Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Last week, on May 14-15th of 2015 the latest Bologna Process Ministerial Conference and Bologna Policy forum was held in Yerevan, Armenia. The participants of the process met at the event, amongst else to agree upon the most recent communique that sets the agenda for the coming years, and approve new members. At the meeting, Belarus was approved as a member. The approval of Belarus was anticipated, and has been linked to recent geopolitical developments, despite frequent concerns regarding academic freedom in the country.
The 2015 Yerevan conference also marked a shift in main focus. While in 2012 in Bucharest the main topics were the “F-word” (funding) and automatic recognition, there were other themes that were in focus in Yerevan has slowly shifted closer to the core of higher education enterprise – teaching and learning. The Bologna process has arguably had more focus on the structural aspects of higher education systems this far, so one can argue that this shift is a change. One could argue that this is necessary to also create new enthusiasm for the process.
The Yerevan Communique that was adopted highlights four key priorities, where the quality and relevance of teaching and learning is now set as the “main mission of the EHEA”. In addition to quality, the other two points concern employability and inclusiveness – illustrating how the values in the process have a dual attention on social cohesion while promoting the interests of the labour market as well. While teaching and learning have been put to the forefront, structural reforms remain one of the four key objectives, where degree structure, credits system, quality assurance standards and guidelines, as well as various cooperation in mobility and joint degrees are highlighted as the “foundations of the EHEA”.
In this context, the BFUG has received a task to review and simplify its governance structures. A number of policy measures were also adopted, amongst else the revised version of ESG (European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area), the European Approach for Quality Assurance in Joint Programmes as well as the revised ECTS users guide. It should also be noted that during the conference, a call was made to have more precise instruments to measure implementation.
Progress since Bucharest?
The implementation report for EHEA that examines progress in terms of the various action lines and priorities, and its compiled by European Commission, along with/EACEA and Eurydice. The main message from the report is that variations remain, while some progress has been made.
Regarding degree structures, while transference from first to second cycle is generally smooth, and in 37 countries the implementation of the first and second cycle are completed (90% of students are enrolled in programmes that comply with the Bologna structure).
The issue of qualifications frameworks was highlighted as more problematic, where in three of the countries the process has not moved from the stage of setting up the NQF and identifying stakeholders. While a number of countries indicate progress (24 countries now have reached self-certification, in comparison with 10 countries in 2012), in ten countries the process has not moved beyond national level to actually become implemented on institutional level (and in some examples there has been no progress since 2012).
ECTS receives a more positive evaluation and appears to be implemented “practically everywhere”, but there is variation in the share of programmes that use ECTS. In 27 of the countries, ECTS has been fully implemented, and there are no countries where the process would be marked with lowest score.
Diploma supplements used fully in 28 of the countries, which implies that students receive diploma supplements in a widely spoken European language automatically and free of charge. There is however considerable variation regarding recognition of studies, and who has the final decision making capacity – whether it is higher education institutions or the ENIC-NARIC centres.
With respect to quality assurance, this is again highlighted as one of the main areas of development in relation to the Bologna Process. However, it is only in 8 countries that all countries can chose to be evaluated by an external EQAR registered QA agency to fulfill their external QA obligations. This suggests that cross-border quality assurance is still not very developed.
A number of the less difficult to measure areas receive also more mixed responses. Student centered learning that has been noted as one objective in the ten Bologna action lines appears to be problematic in some countries. Social dimensionwas examined in terms of diversity of student populations, and the report highlights that equal opportunities are still an issue – both in terms of gender balance and for instance with respect to immigrant children. Lifelong learnig is again highlighted as a “challenging concept” that requires operstionalisation (and that this is usually lacking), and it is highlighted that despite increased need to focus on lifelong learning, major structural changes have not been identified. Instead, this has been tackled by more incremental adaptation by the institutions.
While higher education attainments rise, the report highlights that completion rates vary substantially and range from 48% to 88%, and there appears to be little variety in the incentives provided to tackle the issue.
Trends 2015
EUA presented the Trends 2015 report that the EUA launched earlier in May. This time, teaching and learning were highlighted as key themes. The report is based on data from 451 higher education institutions from 46 countries who replied to an extensive questionnaire. There are also 263 institutions who have answered both the 2010 and 2015 editions of the Trends reports. The report highlights worrying trends since 2010, with persistent and deepening economic crisis that has had a negative effect on higher education institutions, in particular in terms of funding where substantial changes have been identified. The report also highlights that recent years mark greater differences in policy agendas. The report highlights a mismatch in “policy objectives and institutional realities” with respect to four key points. First of all, the issue of qualifications frameworks has not engaged the academic community sufficiently and there are dispaities between countries. Second, quality assurance of joint programmes has failed to gain sufficient attention. Third, credit recognition is still an issue and is described as “an obstacle to mobility”.Fourth, cross-border quality assurance has been an area of growth, where practices are ahead of current policy developments.
In terms of the main focus in the report, learning and teaching,the report notes progress regarding shift to learning outcomes. However, the report also highlights that the responses are not positive i all countries and that there is reason to believe that the shift has been rather superficial in some countries. There appears to be a trend towards more recognition of the importance of teaching, and that there are various strategies to target the quality of teaching. Furthermore, it is expected that ICT will provide more flexibility in course delivery.
What is perhaps most relevant to highlight in the context of the Bologna Process is that the survey results indicate a reduced focus on the European initiatives: “The results of the Trends 2015 report suggest that in comparison to previous years, national policy making has been particularly important in determining action while Europe-wide policy initiatives may be more difficult to define and transfer than it was the case in the past. The fact that Europe faces considerable challenges is certainly one of the reasons but it also stresses the urgency of joint European approaches“. 12 countries with substantial national reforms since 2000 are highlighted in the report.
Bologna with student eyes
ESU presented Bologna with Student eyes, where the main conclusion was rather critical, highlighting that the report “presents a reality-check of what has been agreed upon by national governments within the Bologna Process and what the actual reality is for students.” Information was gathered from national student unions regarding the various action lines. While it is highlighted that the process has been characterised by uneven implementation, the report is more critical, asserting that there is a lack of minimum implementation in some countries, and that “the aims remain largely unfulfilled”.
Rather than merely focusing on progress since 2012, there is also emphasis on “procrastrination” in the process, and they called for a restructuring of the process. With the task to reform the governance structures and more pronounced focus on teaching and learning, it seems that some of the issues have been taken up. ESU president Elisabeth Gherke encouraged: ““all ministers, including those who are not at this meeting, to come back to the table and dare to take tough decisions so that we do not waste the opportunities we have in Bologna.”
Back to Sorbonne?
While there has been a tendency for the process to move further and further away from the initial central European countries, the 2018 conference will take place in Paris, France – where it all started (Sorbonne 1998). There also appears to be a renewed emphasis on the role of the process. So it remains to be seen what the sentiment will be in 2018 that marks 20 years since the beginning. For sure, substantial changes have taken place since 1998, even if the targets have been shifting, and implementation has been with multiple speed and scope. Going back to the roots seems like a nice means to reflect on these changes.
Interested in what the debates were? Check out the recording of the live stream.