internationalisation, funding
opportunities … Campus Asia, Science Without Borders …
• Understanding risks & opportunities: Benefiting from shared quality
and expertise. Risks to reputational capital & legal implications
• Linking mobility pathways to student-led learning outcomes.
Designing mobility pathways - student-led not institutionally-led
• Joint degrees can be planned at all Bologna levels, but what are
the key characteristics of each level when developing them?
• Whose Quality Assurance assures the quality?
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/clusters/sustainability_en.php (Practical guidelines for
Sustainability and Recognition) and http://www.emqa.eu (Handbooks for Erasmus Mundus Joint
Master and Doctoral Programmes)

14. Work with EC Erasmus Mundus JPs
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 14
Master and Doctoral. Indicators and Critical Paths. Recognition and
Sustainability challenges. The future?

15. Develop Logically and Strategically - Master
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 15

20. Joint Doctorates – Particular Challenges
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 20

21. Joint Doctorates – Particular Challenges
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 21

22. Recognition, Employability, Sustainability
• ‘Cloud’ of degrees awarded by JPs and no single strategy
• Complex multi-disciplinary and multi national products with
recognition through a range of actors
• Employability and Recognition are inter-linked
• Challenging for complex JPs to become entirely sustainable
• Aspirational and majority of programmes are yet to achieve
tangible outcomes
• Links to employers and market needs are vital
• Exit strategies to be tailored to individual JPs
• These issues must be considered ‘a priority’
22

23. Looking to the future …
• Erasmus for All … whatever shape or form?
• Global competition for high quality students
• More sophisticated models? European Institute for Innovation
and Technology and others
• Commodification trends – fees, customers, quality, liability
• MOOCs and other technological beasts ….
23

24. More Information
• EMQA Site with indicators: www.emqa.eu
• Handbooks of Excellence
http://www.emqa.eu/Downloads/Handbook
%20of%20Excellence%202012%20-
%20Doctoral%20-%20Final.pdf
http://www.emqa.eu/Downloads/Handbook
%20of%20Excellence%202012%20-
%20Master-%20Final.pdf
24

25. Challenges 2: Life after a Joint Degree:
Common recognition issues

26. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 26
ENIC-NARIC
Network
Employers
HEI
Admissions

27. Role of ENIC-NARICs

28. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 28
What facilitates recognition?
This recommendation was adopted in 2004 and brings joint degrees under the legal framework of the Convention on the
Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. The recommendation underlines that the
basic principles regarding recognition also apply to joint degrees. In addition, it sets specific requirements that the joint degrees should
fulfil. European higher education has come a long way since this recommendation was issued and there have been calls to update it to
better reflect current definitions and practices of joint programmes and joint degrees. (www.enic-naric.net)
This recommendation was adopted in 2004 and brings joint degrees under the legal framework of the Convention on the
Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. The recommendation underlines that the
basic principles regarding recognition also apply to joint degrees. In addition, it sets specific requirements that the joint degrees should
fulfil. European higher education has come a long way since this recommendation was issued and there have been calls to update it to
better reflect current definitions and practices of joint programmes and joint degrees. (www.enic-naric.net)
European Area of Recognition Manual
Recommendation on the recognition of joint degrees

29. ECA (European Consortium for Accreditation): ENIC – NARIC Survey, 2010
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 29
25 respondents
• Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech republic, Denmark, Finland,
France, Georgia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Montenegro, Norway,
Poland, the Netherlands, UK and United States of America
• 6 anonymously
Are you experienced with Qualifications awarded by JP?

30. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 30
Common problems raised..
“..compatibility of qualification with national regulations of the countries concerned..”
“..unclear status of the awarding body (consortium or number of HEIs) and agreement on
which cooperation is based..”
“..lack of appropriate legal provisions in the national legislation..”
“..No problems in case a national qualification from any country is awarded. If not,
recognition is more difficult and not possible in some cases (e.g. regulated professions)..”
“..Insufficient information about the joint programme itself and the institutions..”
“…In some cases one of the institutions associated with the joint programme is not
recognised..”
“..not clear who provides quality assurance: national agencies in each country or one of
the participant countries..?”

31. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 31
Issues summarised

32. JOQAR action lines

33. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 33
Where do we search for information?

34. Certification
Multiple degrees;
Double degrees
Multiple degrees;
Double degrees
Joint degreeJoint degreeCover degreeCover degree
Several types of documents issued to graduates :
! Explicit clarification of the certification arrangements can
facilitate recognition

35. Cover degree

36. JOQAR Guidelines, 2012
• All relevant (sub)national legal frameworks in
accordance to which the degree was awarded;
• Higher education institutions; (logos and/or full
names) are limited to the awarding
institutions/authorities, i.e. only the institutions that
award this joint degree;
• Signatures of the competent authority/-ies
representing the awarding institutions;
• Qualification’s full name(s) as recognised in all the
relevant legal frameworks;
• If the consortium has agreed on one responsible
institution (such as a coordinating institution or a
contact point), this is indicated on the joint degree
(e.g. next to the name of that institution).

37. Information Provision: Diploma Supplement
• Explanation of the credit system(s) used by the joint programme
consortium
• Information about all the grading systems referred to under the
programme details
• Access to further academic and/or professional study for each of
the higher education systems
• If there are other members in the joint programme consortium
which are not involved in awarding the joint degree, their full
name, status and role in the joint programme is included
• If the joint programme was quality assured and/or accredited as
such, reference to the responsible quality assurance and
accreditation agencies should be included

38. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 38
“Perfect” Certificate?

39. Consortium
•All institutions in the consortium are recognised and/or accredited as higher
education institutions in their (sub)national higher education systems;
•Each higher education institution in the consortium is entitled to legally offer
this type of programme (level, orientation, discipline) as a joint programme,
even if that institution is not involved in the awarding of the joint degree.
Programme
•The joint programme is offered in accordance with the legal frameworks of
the relevant (sub)national higher education systems;
•When required, the joint programme is quality assured and/or accredited as
a joint programme.
General conditions for recognition

40. Good practice for recognition
Key message:
… joint degrees should be treated as
favourable as foreign national degrees. In
addition, we encourage gathering evidence
for recognition and recognising or
recommending recognition when sufficient
evidence is available.
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 40

41. Practical Guidance
Case Study:
A joint programme consortium consists of institutions from France, Germany, Italy, The
Netherlands and Slovenia. All institutions are well-established research universities
except the consortium partner from the Netherlands. This is in fact a training provider
with facilities for the joint programme offered but without recognition as a higher
education institution.
Good practice:
The participation of a legitimate but non-recognised provider can be accepted if the
other recognised and degree-awarding institutions have assumed full responsibility for
the joint programme provided. This means that the fact that not all institutions in the
joint programme consortium are recognised and/or accredited as higher education
institutions in their (sub)national higher education systems SHOULD NOT stop a
recognition procedure.
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 41

42. Quality Assurance:
Changes, risk, legal competence

43. Quality - why risk?
 Reputational
 Student progression
 Financial
 Complaints
 Grades and credits
 External examiners
 Compliance
“These are reflected in QAA’s work on a new risk-based
approach to quality assurance, increased student
engagement in quality assurance, and the development of
the QAA Quality Mark”
per Anthony McClaran 09/04/2013 at INQAAHE Taipei

45. Quality Code – B10
Old B10 until January 2014 – management of collaborative
arrangements
2010 Section 2: Collaborative Provision
Was this “future proof”?
“risk-based approach to engagement with collaborative
activity”
emphasis on management of the provision
guidance re the quality of learning has been re-allocated to
other chapters of the Quality Code

46. The new B10 – Managing higher education
provision with others
Takes effect from 01 January 2014
B10 supersedes:
- Section 2: Collaborative provision and learning (including e-
learning), and
- Section 9: Work-based and placement learning – much of this
will be in B3

47. The new B10
“...... how academic standards are established and maintained and
how the quality of learning opportunities is assured and
enhanced; ...... apply to all UK higher education provision,
regardless of where it is delivered or who delivers it.”
“This Chapter of the Quality Code applies to the management of all
learning opportunities leading or contributing to the award of
academic credit or a qualification that are delivered, assessed or
supported through an arrangement with one or more
organisations other than the degree-awarding body.”
“The following list ............. illustrates .........:
• Joint, dual/double or multiple awards granted by one or more
other awarding bodies”

48. The new B10 (page 6)
“Assessment and management of risk
“Delivering learning opportunities with others inevitably carries risk”
“Arrangements that break down can present difficulties for students
and can damage the reputation of participating organisations ......
give rise to high human, financial and legal costs .............
Incumbent .... To assess the risks involved and manage them
appropriately.”
“Adopting a risk-based approach to commissioning, developing and
managing arrangements for delivering learning opportunities with
others mitigates these dangers.”

49. The new B10 (pages 19 and 20)
“Programmes leading to joint awards
Degree-awarding bodies:
• Satisfy themselves that their partners have the legal and
regulatory capacity to grant the relevant joint awards [Note: and
that they themselves do]
• Ascertain what ...... legislation .... and qualifications frameworks
of all awarding bodies involved are ........and whether these could
have implications for the standards of their own awards.
Written agreements
- nature, requirement and list (not exhaustive) of contents

50. The new B10
“Appendix 1: The Expectation and Indicators
Expectation:
Degree-awarding bodies take ultimate responsibility for academic
standards and the quality of learning opportunities irrespective of
where these are delivered or who provides them. Arrangements
for delivering learning opportunities with organisations other than
the degree-awarding body are implemented securely and
managed effectively.
The Indicators of sound practice”
19 of them

51. JoiMan – Joi.Con
www.joiman.eu
Funded project to analyse what the management issues are in joint
programmes
Many types and modes of joint programmes
Institutional strategy and support essential
Processes and planning essential
Risk evaluation needed
Robust management framework

52. Legal matters
Questions to be answered:
Do all the universities involved have the legal ability to do what
is being set up?
Accept the levels of credit required
Award joint degrees
Enrol the students
Issue the appropriate documentation
(certificate)
Charge the appropriate fees (and “collect”
them)

53. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 53
Assessment Methodologies and Grading Practices
Anthony Vickers
University of Essex

54. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 54
Outline
• UK assessment methodology and grading practice
• Other EU/EHEA assessment methodology and grading
practice
• Outside the EU/EHEA
• Erasmus Mundus Advice

55. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 55
UK Assessment Methodology and Grading Practice
• Learning Outcomes
• Assessment Methods
• Grading Scale
• Grading Criteria
• Grade Distributions
• Grade conversion for returning mobile
students

56. Learning Outcomes
• All UK Universities must provide programme
specifications for their degree courses along with module
maps which indicate where the programme learning
outcomes are met within the programme.
• It is not clear how prevalent the practice of creating
module level learning outcomes is within the UK.
• Module level learning outcomes are mapped to the
learning pathway and to the assessment which
determines if the student has met the learning outcome.
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 56

57. Assessment Methods
• Assessment methods are now vary varying across subject
and Institutions.
• The traditional approach of lectures, seminars,
laboratories, tutorials has been adapted with for example
more interactive lectures, computer based laboratories,
use of social media, collaborative online systems etc.
• The KIS data now records the type of an assessment
(http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lt/publicinfo/kis/ )
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 57

58. Grade Scale
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 58
In general most Higher Education Institutions in a particular
country operate the same grading scale.
In the UK it is common to use a 100 point scale divided in
the following way at the Bachelor level
<40 – Fail
40-49 Third Class Honours
50-59 Lower Second Class Honours
60-69 Upper Second Class Honours
>70 First Class Honours
Although grading criteria will be set against specific
assessments in general the distribution of students across
this grading scale is to some extent consistent across the
UK.

59. Grade Criteria
• All grading in UK Universities is undertaken by measuring the
student against criteria.
• I do not know of any examples were the grading is applied using a
normative approach where students are compared to each other in
order to determine their grade. Any objections?
• Criteria are not always published to students although guidance
regarding what is expected is given to a greater or lesser extent.
• The UK uses grades to create a degree classification. There are
many different practices regarding the process.
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 59

60. Grade Distribution
• Grade distribution data is analysed by most
Universities at Department, Faculty, and
Institutional level.
• Grade distribution data is returned to HESA
(http://www.hesa.ac.uk/ )
• It is possible to analyse degree classification data
for an Institution or for a group of Institutions. The
data is semi-public (subscription)
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 60

61. Grade conversion for returning mobile students
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 61
University of Essex current practice for EU partners

62. Grade conversion for returning mobile students
www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 62
ECTS Users Guide
Advice

63. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 63
Other EU/EHEA Assessment Methodology and
Grading Practice
• Scale
• Criteria
• Distributions
• Learning Outcomes
• Grade conversion for returning mobile
students

64. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 64
Outside the EU/EHEA
• Scale
• Criteria
• Distributions
• Learning Outcomes
• Grade conversion for returning mobile students

65. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 65
Erasmus Mundus Advice

66. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 66
Handbook of Excellence

67. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 67
Observations
http://www.emqa.eu/HandbookObservations.aspx?Component=1-M

68. www.britishcouncil.org UK Bologna Expert Team 68
Questions?