Session Information
22 SES 09 C, Policy, Management and Governance in Higher Education
Paper Session
Contribution
Introduction
Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) are in the pressure of merging the units. Three UASs, situated in southern Finland, have chosen the way to build the federation which means close practical co-operation both in strategic and daily work but staying as individual units. Beside the common strategy, the shared quality assurance system will be the key element of the federation administration which has been constructed from 2008 and which is partly already “in action”. The homogenization of the quality assurance systems is in the very beginning. This study is the description and analysis of the first steps, cross-evaluations, which two of the partners have carried out together and also a plan how to continue and take along the third partner. As persons (2) who are responsible of the quality assurance (QA) systems in our own UAS, our primary task is to develop QA system, but in this study we concentrate in the developing process of the cross-evaluation which can be seen as a tool in the QA developing work. Our own positions have been in this study as action researches (Kuula 2001, www.scu.edu.au).
Theoretical background
The topics of the cross-evaluations (2008 and 2009) have pointed out from the topics of the framework of FINHEEC evaluation manual 2008-2011 (FINHEEC 2007). This decision supported the partners in preparing their QA systems for the national audit which was pointed to both partners in autumn 2010 (Lampelo et al. 2010). The other reason in decision-making was to choose topics which have turned out difficult or problematic during the past audits in Finnish higher education institutions. (Hämäläinen & Kantola 2002, Moitus 2010). The targets have been in 2008 “Interface between QA system and the HEI´s management and steering of operations” (target 3 in FINHEEC evaluation manual) and “Participation of HEI staff, students and external stakeholders in QA” (target 4 in FINHEEC evaluation manual).
The basic idea of cross-evaluation is systematically evaluate the same topic of both participants. The evaluators are the representatives of the participants, so they are in the same time both subjects and objects in the evaluation process. The difference between cross-evaluation and benchmarking is that the partners in cross-evaluation are equal when in benchmarking the other partner is more or less the one who is the object of benchmarking. (Hiltunen & Kekäläinen 2008, Kettunen 2009.)
Both the ideological and practical framework were adapted and applied from the model of the audits of FINHEEC. According to this, the main value of the cross-evaluation was to give critical, constructive and developing feedback to each other and to learn from each other. Also the scale (four stages: absent, emerging, developing, advanced) was in use.
The third target of the cross-evaluation, beside the merging and preparing processes, was very human. It was to increase the sense of community between the two partners. So, during the whole cross-evaluation process large number of staff members were involved in different ways into the process (Saarinen 2007, Korppoo 2010).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Anttila, P. 2007. Realistinen evaluaatio ja tuloksellinen kehittämistyö. Artefakta 19. Akatiimi. FINHEEC 2007. Audits of quality assurance systems of Finnish higher education institutions. Audit manual for 2008–2011. Finnish Higher Education Council 10:2007. Friman, M. & Ignatius J. 2008. HAMK-Laurea –ristiinarviointi 1. Loppuraportti. (HAMK-Laurea –crossevaluation, final report 1.) http://portal.hamk.fi/portal/page/portal/HAMK/Organisaatiojatoimipaikat/laadunvarmistus/laatujohtaminen Friman, M. & Ignatius J. 2009. HAMK-Laurea –ristiinarviointi 2. Loppuraportti. (HAMK-Laurea –crossevaluation, final report 2.) http://portal.hamk.fi/portal/page/portal/HAMK/Organisaatiojatoimipaikat/laadunvarmistus/laatujohtaminen Hiltunen, K. & Kekäläinen H. (ed.) 2008. Benchmarking korkeakoulujen laadunvarmistusjärjestelmien kehittämisessä. (Benchmarking in the developing process of the quality assurance systems in higher education institutions.) Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 5:2008. Hämäläinen, K. & Kantola, I. 2002. Mitä arvioinnit kertovat ammattikorkeakouluista. (What do the evaluations tell about UASs.) Teoksessa J-P. Liljander (toim.) Omalla tiellä. Arene, p. 317-338. Kettunen, J. 2009. Essays on strategic management and quality assurance. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis C 329. Korppoo, M. 2010. Laatutyöhön sitoutumisen edellytyksen ammattikorkeakoulussa. (The conditions for the commitment of an individual towards quality assurance work in the organisation of a polytechnic.) Helsingin yliopisto. Kastatustieteellisiä tutkimuksia 229. Kuula, A. 2001. Toimintatutkimus, kenttätyötä ja muutospyrkimuksiä. (Action research, field work and attempts to changes.) Vastapaino. Lampelo, S., Kainulainen, S., Turunen, J., Viljanen, J. Yanar, A., Mattila, J. & Saarilammi M-L. 2010. Laurea-ammattikorkeakoulun laadunvarmistusjärjestelmän auditointi. (Audit of the quality assurance system of the Laurea UAS.) Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 18:2010. Moitus, S. 2010. Analysis on FINHEEC Audit Outcomes 2005–2008. Finnish Higher Education Council 15:2010. Saarinen, T. 2007. Quality on the move. Discursive construction of higher educaton policy from the perspective of quality. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 83. www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/areol/areol-session13.html, Action Learning, Action Research Association. 18.1.2011.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.