Mission report of Activity 2.3 Roadmap for Institutional Arrangements

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 2. Coordination and Networking

Activity: 2.3 Roadmap for Institutional Arrangements

Name of the Experts: Prof.  Kauko Hämäläinen

                   Director Rait Toompere

Dates of the Mission: 11-15 July 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The objective of the activity  2.3 (Roadmap for institutional Arrangements) is to assess the present institutional set up within the MoE and in the related institution, based on comparison with best practices in similar administrative set up in EHEA, and recommend improvements for the overall institutional architecture.

In the first meeting with the Moe representatives and Reijo Aholainen the objective of the mission was defined to start to plan a platform for better communication with HEI´s, different stakeholders and MoE. The development and finalizing the planning of a platform will go on in the next two missions of experts.

During the first meeting Rait Toompere  presented, how services for HEI`s are organized in Estonia in the Archimedes Foundation. Kauko Hämäläinen presented the work of Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. The objective was to present different practices in both countries and analyze, which of them are potentially good practices to think about in Azerbaijan. The organizations in Estonia and Finland are very special in a way, that Archimedes is combining many kinds of student services and  evaluations and in Finland FINEEC has combined the evaluations of all levels of education (from kindergartens to higher education) to the same organization.

In the discussions with Reijo Aholainen the main objective of the mission is to organize seminars for Erasmus+ and EHEA experts and representatives of the HEI´s and MoE to present good practices from Finland and Estonia and to plan possibilities and means of networking in this area.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Seminars, a workshop and meetings with MoE experts was organized as planned.

6. Unexpected Results

Accreditation and recognition were not the main focus of our mission, but they are anyway important partners for HEI´s. We had possibility to visit the new Accreditation and Notrification Center. We told our experiences from Finland and Estonia, how we started to create evaluation and recognition functions. They have now six persons working full time for the unit. The final number at the beginning will be 12. From our experience it is a proper number of professionals to create and implement a well-functioning system. E.g FINHEEC started with six persons and it has been growing gradually and number of staff is about 10, who are working for HE.

ANO is using as starting point the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. This is a procedure, which can be strongly supported. ANO has just started to develop their accreditation system, e.g. evaluation criteria’s and standards, training of evaluators, possible international cooperation.

The personnel of ANO is very willing to ask comments of their evaluation model, when it is ready and translated into English. This Twinning-project can be one good forum to help them finalize the evaluations manuals.

In the future there are many interesting questions for ANO to think about and solve:

- What is the role of accreditation in developing HE in AZ based on up-to-date evaluation information? What are the central problems HE system is meeting in society and are evaluations really concentrating in societally important and critical themes?

- Is accreditation alone enough to support MoE in decision-making or are other forms of evaluation needed?

- Which are the most effective ways to disseminate evaluation results?

- How ANO can support HEI`s in developing useful and effective quality management systems in HEI´s?

- How to combine internal and external evaluations?

- What kind of international cooperation and networking could be useful and possible?

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

The following questions came out during the final discussion in the end of this Mission:

How students unions can work more effectively in networks to support higher education development? The project could bring good examples from Finland and Estonia to demonstrate good practices.

During the rest of the projects practical examples of support services organized jointly together with different HEIs could be demonstrated.

Who has responsibility to initiate new networks and what could be the first steps?

What MoE can do to improve the visibility in communication with HEIs? How to build a trust between MoE and universities?

During the mission we described good practices of networking. There have been also critical points in implementing them. In the following missions it can be interesting to describe them in order to try to avoid them.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

This was the first mission in trying to develop communication and networking between universities, stakeholders and MoE. During this mission we informed experiences from Finland and Estonia in creating organizations for evaluations, international cooperation, recognitions and other relevant services connected to the Bologna process. Also the creation of platforms for cooperation was started. The structure and process how to proceed was planned.

Main findings 1: Need of a platform for networking

During the meeting with MoE representatives (13.07.2016), they stressed a need for more cooperation in different levels. There is insufficient communication, networking and coordination within and between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders. There is a need for enhancing coordination and networking.

Improving communication requires a platform, permanent coordinating structure between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders. Summing up the MoE representatives opinion there is a need for Azerbaijan model or models of networking with stakeholders in the field of higher education.

Recommendations for MoE: Composition of the platform is crucial. It is important to find out all stakeholders of the platform and to define their roles. Together with improving co-operation by a platform, probably there is also need for changes in university system e.g. joint study programmes or merging smaller institutions.  It can be difficult to coordinate and develop higher education institutions if they are under the different ministries.

 For proper functioning of the platform it`s necessary to compile co-operation agreement (covenant). Cooperation agreement should consist of following parts:

• Network Mission

Definition of the strategic need, formulation of the strategic goals and ways of achieving strategic goals.

• Platform Objectives and Activities

There should be clear composition of primary objectives and core activities (externally and internally).

Key results have exceptional importance and they should be carefully analysed.

The Agenda setting should be in compliance with the activities and expected results.

• Network Operations

Together with the composition of the cooperation platform, it is necessary to fix leadership, role and composition of the coordination group. It is a question of ownership and sustainable functioning of the platform. How the coordination group will be formed and how to strive for a balanced representation of network members should be solved transparently.

The first coordination group will be responsible for e.g. drafting the agenda, preparing meetings, keeping the process going on between meetings, alignment with the MoE, information procedures, external and internal communication processes and organising any reflection and follow up in general.

The Coordination Group establishes information flows and communication channels in order to build up and maintain the necessary transparency, participation and trust between network members.

Financing of the cooperation platform, representation, frequency and location are also important to decide.

Main findings 2: Rector´s conference

There are in AZ some examples of good practices of cooperation and networking of HEI`s to develop e.g. some special topics, like quality assurance systems, career centers and student mobility. Anyway more systematic networking between HEI´s could be useful for developing national higher education and separate HEI´s.

E.g. in Finland two rector´s conferences have been working very effectively, one for universities (15 members), one for universities for applied sciences (18 members). They promote higher education, research and arts by addressing far-reaching, university-related issues. The aim is to influence the Finnish higher education and research policy, and to promote the common interests of universities and closer cooperation between them. They are active also in international co-operation. They have actively established relationships with European affiliate and umbrella organisations. Also developing the European Higher Education Area is an example of international co-operation.

Recommendation

It could be good to develop one or more rector´s conferences in AZ. The number of them should be decided based on the needs of different kinds HEI´s. In practice it can be motivating for HEI´s if they implement their networks by themselves and also pay the expenses from their own budgets.  E.g. in Finland both conferences have 2-3 full time experts working for them.

The tasks of the conferences can be as follows (based on Finnish experiences):

• to influence and promote higher education policy in AZ
• to promote co-operation between universities and exerts influence on the international stage
• to provide universities with prerequisites for high-quality, work-oriented higher education as well as research, development and innovation.

So the conferences can have a role at national and institutional level. They can influence the development the higher education, it´s legislation and regulations, funding and intellectual resources. Members can be rectors of universities (actual members) and also representatives of university owners (supportive members).

Practical networking matters can be overseen by a board (or e.g. executive committee). In Finland it is comprised of the President and five other members, who are elected at the annual meeting. The President and other Board members serve a term of two years. Members convene at joint meetings held a few times each year. Board meetings are generally held once a month. It is common also to have working groups. In Finland there are working groups in Education, R&D, International Activities, Administration, Finance and Legislation. Various projects and seminars are also organized annually in Finland by the conferences.

Main findings 3: Regional cooperation

There are plenty of HEI´s in AZ compared to the number of population. Majority of them are in Baku. In some countries like Finland universities in a same region has started to merge with each other’s or move parts of institution to another structurally or functionally. It is also common that HEI´s create support systems and facilities together (e.g. libraries, ICT-services, student support services and even teaching facilities). Regional cooperation and merging has been a trend in many countries in Europe, Estonia and Denmark being as pioneers from 2005 and many other countries have followed like German, France and Finland.

Many HEI´s have also started to divide the programs they are teaching, so that there are not too many similar programs close each other’s in one region.  The idea is to concentrate teaching and research into bigger units to enhance the level of teaching and research. So both merging and autonomous institutions working in partnership are examples of trends in European HE.

In some countries universities have been developing cooperation and merging voluntarily, in some countries government has been backing to combine institutions and made the decision. One objective have been to create bigger universities with many study fields and disciplines together. Mergers are also a way of "streamlining" and reducing duplication.

One objective has been to support the capacity of HEIs in becoming better in international comparisons. In Finland the government wanted to tackle different performance of  Finland's universities in international rankings, compared with the country's top ratings at school level in the Pisa test rankings. E.g. in Estonia mergers have been a way of coping with a demographic decline of young people

It is not guaranteed that merging is useful. Bigger universities can gain higher profiles and increase their reputations. One positive example in Finland is Aalto University, which has been going up 50 places in international rankings in a couple of years after merging two universities and part of a third university. Anyway mergers need a lot of time, positive attitude from the institutes and energy to be successful. Saving money should not be the main reason to merge because return on investment takes many years.

Recommendation

It could be good to think about closer cooperation between universities functioning in same areas in AZ. Functional co-operation can be easiest to implement (common ICT-services, libraries, student services etc.). The objectives can be same as described above.

Main finding 4: International cooperation and academic networks

In parallel with creating local and national cooperation platforms it`s useful to take part in international cooperation and academic networks. Academic life today is marked by cooperation of universities and stakeholders across borders and by the presence of higher education networks of various types and geographic context. Even more, networks are cooperating actively with each other. Cooperation in such a way is a new phenomenon of 21^st century and we have big variety of different, mainly non-governmental, international associations in the field of higher education. For example there are associations for universities like European University Association or Coimbra Group.

There are very many thematic networks like Association for Teacher Education in Europe or European Consortium of Innovative Universities. There are very active students networks as European Student`s Forum and European Student`s Union. There are higher education support structures as European Association for International Education (EAIE) and International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) connects institutions financing and promoting international cooperation in the field of higher education.

Recommendation

We recommend MoE to analyse Azerbaijan needs and situation in the field of international associations in higher education. If necessary MoE can support or recommend universities or students organisations to join some associations.

For example during the meeting in ANO (13.07.2016), ANO representatives expressed the need to have better cooperation with students and get more quality input from students side. Cooperation Azerbaijan student organisations with international student organisations could help to improve cooperation at home because international organisations have lot of experience and good practices in different fields.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Testing the proposals for networking and platforms:

Open seminar on “Networking universities and cooperation with stakeholders” took place on Thursday, 14.07.2016 at 14-17 in the University of Oil and Industry.

Main objective of the seminar was to analyse the needs for cooperation and networking and to facilitate the preparation of a medium term work plan/roadmap for improving coordination and networking within and between Azerbaijan higher education institutions and with their stakeholders and the Ministry of education. The seminar was attended more than fifty participants from different universities.

The moderator of the seminar Mr. Sülhaddin Gozalov from Ministry of Education held an opening speech, where he stressed the need for deeper cooperation and gave some examples. Professor Kauko Hämälainen gave a presentation of “Networking between universities and cooperation with working life” and gave examples of good practices in Finland. Mr. Rait Toompere spoke about “Networking between universities and international cooperation”. He described how various is today international cooperation between higher education institutions and stakeholders. He described the four proposals mentioned in chapter 7 above and also a methodology how to establish cooperation platform.

After some spontaneous speeches from audience, questions for working groups were presented by the representative of the Ministry of Education, Mr. Sülhaddin Gozalov:

• Please think about Azerbaijani model for networking and cooperation with stakeholders
• What kind of problems may arise with the implementation of this model?
• What are the expectations from the MoE, HEIs and labor market?
• Is there any need for change in legislation?
• How university management shall be changed to make the above-mentioned model work?
• Is there a need for establishment of a new body? What kind of body it shall be?

There was brainstorming according questions in small groups to get ideas and visions from audience. Feedback was given from seven working groups. Feedback varied in content and details, but all working groups agreed, that networking is essential. Further efforts are needed to meet society challenges. Several speakers stressed a need for deeper and effective cooperation between universities and business life. There are many big national problems in HE, which could be tried to solve with better cooperation.

Even there was clear need for developing cooperation and networking, there were different opinions e.g. what should be the combination of rectors conferences. Some participants proposed that they should be based on disciplines or study fields, like medicine, technical studies and education. Also there can be big differences of the needs of small and poor universities and big and well-functioning institutes. Some people doubted, what can be the role of networking in a situation, when there are hard competition between universities.

Working groups gave written feedback from results of the discussions to the MoE representatives for further analyses. According to questions and open seminar results there is a need during the next missions to make next steps to achieve concrete results. During next visits the content and implementation of the platform should be planned together with local authorities.

At the beginning it can be best, that MoE is active in creating and starting new networks, otherwise nothing happens. During the next two mission it can be clarified, how this can happen in practice.

Mission report of Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

Name of the Expert: Ms Helka Kekäläinen and Ms Heli Mattisen

Dates of the Mission: (31.8.) 1-2 September 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

In order to create the Azerbaijani understanding of the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in higher education, ESG the Twinning project and the Azerbaijani Ministry of Education invited a drafting group to work on a concrete proposal for the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan (AzSG) in April 2016. The drafting group consists of stakeholders from Azerbaijani universities, representatives from the Ministry of Education, students and experts from Finland and Estonia. Also the representatives of the newly founded Accreditation and Nostrification Office, ANO joined the 3-day drafting seminar that was held in Quba in May 2016.  The seminar was successful and resulted in first draft of Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Azerbaijan – Manual for Pilot Evaluations. During the summer, ANO had drafted their own version of Accreditation standards for higher education institutions.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The task of the mission was to finalize the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Azerbaijan – Manual for Pilot Evaluations document in collaboration with the Quba drafting group and the representatives of the Accreditation and Nostrification Office, ANO. The working method was to compare the two standards and look for solution that would serve both the Twinning project objectives and ANO’s interest in testing their standards with international experts.    

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The STEs finalized the draft of the Manual for Pilot Evaluations after the discussions with the Quba drafting group and ANO. The result will be circulated among the participant of the drafting and MoE representatives.

6. Unexpected Results

The STEs did not recognize any unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

If any changes to the Pilot manual seem necessary after the circulation, the STEs have to deal with that via e-mail. 

8. Recommendations for Future Mission

The next missions of the Component 4 will take place in 26.-30.9.2016, 10.-14.10.2016 and 28.11.-2.12.2016. The STEs will support the self-evaluation process in the pilot universities (Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University, Azerbaijan State University of Economics and Azerbaijan Technical University). The Ministry of Education in collaboration with the Twinning office will send an official letter to the pilot institutions to remain them of the up-coming pilot evaluations and to ask to appoint a contact person for the process.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Component 4 is labor intensive and some additional missions might be needed in order to receive the mandatory results in the best possible way. This should be kept in mind when the savings are calculated in the project.

Misison report of Activity 2.4 Steering and Coordinating

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 2. Coordination and Networking

Activity: 2.4 Steering and Coordinating

Name of the Expert: Mr Kauko Hämäläinen

                   Mr Rait Toompere

Dates of the Mission: 5-9 September 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

This project is based on the recommendation from Activity 2.3, Roadmap for Institutional Arrangements.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

Continue the activity 2.3. preparation of a medium term work plan/roadmap for coordination and networking.

Support the preparation of ToR for steering, coordinating and training bodies and/or mechanisms.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Main objectives of the mission was to support the development of networking and cooperation between MoE, universities and stakeholders. The preparation of a roadmap and taking first steps in implementing parts of it was the focus of our work. The next version of the roadmap is in chapter 8.

Especially the planning of a rector´s conference got started. First version of regulations for rector´s conference was done already 1996, but nothing has happened to implement it. Now a new draft of regulations was discussed and also an implementation plan was developed.

Feedback of the study visit to Helsinki and Tallinn was very positive. Representatives of both MoE and HEIs´ (Vusala Gurbanova and Ragit Gasmov) reported main findings and reflections of their visit and both sides were very satisfied about what they have learned. They presented many ideas which they can bring to their own work in AZ, e.g. in quality assurance, role of students, use of feedback surveys, funding of universities and networking.

The third component of the week was the Open seminar, where about 40 participants took part. People came from MoE, HEIs and Student´s Union. Our recommendations were analysed in the seminar.

6. Unexpected Results

None.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

Look at our recommendations below.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

Recommendation 1: Establishing a platform or platforms for better networking

There is a need for Azerbaijan model or models of networking with stakeholders in the field of higher education to develop the level of higher education. There is insufficient communication, networking and coordination within and between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders. Better coordination and networking could be helpful in enhancing HE.

Improving communication requires a platform, which could be a permanent coordinating structure between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders.

The tasks of the platform could be the following:

• To promote higher education policy and practice e.g.
  • Mobility and recognition
  • Graduate employability and labor market relevance
  • Learning outcomes
  • Intenal and external evaluations
  • Lifelong learning / professional development
  • Strenghtening involment of stakeholders
• To support structural changes, e.g. creating joint study programs and merging universities or programs

• To support the development of
  • (work-oriented) teaching,
  • high level and relevant research and
  • innovations

Roadmap how to proceed

The establishment of an electronic Newsletter could be the first step to create a platform. The tasks of a Newsletter can be:

• Improving communication and common uderstanding among the stakeholders
• Uniting into a single information platform all possible parties
• Collecting information in a way, that all participants could have a voice in a Newsletter
• Informing what is in focus at the national and international level
• Informing about financing possibilities
• Identifying the main needs in HE

Successful launch of the Newsletter helps in creating formalised platform(s).

Composition of the platform is crucial. It is important to find out all stakeholders of the platform and to define their roles. Together with improving co-operation by a platform, probably there is also need for changes in university system e.g. joint study programmes or merging smaller institutions.  It can be difficult to coordinate and develop higher education institutions if they are under the different ministries.

For proper functioning of the platform it`s necessary to compile co-operation agreement (covenant). Cooperation agreement should consist of following parts:

• Platform Mission

Definition of the strategic need, formulation of the strategic goals and ways of achieving strategic goals.

• Platform Objectives and Activities

There should be clear composition of primary objectives and core activities (externally and internally).

Key results have exceptional importance and they should be carefully analysed.

The Agenda setting should be in compliance with the activities and expected results.

• Platform Operations

Together with the composition of the cooperation platform, it is necessary to fix leadership, role and composition of the coordination group. It is a question of ownership and sustainable functioning of the platform. How the coordination group will be formed and how to strive for a balanced representation of network members should be solved transparently.

The first coordination group will be responsible for e.g. drafting the agenda, preparing meetings, keeping the process going on between meetings, alignment with the MoE, information procedures, external and internal communication processes and organising any reflection and follow up in general.

The Coordination Group establishes information flows and communication channels in order to build up and maintain the necessary transparency, participation and trust between network members.

Financing of the cooperation platform, representation, frequency and location are also important to decide.

Recommendation 2: Establishing Rector´s conference

Azerbaijan has examples of good practices of cooperation and networking of HEI`s to develop e.g. some special topics, like quality assurance systems, career centers and student mobility. Anyway more systematic networking between HEI´s could be useful for developing national higher education and separate HEI´s.

Rector´s conferences have been working very effectively in many countries. They promote higher education, research and arts by addressing far-reaching, university-related issues. The aim is normally to influence higher education and research policy, and to promote the common interests of universities and closer cooperation between them. They are active also in international co-operation. They have established relationships with European affiliate and umbrella organisations. Also developing the European Higher Education Area is an example of international co-operation. So summary of the tasks is:

• To promote common interests of universities
• To influence higher education and research policy
• To support international co-operation
• To develop the European Higher Education Area to meet European standardsDeclaration of quality (mutual recognition)
• Organizing study-related/scientific conferences, workshops and symposiums

Roadmap how to proceed

It could be good to develop one or more rector´s conferences in AZ. The number of them should be decided based on the needs of different kinds of HEIs. In practice it can be motivating for HEIs if they implement their networks by themselves and also pay the expenses from their own budgets.  E.g. in Finland both conferences have 2-3 full time experts working for them.

Examples of the tasks of the conferences in AZ can be as follows:

• To provide universities with prerequisites for high-quality, work-oriented higher education as well as research, development and innovation
• to influence and promote higher education policy in AZ
• to promote co-operation between universities
• to promote international cooperation
• to learn good practices from each others

So the conferences can have a role at national and institutional level. They can influence the development the higher education, it´s legislation and regulations, funding and intellectual resources.

Members can be rectors of universities or universities (actual members) and also representatives of university owners (supportive members). Rectors are normally representatives of universities in the meetings.

Network can start at voluntary basis with those who are willing to join and which are under MoE. Their rectors together with representatives from MoE can write the first regulations for it as well as strategy for next 2-4 years. Later they can accept more members.

Regulations should include at least the following topics:

• Purpose of cooperation
• Main functions
• Criteria for membership
• Funding
• Management bodies and structure
• Selection of chairman, vice-chairman, secretariat
• Regular meetings and possible working groups

At the beginning it could be good, if MoE can support new rector´s conferences economically, but later universities could pay a member fee and organize conferences, seminars etc. to collect the money needed for the budget of the networks. How much each member is paying can depend on the size of a university.

Practical networking matters can be overseen by a board (or e.g. executive committee). It can include e.g. the President / Chairman and five other members, who are elected at the annual meeting. The President and other Board members serve a term of two years. (One year can be too short for effective working). Members convene at joint meetings held a few times each year. Board meetings can be hold e.g. once a month or even more often, if something urgent must be prepared.

It is common also to have working groups. In Finland there are working groups in Education, R&D, International Activities, Administration, Finance and Legislation. Various projects and seminars are also organized annually in Finland by the conferences.

Recommendation 3: Regional cooperation

Regional cooperation and merging has been a trend in many countries in Europe, Estonia and Denmark being as pioneers from 2005. Many other countries have followed like German, France and Finland. In Finland the government wanted to tackle different performance of Finland's universities in international rankings, compared with the country's top ratings at school level in the Pisa test rankings. E.g. in Estonia mergers have been a way of coping with a demographic decline of young people.

Universities in a same region has started to merge with each other’s or move parts of institution to another structurally or functionally. It is also common that HEI´s create support systems and facilities together (e.g. libraries, ICT-services, student support services and even teaching facilities).

Many HEI´s have also started to divide the programs they are teaching, so that there are not too many similar programs close each other’s in one region.  The idea is to concentrate teaching and research into bigger units to enhance the level of teaching and research. So both merging and autonomous institutions working in partnership are examples of trends in European HE.

In some countries universities have been developing cooperation and merging voluntarily, in some countries government has been backing to combine institutions and made the decision. One objective have been to create bigger universities with many study fields and disciplines together. Mergers are also a way of "streamlining" and reducing duplication. One objective has been to support the capacity of HEIs in becoming better in international comparisons.

It is not guaranteed that merging is useful. Bigger universities can gain higher profiles and increase their reputations. One positive example in Finland is Aalto University, which has been going up 50 places in international rankings in a couple of years after merging two universities and part of a third university. Anyway mergers need a lot of time, positive attitude from the institutes and energy to be successful. Saving money should not be the main reason to merge because return on investment takes many years.

Roadmap how to proceed

It could be good to think about closer cooperation between universities functioning in same areas in AZ. Functional co-operation can be easiest to implement (common ICT-services, libraries, student services etc.). The objectives can be same as described above. Rector´s conference can be one forum to plan and implement local cooperation.

Recommendation 4: Increasing participation in international cooperation and academic networks

In parallel with creating local and national cooperation platforms it`s useful to take part in international cooperation and academic networks. Academic life today is marked by cooperation of universities and stakeholders across borders and by the presence of higher education networks of various types and geographic context. Even more, networks are cooperating actively with each other. Cooperation in such a way is a new phenomenon of 21^st century and we have big variety of different, mainly non-governmental, international associations in the field of higher education. For example there are associations for universities like European University Association or Coimbra Group.

There are very many thematic networks like Association for Teacher Education in Europe or European Consortium of Innovative Universities. There are very active students networks as European Student`s Forum and European Student`s Union. There are higher education support structures as European Association for International Education (EAIE) and International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) connects institutions financing and promoting international cooperation in the field of higher education.

Roadmap how to proceed

We recommend MoE to analyse Azerbaijan needs and situation in the field of international associations in higher education. If necessary MoE can support or recommend universities or students organisations to join some associations.

Student organisations need financial support to participate in international cooperation.

For example during the meeting in ANO (13.07.2016), ANO representatives expressed the need to have better cooperation with students and get more quality input from students side. Cooperation Azerbaijan student organisations with international student organisations could help to improve cooperation at home because international organisations have lot of experience and good practices in different fields.

MoE could also analyse marketing needs of Azerbaijan higher education and be up to date on activities what other countries are doing. Azerbaijan is very progressive country in its international presentation. You have organized many events of World and European importance. Higher education could be also very good reason to promote Azerbaijan as a good study destination together with rich culture, beautiful country and nice people.  It`s useful to join regularly EAIE and NAFSA events, what are the World biggest higher education fairs, to get good ideas, join international workshops and ensure large visibility of Azerbaijan higher education.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Results from the Open seminar

In the Open seminar recommendations above was discussed. Mainly recommendations for a new newsletter and cteation a rectors´ conference was discussed. All participant agreed that it is important to develop both of them.  Time seems to be ripe and right to get started. General opinion seemed to be, that universities are stronger together than anole.

The following questions were raised:

• Who are representing universities, only rectors or also other professionals e.g. deans or directors of some units?
• Is participation voluntary or mandatory at the beginning?
• Where will the office be (in a university, in different building e.g.)
• Who decides the focus of the network?
• What can the legal status of the conference be?
• Can stakeholders from industry or from other stakeholder groups be partners in the conference?
• How the new network should be called (association, conference etc.)?

It is good now to go on planning the regulations together with representatives from HEIs. During our next visit the we could analyse and reflect the next version. A new rector´s conference could start in some form already at the beginning of next year. Also the planning of the newsletter could be started in MoE with the help of STEs of this Twinning project.

There were very positive cooperation between representatives from MoE, project organization and STEs. There were clear need to develop networking, especially recrtor´s conference and newsletter mentioned in 8.

Recommendations on steering and coordinating by STEs Mr Kauko Hämäläinen, Mr Rait Toompere

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area (AZ-ad-EHEA)

Annex to the Mission Report of Activity 2.4. Steering and Coordinating by short term experts Mr Kauko Hämäläinen and Mr Rait Toompere

9 September, 2016

Recommendations for Future Missions

Recommendation 1: Establishing a platform or platforms for better networking

There is a need for Azerbaijan model or models of networking with stakeholders in the field of higher education to develop the level of higher education. There is insufficient communication, networking and coordination within and between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders. Better coordination and networking could be helpful in enhancing HE.

Improving communication requires a platform, which could be a permanent coordinating structure between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders.

The tasks of the platform could be the following:

• To promote higher education policy and practice e.g.
  • Mobility and recognition
  • Graduate employability and labor market relevance
  • Learning outcomes
  • Intenal and external evaluations
  • Lifelong learning / professional development
  • Strenghtening involment of stakeholders
• To support structural changes, e.g. creating joint study programs and merging universities or programs

• To support the development of
  • (work-oriented) teaching,
  • high level and relevant research and
  • innovations

Roadmap how to proceed

The establishment of an electronic Newsletter could be the first step to create a platform. The tasks of a Newsletter can be:

• Improving communication and common uderstanding among the stakeholders
• Uniting into a single information platform all possible parties
• Collecting information in a way, that all participants could have a voice in a Newsletter
• Informing what is in focus at the national and international level
• Informing about financing possibilities
• Identifying the main needs in HE

Successful launch of the Newsletter helps in creating formalised platform(s).

Composition of the platform is crucial. It is important to find out all stakeholders of the platform and to define their roles. Together with improving co-operation by a platform, probably there is also need for changes in university system e.g. joint study programmes or merging smaller institutions.  It can be difficult to coordinate and develop higher education institutions if they are under the different ministries.

For proper functioning of the platform it`s necessary to compile co-operation agreement (covenant). Cooperation agreement should consist of following parts:

• Platform Mission

Definition of the strategic need, formulation of the strategic goals and ways of achieving strategic goals.

• Platform Objectives and Activities

There should be clear composition of primary objectives and core activities (externally and internally).

Key results have exceptional importance and they should be carefully analysed.

The Agenda setting should be in compliance with the activities and expected results.

• Platform Operations

Together with the composition of the cooperation platform, it is necessary to fix leadership, role and composition of the coordination group. It is a question of ownership and sustainable functioning of the platform. How the coordination group will be formed and how to strive for a balanced representation of network members should be solved transparently.

The first coordination group will be responsible for e.g. drafting the agenda, preparing meetings, keeping the process going on between meetings, alignment with the MoE, information procedures, external and internal communication processes and organising any reflection and follow up in general.

The Coordination Group establishes information flows and communication channels in order to build up and maintain the necessary transparency, participation and trust between network members.

Financing of the cooperation platform, representation, frequency and location are also important to decide.

Recommendation 2: Establishing Rector´s conference

Azerbaijan has examples of good practices of cooperation and networking of HEI`s to develop e.g. some special topics, like quality assurance systems, career centers and student mobility. Anyway more systematic networking between HEI´s could be useful for developing national higher education and separate HEI´s.

Rector´s conferences have been working very effectively in many countries. They promote higher education, research and arts by addressing far-reaching, university-related issues. The aim is normally to influence higher education and research policy, and to promote the common interests of universities and closer cooperation between them. They are active also in international co-operation. They have established relationships with European affiliate and umbrella organisations. Also developing the European Higher Education Area is an example of international co-operation. So summary of the tasks is:

• To promote common interests of universities
• To influence higher education and research policy
• To support international co-operation
• To develop the European Higher Education Area to meet European standardsDeclaration of quality (mutual recognition)
• Organizing study-related/scientific conferences, workshops and symposiums

Roadmap how to proceed

It could be good to develop one or more rector´s conferences in AZ. The number of them should be decided based on the needs of different kinds of HEIs. In practice it can be motivating for HEIs if they implement their networks by themselves and also pay the expenses from their own budgets.  E.g. in Finland both conferences have 2-3 full time experts working for them.

Examples of the tasks of the conferences in AZ can be as follows:

• To provide universities with prerequisites for high-quality, work-oriented higher education as well as research, development and innovation
• to influence and promote higher education policy in AZ
• to promote co-operation between universities
• to promote international cooperation
• to learn good practices from each others

So the conferences can have a role at national and institutional level. They can influence the development the higher education, it´s legislation and regulations, funding and intellectual resources.

Members can be rectors of universities or universities (actual members) and also representatives of university owners (supportive members). Rectors are normally representatives of universities in the meetings.

Network can start at voluntary basis with those who are willing to join and which are under MoE. Their rectors together with representatives from MoE can write the first regulations for it as well as strategy for next 2-4 years. Later they can accept more members.

Regulations should include at least the following topics:

• Purpose of cooperation
• Main functions
• Criteria for membership
• Funding
• Management bodies and structure
• Selection of chairman, vice-chairman, secretariat
• Regular meetings and possible working groups

At the beginning it could be good, if MoE can support new rector´s conferences economically, but later universities could pay a member fee and organize conferences, seminars etc. to collect the money needed for the budget of the networks. How much each member is paying can depend on the size of a university.

Practical networking matters can be overseen by a board (or e.g. executive committee). It can include e.g. the President / Chairman and five other members, who are elected at the annual meeting. The President and other Board members serve a term of two years. (One year can be too short for effective working). Members convene at joint meetings held a few times each year. Board meetings can be hold e.g. once a month or even more often, if something urgent must be prepared.

It is common also to have working groups. In Finland there are working groups in Education, R&D, International Activities, Administration, Finance and Legislation. Various projects and seminars are also organized annually in Finland by the conferences.

Recommendation 3: Regional cooperation

Regional cooperation and merging has been a trend in many countries in Europe, Estonia and Denmark being as pioneers from 2005. Many other countries have followed like German, France and Finland. In Finland the government wanted to tackle different performance of Finland's universities in international rankings, compared with the country's top ratings at school level in the Pisa test rankings. E.g. in Estonia mergers have been a way of coping with a demographic decline of young people.

Universities in a same region has started to merge with each other’s or move parts of institution to another structurally or functionally. It is also common that HEI´s create support systems and facilities together (e.g. libraries, ICT-services, student support services and even teaching facilities).

Many HEI´s have also started to divide the programs they are teaching, so that there are not too many similar programs close each other’s in one region.  The idea is to concentrate teaching and research into bigger units to enhance the level of teaching and research. So both merging and autonomous institutions working in partnership are examples of trends in European HE.

In some countries universities have been developing cooperation and merging voluntarily, in some countries government has been backing to combine institutions and made the decision. One objective have been to create bigger universities with many study fields and disciplines together. Mergers are also a way of "streamlining" and reducing duplication. One objective has been to support the capacity of HEIs in becoming better in international comparisons.

It is not guaranteed that merging is useful. Bigger universities can gain higher profiles and increase their reputations. One positive example in Finland is Aalto University, which has been going up 50 places in international rankings in a couple of years after merging two universities and part of a third university. Anyway mergers need a lot of time, positive attitude from the institutes and energy to be successful. Saving money should not be the main reason to merge because return on investment takes many years.

Roadmap how to proceed

It could be good to think about closer cooperation between universities functioning in same areas in AZ. Functional co-operation can be easiest to implement (common ICT-services, libraries, student services etc.). The objectives can be same as described above. Rector´s conference can be one forum to plan and implement local cooperation.

Recommendation 4: Increasing participation in international cooperation and academic networks

In parallel with creating local and national cooperation platforms it`s useful to take part in international cooperation and academic networks. Academic life today is marked by cooperation of universities and stakeholders across borders and by the presence of higher education networks of various types and geographic context. Even more, networks are cooperating actively with each other. Cooperation in such a way is a new phenomenon of 21^st century and we have big variety of different, mainly non-governmental, international associations in the field of higher education. For example there are associations for universities like European University Association or Coimbra Group.

There are very many thematic networks like Association for Teacher Education in Europe or European Consortium of Innovative Universities. There are very active students networks as European Student`s Forum and European Student`s Union. There are higher education support structures as European Association for International Education (EAIE) and International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) connects institutions financing and promoting international cooperation in the field of higher education.

Roadmap how to proceed

We recommend MoE to analyse Azerbaijan needs and situation in the field of international associations in higher education. If necessary MoE can support or recommend universities or students organisations to join some associations.

Student organisations need financial support to participate in international cooperation.

For example during the meeting in ANO (13.07.2016), ANO representatives expressed the need to have better cooperation with students and get more quality input from students side. Cooperation Azerbaijan student organisations with international student organisations could help to improve cooperation at home because international organisations have lot of experience and good practices in different fields.

MoE could also analyse marketing needs of Azerbaijan higher education and be up to date on activities what other countries are doing. Azerbaijan is very progressive country in its international presentation. You have organized many events of World and European importance. Higher education could be also very good reason to promote Azerbaijan as a good study destination together with rich culture, beautiful country and nice people.  It`s useful to join regularly EAIE and NAFSA events, what are the World biggest higher education fairs, to get good ideas, join international workshops and ensure large visibility of Azerbaijan higher education.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Results from the Open seminar

In the Open seminar recommendations above was discussed. Mainly recommendations for a new newsletter and cteation a rectors´ conference was discussed. All participant agreed that it is important to develop both of them.  Time seems to be ripe and right to get started. General opinion seemed to be, that universities are stronger together than anole.

The following questions were raised:

• Who are representing universities, only rectors or also other professionals e.g. deans or directors of some units?
• Is participation voluntary or mandatory at the beginning?
• Where will the office be (in a university, in different building e.g.)
• Who decides the focus of the network?
• What can the legal status of the conference be?
• Can stakeholders from industry or from other stakeholder groups be partners in the conference?
• How the new network should be called (association, conference etc.)?

It is good now to go on planning the regulations together with representatives from HEIs. During our next visit the we could analyse and reflect the next version. A new rector´s conference could start in some form already at the beginning of next year. Also the planning of the newsletter could be started in MoE with the help of STEs of this Twinning project.

There were very positive cooperation between representatives from MoE, project organization and STEs. There were clear need to develop networking, especially recrtor´s conference and newsletter mentioned in 8.

Mission report of Activity 4.4 Fostering the Self-Evaluation Capacity

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.4 Fostering the Self-Evaluation Capacity

Name of the Expert: Ms Kirsi Hiltunen, Ms Hannele Keränen

Dates of the Mission: 26-30 September 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

International cooperation in quality assurance has been an essential element of the Bologna process aiming to create a European Higher Education Area. A central tool in this work has been the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Twinning project offers the opportunity for applying the ESG in Azerbaijani higher education. One of the mandatory results of the project is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Azerbaijan (AzSG) in line with the ESG and test them with three higher education institutions.

A Drafting Group was appointed by the Ministry of Education in April 2016 to work on a proposal for the Azerbaijani Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. The drafting group consisted of representatives from Azerbaijani universities, the Ministry of Education and students as well as Finnish and Estonian experts. The Accreditation and Nostrification Office also joined in the work of the drafting group. Based on the ESG, taking into account the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan, interviews in previous missions and discussions with different stakeholders, the first proposal for AzSG (including the description of the overall framework, the evaluation process, assessment areas and criteria) was drafted.

The main aims of the pilot evaluations were also set: to support the strategic management of institutions, to provide external feedback to the institutions’ own internal quality assurance procedures as well as to inform internal and external stakeholders of the compliance of the institutions’ quality assurance with the ESG. The pilot evaluations will have an institutional approach with the focus on teaching and learning. The evaluation report will provide pilot institutions with information regarding their strengths and good practices as well as recommendations for institutions’ further development.

The first draft of the manual was discussed with the Advisory Group in a seminar on 1 June 2016. After the discussion, the Twinning Office published the draft on its website in order to get written feedback on the assessment areas and criteria. The feedback was considered by STEs and other relevant actors in August, and necessary amendments were made on the manual. It was concluded that as the enhancement-oriented approach is new for Azerbaijani higher education institutions, there is a need for further seminars and trainings which will be provided for the pilot institutions in autumn 2016.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The aim of the Component 4 is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in higher education in Azerbaijan in line with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance and test them in three higher education institutions. The objective of the Activity 4.4 is to support the capacity to conduct a self-evaluation for the external evaluation in the pilot institutions. In accordance with the needs expressed in former missions, another objective of the mission is to support the capacity of the pilot institutions to develop their internal quality assurance.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Three trainings were held according to the plan at Azerbaijan Technical University, Azerbaijan State Economic University and Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University. The trainings consisted of an introduction to AzSG and evaluation process for the pilot evaluations, foundation for self-evaluation and examples of developing internal quality assurance in Finnish higher education institutions. Good practices from Finland were also introduced by STEs and discussed with the participants.

There were approximately 20 participants in each training. The participants wanted to know more about the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Azerbaijan and they asked a lot of questions related to the assessment areas and criteria, the composition and operating principles of the evaluation group and materials related to the evaluation. The participants were also given a group assignment related to how to organize the self-evaluation process and who to involve in the self-evaluation process in the University in question. Through this assignment the participants got acquainted with the new AzSG.

STEs gave a detailed introduction to the overall framework of the AzSG, the aims of the pilot evaluations and the evaluation process as a whole (the composition and the code of ethics of the evaluation group, self-evaluation report and other material required from the institutions, site visit and the evaluation report). STEs and participants had lively discussions on the aims the pilot evaluations, the assessment areas and the criteria, and the composition of the evaluation group. Some participants voiced their concerns whether specific features in the Azerbaijani Higher Education System would be taken into consideration by the evaluation groups in the pilot evaluations. The STEs explained that in each evaluation group there will be three Azerbaijani experts with good knowledge of the Azerbaijani context. Furthermore, all evaluation groups will be trained by the Twinning project team.

The main aim of the trainings was to foster the capacity to conduct a self-evaluation for the external evaluation. The STEs asked participants to share their prior experiences and benefits of self-evaluations. Participants were able to recognize the advantages of self-evaluations. They also presented various forms of self-evaluation and mechanisms they have in place at the moment for both internal and external quality assurance. For instance, they provided examples of the mechanisms for collecting student feedback, after which there was a discussion on how to utilize the feedback in order to develop degree programmes. Yet the STEs got the impression that there might be some challenges in producing a reflective self-evaluation. STEs emphasized that in accordance with the principles of enhancement-oriented evaluation strengths and good practices will be identified in addition to providing recommendations for further development in the pilot evaluations. 

Participants were also given some examples of internal quality assurance in Finnish higher education institutions. This triggered a lively discussion on the meaning of internal quality assurance. The importance of strategic planning and management (assessment areas I Strategic Planning and II Management) were highlighted and participants were given examples of internal quality assurance related to these assessment areas. Internal quality assurance related to the assessment areas III Human Resources, IV Study Programmes and their development, and V Students was also discussed. STEs also clarified that in the pilots the focus is on the processes and procedures to ensure and improve the quality of institution’s operations, and therefore there will not be for example tests for students. 

STEs pointed out that when a higher education institution has more autonomy over the study programmes and their development, the more sophisticated internal quality assurance procedures and processes are needed. Increased autonomy also requires a paradigm change from external control to internal empowerment, adopting the principles of continuous improvement (such as implementing the plan-do-check-act cycle) and involving the key stakeholders, such as employees, students and external stakeholders, in continuous development.  This paradigm change may take up from 5 to 7 years and requires commitment to the principles of enhancement-oriented evaluation.

Based on the trainings, the STEs noticed that there are different understandings of the purpose of external evaluations. There is also a need to enhance the capacity of internal quality assurance in the pilot institutions.

6. Unexpected Results

There was great interest among some participants of the trainings to participate in the pilot evaluations as Azerbaijani members in the evaluation groups.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open after the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

1) FINEEC’s and EKKA’s Project Managers for the pilot evaluations should be appointed.

2) Pilot universities’ Contact Persons for the pilot evaluations should be appointed.

3) Evaluation groups for the pilot evaluations should be appointed.

4) Timetable for the pilot evaluations should be agreed with the pilot universities. The most urgent issue is to agree with the pilot universities when the site visits will take place in spring 2017.

5) Further discussions on the assessment areas and criteria as well as the principles of continuous improvement are needed with the pilot institutions.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Component 4 is labour intensive and some additional missions might be needed in order to receive the mandatory results. This should be taken into account when the savings are calculated in the project.

Mission report of Activity 1.2 Revisions of the Legislative Framework

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 1. Legal and Regulatory

Activity: 1.2 Revisions of the Legislative Framework

Name of the Experts: Ms Sille Uusna, Ms Heli Mattisen, Ms Maiki Udam

Dates of the Mission: 3-7 October 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

As a result of activity 1.1. there was prepared a review on the Azerbaijani HE legal framework, identifying possible gaps in the legislation relevant to QA and the HE sections of the AzQF. Based on the recommendations in gap analysis and on components 2, 3 and 4 recommendations to the Azerbaijani higher education the MoE was expected to prepare a draft of the possible amendments in legislation.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

Recently the MoE introduced a draft of the new State standard and program for higher education (State standard). The Objectives of the Mission were to review the draft, evaluate its compatibility with principles of the European higher education area and recommendations given by the STEs, and to provide concrete recommendations in order to ensure consistency between regulations.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The expected results of the mission were achieved. In workshops the recommendations were comprehensively discussed. Due to the active participation of MoE it was possible to critically evaluate the impact and applicability of recommendations.

6. Unexpected Results

During the time of the mission, the existence of a Regulation for universities was revealed. This Regulation is not available in English and has not been appeared so far during previous missions, although it is an important part of local higher education legislation and its content could most probably have had an impact to STEs recommendations.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

There were no issues left open after the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

To achieve the objectives of Component 1.2, active participation of the Legal Department of the MoE in the future activities of the project is of utmost importance.

All relevant HE Regulations, e.g., the Regulation for universities as well as amended standards for Bachelor and Master studies, should be translated to English and made available to STEs. Otherwise there is not possible to provide adequate recommendations from STEs.

During the mission, several topics were raised that need further attention. For example, the full concept of recognition of prior learning and work experience (RPL) is not been introduced to regulations yet. Implementation of RPL will require intense internal discussions, supported by external know-how and best practices. There are several projects that are initiated to support development of doctoral studies (e.g., Twinning, Nizami) and lots of recommendations have been made. The next stage should focus on the implementation and in order to achieve it, a tight and constructive cooperation between different counterparts – MoE, Higher Attestation Commission and universities – is essential.       

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Considerable efforts have been made by the Ministry of Education (MoE) in adopting the principles of European higher education area. The draft of the new State standard takes into account several recommendations that STEs have made during previous missions. The proposed changes concerning HEIs government bodies, especially increased involvement of students in Scientific Board and moving towards principles of learning outcomes, are remarkable and positive developments.

However, the STEs still have some recommendations regarding the structure of higher education standards, management of higher education, requirements for higher education studies, learning outcomes and assessment of students.

The Structure of Regulations

1. The scope of State standard is regulated by Education Law art 6.4. Overall the draft is in accordance with the delegation provision.

However, the State standard and separate standards for Bachelor, Master and Doctoral studies are overlapping in many areas and are not completely harmonized. In order to strengthen the links and continuity between different higher education levels, it would be advisable to consider consolidating the necessary standards of different study levels into the State standard, instead of having them separately. This approach ensures better consistency and continuity of regulations.

We also recommend to reduce the detailed descriptions in regulations (e.g., length of a break between classes etc) as much as possible.

2. It would be also advisable to add and determine in the State standard the definitions which are common to all higher education levels and are essential to understand the State standard content.

For example, although all curricula should be developed according to the principles of learning outcomes (LO) and ECTS, the term “learning outcomes” have been used neither in the draft of the State standard nor in current level standards. In addition, terms like study programme, credit point, academic year, qualification framework, learning outcomes, full time and part time studies etc should be defined.

3. We also recommend to include the HE level descriptors (levels 6-8) from the draft of NQF in an Annex and to refer to their correspondence with a respective level in EQF. It gives a clear reference point to curriculum developers and supports Azeri HE to meet the objectives of the Bologna process.

4. To decrease the number of national educational standards (programmes, curricula) and to give HEIs more autonomy in curriculum development, we recommend to aggregate study programmes into broader units – fields of study (or: study programme groups), that are based on ISCED classification and modified according to the Azeri context and needs. It will ease the development of national educational programmes as well as future external reviews (accreditation) and will be in accordance with the trends in many (developed) countries in the world.

Uniform requirements for all levels of higher education

5. In the draft of State standards in Chapter 2 Content of higher education the main goals and most relevant learning outcomes are described. It is recommended to add to the chapter quality requirements relevant for all study levels of higher education (including doctoral education) and rename it accordingly.

Following proposal for the content of the chapter is derived from Standards and guidelines for quality assurance of higher education in Azerbaijan prepared by a working group consisting of representatives of universities, MoE and Twinning experts. The quality requirements set in State standard of higher education serve as a common basis for internal and external quality assurance (including licensing).

• The higher education institution shall develop students’ ability to adapt to modern requirements and conditions, to be competitive, independent and creative individuals and responsible citizens, to live and act in information society and to build communication.
• The institution shall support academic integrity and is vigilant against academic fraud; it supports guarding against intolerance of any kind or discrimination against the students and staff.
• The design and development of study plans is in line with areas of activity and educational objectives of the institution, expectations of the society, labour market needs, and the latest research.
• Objectives, intended learning outcomes, admission and graduation requirements of the programmes are clearly defined.
• Expected student workload is defined in credit point system at all levels of higher education.
• Qualification resulting from the programme is referred to the appropriate level of the European qualifications framework in order to assure the comparability of qualifications.
• Academic staff with adequate qualifications ensure the achievement of the objectives and learning outcomes of the study programme, as well as the quality and sustainability of teaching and learning.
• The distribution of full-time teaching staff by age and qualifications facilitates the sustainability of studies. Providing ground to ensure that society’s need for highly-qualified and competitive staff are met.
• Teaching and learning takes into account the educational needs of students, provides flexible learning opportunities and encourages active participation of students in creating the learning process.
• Practical work/internship supports the achievement of the learning outcomes of the programme.
• Student assessment is objective, consistent, transparent and supports the achievement of learning outcomes.
• Students are provided academic, career and psychological counselling by the higher education institution. Students’ academic progress is monitored and supported; the institution has processes and tools to support special educational needs.
• Up-to-date teaching materials, innovative, creative and interactive learning methods and educational technology are used in teaching and learning process.
• Information technology tools for studies and research and development activities and connections to domestic and international information networks are accessible and necessary data bases are available.

6. The principles of the student assessment are very well described (e.g., transparency, objectivity, fairness, self-evaluation, diverse methods and tools of assessment). In addition, the main aim of assessment should also be clearly stated: to measure whether the learning outcomes have been achieved as well as to support students’ learning. The assessment methods and criteria should be in full accordance with the learning outcome(s).

Unfortunately the further text in the draft of the State standard describing the 100-point score assessment is in contradiction with the requirement of using different assessment tools and methods. 100-point scoring is certainly not suitable for each assignment (e.g., creative and/or project work) and does not encourage teachers to apply different assessment methods. Therefore, we recommend to discard the specific requirement for points and to unify only the letter grades (A-F).

7. Regarding the requirements for infrastructure (Chapter 4. Material, technical and teaching resources) it is recommended to include quality requirements as well, indicating the need for proper infrastructure in order to achieve the educational goals of the institution. Following examples could be considered:

• The working conditions, teaching and learning environment, and R&D conditions (library, studios, workshops, laboratories etc.) support the achievement of institutional and educational objectives.
• Activities of the higher education institution are supported by up-to-date information technology solutions, including the study information system, e-learning opportunities, and communication portals for students and teaching staff

Specific requirements for each study level

8. While merging the separate standards into the State standard, it would be advisable to use a unified structure of the regulation and provide for each study level (BA, MA, PhD):

• The main purpose of studies.
• The nominal duration of curricula.
• Access requirements, previous qualification.
• Degree awarded.
• Link to the level in the European qualification framework.
• Rights related to the degree (access to further studies etc).

If needed, the study level specific requirements for full time or part-time studies, requirements for practical work, requirements for teaching staff (e.g., required percentage of PhD-holders) etc could be added.

Doctoral studies 

9. Learning outcomes of level 8 are agreed among relevant stakeholders and should be added to the State standards. Description of intended learning outcomes will provide basis for programme development at doctoral level and comparison with respective qualifications in other countries. There is no differentiation of learning outcomes at level 8 between PhD and Doctor of Sciences, and the compulsory credit point system is not applicable for the programme of Doctor of Sciences, therefore we recommend not to describe the DSc programme in the State standards for higher education.

10. As recommended during previous Twinning missions and in Nizami project, there is a need to assure the quality of doctoral education. Doctoral education should be based on high level research, thus it is recommended to concentrate doctoral programmes in large, research intensive and well equipped universities. State standards for higher education or some other appropriate regulation could include special requirements in this regard, for example:

• only higher education institutions which have gained the status of research university are eligible for offering PhD programmes and/or
• before granting to the institution the right to launch a doctoral programme the scope and level of research in the respective area will be assessed by an (international) expert team based on transparent criteria.

The universities should be given full autonomy in scientific matters, but there should be (internal and external) quality assurance system in place in order to safeguard the adequate level and comparability.

Management of higher education

11. As a remarkably positive development the MoE has drafted a new regulation for Scientific board to involve more students in Scientific Board activities (Scientific Board consists both appointed and elected members. At least 20% of elected members should be students). The election of head of chairs and deans are left to the faculties to increase their autonomy.

However, the main division of responsibilities between Rector and Scientific Board is still unclear and need to be clarified in the State standard or in some other appropriate regulation. Also it could be advisable to describe the composition principles of the Scientific Board and possibly the qualification requirements for Rector’s candidates.

12. Instead of giving the Rector right to approve all Scientific Board’s decisions, it would be advisable to give him/her, for example, one-time veto right in order to make clearer division between Rector’s and Scientific Board’s rights, obligations and responsibilities.

Teaching staff

13. The draft of the new State standard describes in relevant manner the basic principles of teaching staff activities.

However, it would be advisable to add to the State standard the main qualification requirements for teaching staff, so they, along with the study program requirements, could form a complete set of requirements which are needed to conduct higher education studies.

14. The State standard could also provide a description of the main responsibilities of every academic position. For example, whether a professor should participate actively in research, development or other creative activity both on national and international level; organize and conduct the teaching of his or her subject; lead research, development or other creative activity in his/her field of study; supervise students etc.

Co-operation between HEIs and labor market

Networking between universities and international cooperation

Finnish Education Evaluation Centre

Archimedes Foundation