Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Centres of Excellence in University Education in Finland. Riitta Pyykkö, Professor, Chair of FINHEEC Helsinki 24 February 2009. Outline of the presentation. Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Finland Finnish evaluation policy FINHEEC, its duties and principles
Riitta Pyykkö, Professor, Chair of FINHEEC
Helsinki 24 February 2009
Finnish evaluation policy
FINHEEC, its duties and principles
Types of evaluations organised by FINHEEC why enhancement-led evaluations?
evaluation & steering and management
evaluation & financial incentives
Why a new method in 2008?
> need of an autonomous evaluation body
> a new national evaluation policy was necessary > FINHEEC’s Audit Model in 2005
an independent expert body
appointed by the Ministry of Education (usually for 4 years)
12 members (4+4+2+2)
HEIs have the ultimate responsibility to utilise and implement the information and recommendations provided in evaluations.
evaluations of universities and polytechnics
audits of QA systems of HEIs (2005 -> )
initial evaluations of polytechnics (1996-2003)
accreditations of professional courses (1996-2007)
university financing: core funding, funding of national tasks & programmes, project funding, performance-based funding
performance-based funding allocated since 1998 on the basis of special criteria, dependent on quality of research as well as quality, efficiency and effectiveness of education
to emphasise the significance of education in parallel with research;
to improve the quality and relevance of education;
to provide support for continuous improvement of education
quality of processes and operations vs.
quality of performance and results
based on written applications evaluated by national field-specific peer expert panels (also students participating – and well prepared!)
1994: CoE in education and research by the Higher Education Council
from 1995: CoE in research -> Academy of Finland
from 1998: CoE in education -> FINHEEC
does it still support continuous improvement?
does it support innovation?
does it measure ”real quality”? or only writing skills?
>need for a new evaluation method
All applicants receive written feedback
a method ”wears out”, but
rapid big changes also not useful
organisation of site visits too complicated for a big number of applicants
faculty, department, programme, graduate school, network, ?
how to compare a big faculty/department with a small one? (”family-like departments”)
should we limit the possibility to apply or demand more from those already rewarded?
financial incentives vs. ”quality label”
excellence, fitness for purpose, quality culture, ?
indicators support the information received from the self-evaluation report
can even be decisive
enables to identify own strengths and development needs
reports public, but do the best practices really spread?
And a conclusion after all these critical remarks:
Thank you for your attention!