The past 20 years have seen significant investments in Quality Assurance infrastructure across Europe, thanks largely to the focus on quality assurance provided by the Bologna Process. Starting with the ESGs and EQAVET, a multitude of standards provide guidance as to what constitutes quality. Quality approaches in institutions vary widely, and despite efforts to the contrary, often quality assurance is reduced to a "commitment to quality culture" supported by a bureaucratic and time-consuming set of checks, often in the form of evaluation questionnaire of various kinds. In fact, according to analysis from the European Commission contained in the Modernisation Agenda for Education, educational institutions are not: - equipping enough people with the right skills for modern society - doing enough to tackle social divisions, in particular with regards to people from low socio-economic and migrant backgrounds - contributing enough to innovation in the places they are located, and - organized and funded in a way that allows them to work well. Quality assurance policy in Europe has either been unable to detect or unable to resolve these issues. It is our hypothesis that this is due to quality assurance which is applied nearly exclusively a course/programme level rather than at institutional-strategy level, where it can be a lever for organizational transformation. In analysing this phenomenon, we have identified a lack of formalised expertise in quality management amongst institutional top management as a key barrier limiting uptake. Often institutional leaders will have never received any formal training in QA-management, and thus, while having significant expertise as to what constitutes quality education, will have limited expertise in how to translate that mission and vision into a management system based on clear quality objectives, backed up by steady processes that will assure the adequate planning and realization of activities leading to the achievement of those objectives, as well as monitoring and analysing processes that will enable continual improvement. The project is broadly divided into 5 phases: Phase 1: Overview of Institutional Leaders’ Views to QA and barriers to proper implementation of QA This phase, will set the scope of the project by using a survey of 70 institutional leaders, followed by focus groups to identify the problems institutional leaders have with QA processes, the reasons QA processes fail to promote positive change to their full potential, and the elements of these which might be solved through training of institutional leaders. Phase 2: Creation of a Quality Competence Framework for Institutional Leaders and Associated Learning Outcomes The competence framework will take the form of a grid mapping required learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills, autonomy and responsibility against levels of seniority in management. Authoring will take place via meetings of an expert group, whose results will be validated by a 20-member panel of experts in QA. Phase 3: Design of Curricular Materials for Institutional Leaders The methodology for course production will follow a standard ADDIE instructional design model. It will be structured as a set of online micro-learning modules (bite-sized modules), since studies show that this format can strengthen knowledge inputs including process, curriculum, form and time, and that is particularly effective in promoting the acquisition of finely defined competencies. The short-format paired with the online availability also makes it easy for senior staff to find time to integrate the learning into their schedules. Phase 4: Delivery of Training This will involve the organization of multiplier events aimed at promoting the online training, as well as the organization of an advanced 4-day intensive training event on specific QA techniques and methodologies. The face to face training will make heavy use of simulation techniques to model an institutional environment. Phase 5: Provision of Model Strategies So as to allow institutional leaders to quickly implement what they learn in the training, the project will also design a set of model strategies for implementing techniques such as issue management, kai-zen, and holistic-course review. The model strategies designed by the consortium will be piloted via dry-testing in a set of HVET institutions before being proposed to leaders in the course, to ensure that they can be efficiently applied in these contexts. A properly implemented quality management system allows an institution to understand the requirements of all its stakeholders, including students, industry and society, and then to design a mission, vision and strategy that addresses those requirements. Thus, the main intended impact from QALead is to change attitudes towards quality assurance from a compliance-focused mindset that focus on the needs of learners, enterprise and society.
By implementing an effective quality management system, a higher education institution can gain a comprehensive understanding of the expectations and needs of all its stakeholders, such as students, industry partners, and society. This understanding can enable the institution to develop a mission, vision, and strategy that aligns with these expectations. QALead's ultimate objective has thus been to shift the focus of quality assurance from a compliance-centric approach to one that is learner, enterprise, and society-oriented. More specifically, QALead aimed to provide learning resources designed to fill the gaps in knowledge and skills related to quality assurance and management among institutional leaders, thereby empowering them in their strategic leadership role in this key part of their leadership role.
The past 20 years have seen significant investments in Quality Assurance (QA) infrastructure across Europe. Thanks largely to the focus on QA provided by the Bologna Process, ESGs and EQAVET, a multitude of standards provide guidance as to what constitutes quality. According to the EC's Modernisation Agenda for Education, HE institutions are falling short in equipping people with the right skills, tackling social divisions, contributing to innovation, and having effective organisation and funding. QA policy in Europe has been unable to detect and/or resolve these issues. QALead started from the understanding that this is due to QA which is insufficiently applied at institutional-strategy level, where it can be a lever for organisational transformation.We also identified a lack of formalised expertise in quality management amongst institutional top management as a key barrier. Institutional leaders often lack formal training in QA management and struggle to translate mission and vision into a management system with clear quality objectives, steady processes, and continual improvement monitoring and analysis.