Recommendations for better communication and networking in Azerbaijani higher education

Evaluation process and foundation for self-evaluation

Internal quality assurance examples from Lapland UAS

Introduction to Azerbaijani Standards and Guidelines

Student and stakeholder participation in QA of education

Project leaflet (2nd issue)

Mission report of Actvity 3.4 Further Implementation of the AzQF

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 3. Developing AzQF

Activity: 3.4 Further Implementation of the AzQF

Name of the Expert: Dr Olav Aarna

Dates of the Mission: 20-21 July 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

The development of Azerbaijani Qualifications Framework (AzQF) started already in 2011 supported by World Bank and European Training Foundation (ETF) projects. By 2013, the draft AzQF was developed, stipulating the main principles, institutions involved, level descriptors, placement of types of qualifications, and quality assurance of qualifications. In 2012 the draft AzQF was submitted to the Council of Europe for expertise. Recommendations proposed by the Council of Europe expert have been taken into account while designing the AzQF final draft.   Seminars introducing the AzQF to stakeholders and international partners were held in 2012 and 2014. Nevertheless, the Decree is still in a draft form. A draft of the implementation plan for the AzQF has also been prepared by ETF and Azerbaijani counterparts.

In 2014, ETF prepared a comprehensive document “Analysis of existing qualification standards in Azerbaijan”, containing the descriptions of different qualifications' levels as well as concrete recommendations for further actions for 2015-2017 with division of roles and responsibilities in development, revision, approval and application of AzQF. The document was sent to the Minister of Education on November 12, 2014.

In November 2015 the Minister of Education submitted the draft AzQF document to the Cabinet of Ministers. Feedback from different ministries included several recommendations for amendments in the text.

During the last two years the Ministry of Education (MoE) staff has been renewed fundamentally. Only one person, Mr. Azad Ahundov, has been involved in the development of AzQF from the very beginning. As a result, the new staff members, incl. the heads of departments and units of the MoE have limited understanding about the AzQF purpose, objectives, guiding principles, and the way to implement it. Even more importantly, there is no clear ownership of the AzQF in the MoE.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The aim of the mission was to present background information about the AzQF development to the Minister of Education and leading specialist of the MoE, and discuss issues raised and problems of the AzQF implementation.

It was suggested that ETF senior specialist Mr Arjen Deij and the Twinning project expert Dr Olav Aarna, who have assisted the MoE in developing the AzQF document, make the presentation(s), particularly reflecting the Estonian experience. The initial outline for the presentation was suggested to cover the following topics:

• What are Qualifications Frameworks: an international and brief historical overview. The context of the Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area and the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning and why this is important for Azerbaijan. The development of the Azerbaijan Qualifications Framework 2011-2012, incl. development process, objectives, key mechanisms.
• How the AZQF can support the Education Development Strategy and diversification.
• Implementation of the AZQF - implementation plan 2016-2020. 
• Which qualifications (state educational standards; possible other standards) should be part of the AZQF register and how they should change to be in line with the AZQF, including linking Vocational and Professional Qualifications and Occupational Standards.
• Impact on learning, assessment and Quality Assurance.
• Impact on HE reform, VET reform and on lifelong learning
• Career Information and Guidance.
• Recognition of Non-Formal and Informal Learning. 
• Organisation of the Qualification System, incl.

1. Legislation beyond NQF decree
2. Stakeholder engagement
3. Institutional arrangements and functions (including how to coordinate implementation)
4. Quality Assurance arrangements

• The main objectives and activities proposed by the EU project to support the development and implementation of the AzQF

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Both meetings were certainly very useful for further development and implementation of the AzQF. Members of the MoE staff directly involved in potential implementation of the AzQF received deeper and more adequate understanding about the conceptual issues related. Anyhow, the Minister of Education expressed serious concerns about the risks related to potential approval of the AzQF document by the Cabinet of Ministers.

It has been decided, that:

• The MoE will not force approval of the AzQF document by the Cabinet of Ministers, while important steps towards the AzQF implementation will be started immediately, following the implementation plan 2016-2020;
• The AzQF document will be revised in the context of educational reforms envisaged, if necessary;
• A secretariat headed by one of the deputy heads of Apparatus will be established at the MoE to administer further development and implementation of the AzQF;
• A steering committee involving representatives of major stakeholders will be established to coordinate further development and implementation of the AzQF.

6. Unexpected Results

Refusal to go ahead with the approval of the AzQF document by the Cabinet of Ministers was somewhat unexpected result. On the other hand, the decision to start implementation of the AzQF (incl. awareness raising in society, deeper involvement of all stakeholders, etc.) prior to formal approval of the document, was unexpected but very positive result.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues left open.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

It is recommended, that future missions of the Activity 3.4: Further Implementation of the AzQF, follow the progress in implementing the decisions mentioned in p.5, and offer necessary advice and support.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

The mission has proved to be successful. Hopefully, the AzQF development and implementation process gained new momentum.

The Qualifications Framework of Azerbaijan

Institutional Self-evaluation

Mission report of Activity: 4.4 Fostering the Self-Evaluation Capacity

 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)

AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

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 Experts: Ms. Kati Isoaho

                                     Ms. Marja-Liisa Saarilammi

Dates of the Mission: 10-14 October 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.

The first missions of the Activity 4.4. (“Fostering the self-evaluation capacity”) were carried out in September 2016. Three one-day trainings were provided for the pilot institutions to start preparing for the self-evaluation. The content of the training was divided into two main topics: introduction of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Azerbaijan. Manual for Pilot Evaluations and share of the good practices examples of internal quality assurance at the Finnish higher education institutions. In addition to this, participants were asked to identify the relevant units and persons to carry out the upcoming self-evaluation at their institutions.

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.

The task of this particular training were that participants

• understand the framework of the self-evaluation method
• learn to use self-evaluation as a tool in the institutional reviews
• to start the actual self-evaluation process

Selected assessment areas for the training were study programmes and their development (4), students (5) and teaching and learning resources and support services (7). Rest of the assessment areas (four altogether) were left for the last workshop in November-December 2016.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The expected results were achieved as planned. Three trainings were carried out with 63 participants altogether. Participants represented different units and academic fields of the pilot institutions.

The training materials used were as follow (Annex 4)

• slides (purpose of the self-evaluation, description of the entire evaluation process, description of the self-evaluation process, descriptions of the three assessment areas handled in the trainings, a view to the next steps of the evaluation process), available in English
• evaluation forms, available in English and in Azerbaijani

As one of the mission results, the contact persons were nominated for each piloting institution. They are as follows:

Natiq Ahmadov, Azerbaijan Technical University

Ragif Gasimov, Azerbaijan State Economics University

Senan Aliyev, Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University

Outcomes of the trainings

The self-evaluation framework, the working-method and the process of self-evaluation were presented to all participants. After that participants applied the SE-method in small teams to their own departments/units.  Finally the outcomes of training day were presented to all audience and the STEs commented the using the method.

The all three universities participate very actively and were able and ready to discover and share their strengths, good practices and areas for improvement. Universities found many good practices in their activities, such as, tutoring-system, internship programmes and good learning environments. From the point of view of the STEs this proves that the participants understood the concept and purpose of the self-evaluation.

6. Unexpected Results

At the training arranged at Azerbaijan State Economic University it was asked by the university representatives whether the FINEEC could carry out the programme accreditation for some of the institutions programmes as a part of the pilot evaluations. As the programme accreditations are not included in the project plan it was explained that this is not possible. Additionally, it was noted that the FINEEC carries out institutional audits at the foreign higher education institutions. Furthermore, this kind of activity requires that the institution to be audited makes an agreement with FINEEC and pays a sufficient fee.

At the training arranged in the Pedagogical University it was asked, could they perform self-evaluation using SWOT-method. It was discussed that SWOT-method does not relieve the good practices, however, it could be useful tool when universities draft the actual self-evaluation report.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open after the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

STEs recommend that

1. Schedule of the upcoming site-visits included in the evaluation process should be confirmed and piloting institutions be informed on it.
2. Furthermore, the submission date of the self-evaluation report should be confirmed for each piloting institution.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

_______________________          _____________________

(Date and place)                    (Signature of Expert)