A quarterly publication of AQU Catalunya

90

July 2018

In accordance with Royal Decree 1393/2007, first (bachelor's) degrees must undergo accreditation once every six years and master's degrees once every four years. Although this differentiation is debatable, i.e. one based on the number of years according to the type of degree and not the outcome of the previous accreditation procedure, it would appear that this model, in which all degree programmes in Spain are cyclically reviewed in a procedure that involves a site visit by a panel of experts, is a good one.

I won't dwell on the importance of proper institutional accreditation here, which is something I've already commented on in previous articles and forums I've been fortunate to participate in, and that provides for the regular review and quality assurance of learning providers (faculties and schools), not the degree programmes they deliver, and which allows efforts to be focused on the approximately 150 faculties and schools in Catalonia, instead of the 1,500 degree programmes that they deliver, if one takes into account all of the first degree, master's and doctoral programmes. The difference, albeit one zero, is immense, as is the cost in terms of economic and human resources for those most affected, namely, the universities and the Agency.

So I will focus on the matter at hand. There are currently very few faculties and schools applying for institutional accreditation, and many degree programmes are reaching the stage where they will have to undergo a second accreditation procedure. This is, in particular, the case of master's programmes that were accredited by AQU Catalunya four years ago and which now have to apply again for accreditation. This is all enforced by the abovementioned Royal Decree and does not allow for any exceptions: in spite of the fact that one programme may have been given a conditional accreditation and another qualified as being “on track to excellence”, it is all the same. They all have to undergo the accreditation procedure again after four years. Bearing in mind that time passes very quickly, some programme coordinators are clearly perplexed: "Back again already?" they say to us. This is particularly the case of master's programmes that were very successful in the assessment process.

It is within this context, and in compliance with the European standards (ESG), that the Institutional and Programme Review Commission (CAIP) has approved a document to deal with this issue. It can be summarized very briefly: in the case of programmes that were not "fit" for accreditation, reaccreditation (which is how a second accreditation will be referred to) will need to focus fundamentally on the more important aspects of each programme, which basically boil down to three: the improvement plan, the teaching staff and the programme learning outcomes.

As regards the improvement plan, the panel of experts who make the site visit will need to focus on the level at which proposals made in the visit four years previously have been implemented. They will need to check which ones have been carried out and which ones haven't; if there were any changes that hadn't been anticipated; and what are the challenges that lie ahead. In other words, is the new improvement plan consistent with a requisite quality management system for the programme?

With regard to teaching staff, which are obviously the keystone to any degree programme, what needs to be analysed here is the suitability and capability to teach of staff on the programme and the number of students enrolled. Bearing in mind that accreditation was previously carried out in 2014, and given the on-going progress in training and development for teaching staff throughout the university system in Catalonia, it is highly likely that the majority of programmes have improved in this regard. It is the work of the panel of experts, however, to accredit this.

The last aspect that will need to be analysed is the programme learning outcomes. This just basically means answering the question, do the students learn what they are expected to learn? In this regard, the review procedure should focus more on a sample of the outcomes achieved in different courses, work experience and the final year dissertation. A check needs to be made of whether the skills and competences, or the intended learning outcomes of the learning process, that were initially defined have actually been acquired by the students as a result of the teaching methodologies that have been applied.

We trust that this new approach, which I again say must comply with the guidelines for QA agencies laid down in the ESG, leads to the enhanced quality assurance of degree programmes, with a clear focus on what is important and of greatest interest to students and society in general.

It goes without saying, in my opinion, that what we really need is full implementation of a "smart" form of institutional accreditation where the focus is directly on the learning provider and on aspects and/or specific programmes that are of higher risk. This would circumvent the need for the continuous accreditation of all the degree programmes in the university system, regardless of their characteristics and the outcome of previous QA procedures.