Training Needs Analysis (TNA) report and recommendations

Annex to the Mission Report of Activity 2.5. (Training Needs Analysis) 4 Dec. 2015

Short Term Experts Mr. Kauko Hämäläinen and Mr. Juha Sihvonen

Recommendations to the Ministry of Education and for future missions

Based on the interviews of students, university staff (tutors, administrators and QA centres) and representatives from MoE, we recommend that the training sessions in the project should be concentrated in following themes:

Improving awareness of Bologna process

Along the Action Plan the project’s main purpose is: “To increase the institutional capacities of the Ministry of Education and other key institutions of the Republic of Azerbaijan for the development of Bologna related policies and the implementation of the EHEA objectives and reference tools.”

Although Azerbaijan has belonged about ten years to Bologna process, the awareness of the meaning of Bologna process is low among universities’ staff, students and stakeholders. The representatives of all five universities we interviewed understood in different way what is the meaning and the purpose of Bologna process and how it should be used to improve e.g. quality assurance processes and practices. E.g. the students didn’t know what Bologna process means for higher education qualification in EHEA framework, quality assurance of universities, students’ mobility and learning outcomes assessment and recognition. Interviewed stakeholders know something about Bologna process but not enough. They want to learn more how it should influence in universities in Azerbaijan.

AzQF has just recently been submitted for approval of the Cabinet of Ministers. At university level the role and use of AzQF is not well known. Thus, it creates big demand for training. After AzQF has been adopted formally, the next step is its effective implementation. Assessment of learning is emphasizing knowledge factor, not skills and competences. It is important that with help of training HEIs start to revise their curricula and define expected learning outcomes according to the AzQF.

Training needs: It is important to increase the number of key BC experts who have been trained to advise and consult the further implementation Bologna process of the EHEA in Azerbaijan. It also necessary to improve awareness of universities’ staff (first of all tutors), students and stakeholders of the meaning of Bologna process and to help the implementation of Bologna process in universities. Training should give European examples how students and stakeholders are involved in the administration of universities and their quality assurance processes.

Target groups: Representatives of MoE, administrative and pedagogical staff of universities (tutors) and QA-offices, students and stakeholders.

Internal quality assurance

Along ESG: “Institutions should have a policy for quality assurance that is made public and forms part of their strategic management. Internal stakeholders should develop and implement this policy through appropriate structures and processes, while involving external stakeholders.”

Currently, the most developed element in the internal QA systems is the student feedback mechanism. Some HEIs but not all have established QA offices. Anyway networking and dissemination of good practices between HEIs is lacking. The understanding of internal QA systems and how they can serve HEIs institutional management at their best is still at an early stage.

All universities should be familiar with quality systems of HEIs, with the components of quality in higher education as well as various methods of assessing quality of teaching. They ought to understand feedback systems and how the results can be used. They ought to be able to assess the quality of their institute from the departmental, faculty and university perspectives. They should understand how national and international guidelines affect the curriculum and quality assurance.

Training needs: To support HEIs in establishing and developing internal quality system. To provide structures for networking and dissemination of good practices from other universities in Azerbaijan and abroad. Training and provision of models on internal quality assurance system, their organization and use in the institutional management and development.
Target groups: Administrative and pedagogical staff of universities and QA offices, people who responsible to develop curriculums.

Improving students’ and stakeholders’ role in the administration of universities
ESG recommends that students and stakeholders should be involved in design internal and external evaluations and continuous improvement. The students we interviewed had more pessimistic view

of their possibilities to take part in university administration than the university law says or how the staff of the universities described the situation. Students felt that they don’t have any significant

role in the administration of universities even student organizations have possibility to name some members into university/academic councils. On the department or faculty level students don’t have

possibility to take part in administration. In some cases, deans sometimes discuss with students about problems which they have in their studies.

In all universities students said also that they have no possibility to take part in developing study programs or to give feedback from quality of study programs, textbooks or teachers’/professors. The staff of universities told at same time that students have many kinds of possibilities to give feedback from their studies.

Stakeholders co-operate at the moment with career centres. They don’t have possibility to take part in administration of universities. Neither they have any possibility to comment on the content of study programs. They have a lot of information, what kind of qualifications are needed on modern labour markets and in modern business. They are willing to give this information to universities e.g. in planning learning outcomes and effective teaching methods.

Stakeholders want to take part in the administration of universities and they want to know, how stakeholder’s participation is organized in European countries.

Training needs: Students and stakeholders as well as key persons in universities should know how students and stakeholders can take part effectively in the administration of universities and in internal quality assurance process in different European countries.
Target groups: Staff of career centres, chairs of boards, students and stakeholders.

Modernization of university teaching and the role of learning outcomes

In all universities we visited the students and the representatives of the staff told, that it is essential to develop teaching and learning methods. Teaching was described as traditional teacher centred approach. More active ways of teaching, more effective use of learning outcomes, more use of modern technology and ICT, use of research-based teaching etc. were proposed as focus of development. Also along ESG institutions should develop student-centred learning, teaching and assessment: “Institutions should ensure that the programmes are delivered in a way that encourages students to take an active role in creating the learning process, and that the assessment of students reflects this approach.”

University pedagogy should emphasize critical thinking and interdisciplinary dialogue to promote teaching and learning at the university as well as experimental and developmental approach to promote research-teaching nexus.

Along ESG learning outcomes have important role in developing programmes: “Institutions should have processes for the design and approval of their programmes. The programmes should be designed so that they meet the objectives set for them, including the intended learning outcomes. The qualification resulting from a programme should be clearly specified and communicated, and refer to the correct level of the national qualifications framework for higher education and, consequently, to the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area.”

During mapping curriculum, it is important to take into consideration subjects such as communication skills, problem solving, presentation skills, critical thinking and other soft skills, because stakeholders are not satisfied with these skills of graduates while interviewing them to hire them for a work.

According earlier documents of missions 1.1. and 2.1 the HE institutions appear to have limited academic freedom regarding the design and content of the study programs and teaching process, which are largely covered by centralized regulations. Autonomy of HEIs is restricted by detailed

regulations regarding for instance the curriculum work, frequency of collecting student feedback and establishing new programs. If the institutes are allowed gradually with more autonomy in areas such as curricular, examination, establishing new degree programs and recognition practices, it is easier to develop teaching at institutional level.

Teachers should be able to design and support flexible learning activities in versatile learning environments. They ought to be familiar with the central theoretical questions of university teaching and learning and they ought to identify and overcome personal and institutional challenges in developing pedagogical expertise and practice. They should learn also, how to link credits to learning outcomes.

Teachers ought also to acquire the knowledge and skills needed for curriculum design, implementation and development. They should be familiar with the latest research on learning and teaching in higher education and be able to apply the results of such research in examining teaching and learning in their field.

And still they should analyse and compare how various teaching and assessment methods are connected with learning and teaching and they should analyse their own assessment practices. They ought to be able to assess the assessment and feedback practices of their own subject or faculty. They should recognize how leadership and assessment practices are connected with the quality of higher education.

The meaning of learning outcomes is not clear at the moment in the most of universities where we visited. There is need for training which includes following content areas:

what are learning outcomes
how learning outcomes can be used to improve quality of education
who are planning learning outcomes including role of students and stakeholders
learning outcomes and critical thinking
learning outcome and assessment.

Training needs: Training for university teachers is needed. University pedagogy stands for education, research and development of teaching and learning in the academic community. By the term university pedagogy, we do not refer just to individual, but also to collegial pedagogical competency that is promoted, sustained and fostered within the university community. Pedagogical competency results in excellent curriculum, learning environments and processes, and high quality learning outcomes.
Target groups: Pedagogical staff of universities, QA centres’ staff, and people who are responsible to develop curriculums

Labour market and business cooperation
A substantial number of graduates are unemployed. There is lack in graduates’ generic (so-called soft) skills. In addition to knowledge factor, attention should be paid on skills and competences when revising the national standard. It is vitally important that employer and business representatives are involved in this process.

Teaching is theoretically oriented and practical training is still insufficient. However, there are some good practices related to tracking of graduate placement and establishment of career centres at the HEIs and employer fairs organized.

Training needs: Training on working life cooperation. Special attention should be paid on mechanisms to establish functioning working life contacts. Good practices can be divided from other European countries.

Target groups: Administrative staff of universities, career centres and stakeholders
Internationalization of universities
International mobility of students and staff of universities is still very low level in Azerbaijan. Some of the interviewed universities belong to Erasmus program. Improving mobility of students and staff is one of the main goals in Bologna process. Fair recognition of higher education qualifications, periods of study and prior learning, including the recognition of non-formal and informal learning, are essential components for ensuring the students’ progress in their studies, while promoting mobility.

One reason for students’ low international mobility in Azerbaijan is the fact that students’ studies abroad are not fully recognized in their own universities. For this reason, students are not motivated to study in other universities.

Appropriate recognition procedures rely on institutional practice for recognition being in line with the principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention. Cooperation with other institutions, quality assurance agencies and the national ENIC/NARIC centre with a view to ensuring coherent recognition across the country.

Training needs: To improve awareness of universities’ staff and students of possibilities and advantages of international mobility programs in EU countries (Erasmus etc.)
Target groups: Staff of MoE and universities (tutors), students.

The two last two topics below were proposed by the MoE HE experts also as training needs.

Improvement of doctoral studies

ECTS system was not implemented in PhD degree in HE system of Azerbaijan yet. By the law teacher who want to become a professor has to go through 2 levels after gaining master degree: doctor of philosophy and doctor of science, which is stayed from Post-Soviet HE system. But in AzQF that is on approving stage the number of levels are 8, but not 9 anymore. Now MoE is struggling to implement ECTS system at this level.

Awareness of modern management system of the HEIs

One of the key points of the National Strategy Plan of Azerbaijan is to help HEIs to develop modern management system at the universities. For gaining this goal, representatives of MoE propose to held one-day training of the best practices for the rectors and vice-rectors of the HEIs.

Proposals for methods for training sessions: The training should consist of intensive contact sessions. In addition, there will be online seminars and study circles in virtual learning environment. Students carry out a pedagogical project and take part in a teaching practice session, when it is possible. Dissemination of good practices on learning outcomes and student-centred teaching methods; design of courses that combine theoretical and practical aspects.

Progress Review of EHEA reforms in Azerbaijan

Annex to the Mission Report of Activity 2.1. (Progress Review) 2 Oct. 2015

Short Term Experts Mr. Kauko Hämäläinen and Ms. Sirpa Moitus

Recommendations to the Ministry of Education and for future missions

These observations are based on the information the STEs acquired during the mission and the analysis provided by the EU/ENPI project Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan in strengthening VET sector management and reform of quality assurance system in VET and HE (2015). The observations were presented to the MoE and HEI representatives during the missions and their feedback was utilized in the final editing. Topics for the MoE’s further consideration were formulated in a way that makes them achievable in two-year time (the duration of the Twinning project).

The successful areas in the Azerbaijani Bologna implementation include the adoption of the ECTS, two-cycle degree structure, external quality assurance procedures and issuing Diploma Supplement.

1. Mobility and recognition

• Main findings: International mobility of students is still very low (1-2%) in international comparison. Based on student interviews, they have to take academic leave in order to take part in exchange programmes and modules taken abroad are not always fully recognised. As an important step to improve the situation, the recently launched renewal process of the national educational standard involves their comparison between Azerbaijani programmes and international sample programmes.
• Recommendations for the MoE: The MoE is recommended to draft a Mobility Programme and set quantitative and qualitative objectives for student and teacher mobility. The aim should be to gradually increase the mobility numbers to the European level. Additionally, it would be essential to remove any obstacles from student mobility and to ensure that there is room for mobility in the curriculum structure.
• Recommendations for future missions: Training on European models of recognition. Supporting the working groups renewing national standard in comparison of programmes.

2. Graduate employability and labour market relevance

• Main findings: A substantial number of graduates are unemployed. The employer representatives indicated that there are lacks in graduates’ generic (so-called soft) skills. Teaching is theoretically oriented and practical training is still insufficient. However, there were some good practices related to tracking of graduate placement and establishment of career centres at the HEIs and employer fairs organized. The STEs welcome recently launched exchange of information between the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection (MoLSP) on educational standards and occupational skills.
• Recommendations for the MoE: In addition to knowledge factor, attention should be paid on skills and competences when revising the national standard. It is vitally important that employer and business representatives are involved in this process.
• Recommendations for future missions: Training on working life cooperation for those responsible for developing syllabus and curriculum, such as provision of recruitment and career services, employer surveys, alumni cooperation and RDI projects. Special attention should be paid on mechanisms to establish functioning working life contacts.

3. National qualifications framework and learning outcomes

• Main findings: AzQF has just recently been submitted for approval of the Cabinet of Ministers. Thus, consultation/national discussion has taken place and the design of the NQF has been agreed by stakeholders. After the AzQF has been adopted formally, the next step is its effective implementation. Teaching and learning paradigm is still based on teacher-centred methods deriving from the Soviet era. Assessment of learning is emphasizing knowledge factor, not skills and competences.
• Recommendations for the MoE: On one hand, the MoE should ensure that the national standard is re-designed on the basis of the learning outcomes included in the AzQF. On the other hand, the MoE should also ensure that HEIs start to revise their curricula and define expected learning outcomes according to the AzQF. In the future, learning outcome based aspects could be added in the external accreditation/evaluation approach.
• Recommendations for future missions: Training on how to link credits to learning outcomes; dissemination of good practices on learning outcomes and student-centred teaching methods; design of courses that combine theoretical and practical aspects.

4. National legislation and autonomy of HEIs

• Main findings: Autonomy of HEIs is restricted by detailed regulations regarding for instance the curriculum work, frequency of collecting student feedback and establishing new programmes. The interviewed HEI representatives indicated that gradual increase of autonomy will also increase competitiveness of HEIs and quality of education.
• Recommendations for the MoE: MoE is recommended to gradually provide higher education institutions with more autonomy in areas such as definition of their mission, scope of activities, curricular and institutional arrangements, examination, establishing new degree programmes and recognition practices.
• Recommendations for future missions: Provision of concrete input into legislative drafts and support the elaboration of legislation relevant to QA. Supporting the MoE to define an optimum level autonomy taking into account the Azerbaijani higher education and social context. Possibly training on national steering of HEIs.

5. External quality assurance

• Main findings: At the moment, institutional accreditation is conducted by a unit within the MoE. There is a plan to create an independent QA agency within the nearest half a year. The interviewed HEIS were relatively satisfied with the current accreditation approach, but some MoE experts saw that it is too control-oriented.
• Recommendations for the MoE: To ensure that the agency fulfils the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG).
• Recommendations for future missions: Implementation of three pilot evaluations (testing possibly different approaches: programme accreditation, audit, review, thematic evaluation); development of the Standards and Guidelines Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan; training of evaluators/reviewers; inclusion of foreign experts in the pilot evaluation teams.

6. Internal quality assurance

• Main findings: Currently, the most developed element in the internal QA systems is the student feedback mechanism. Some HEIs but not all have established QA offices. Networking and dissemination of good practices between HEIs is lacking. The understanding of internal QA systems and how they can serve HEIs institutional management at their best is still at a very early stage.
• Recommendations for the MoE: To support HEIs in establishing QA offices. To provide structures for networking and dissemination of good practices.
• Recommendations for future missions: Training and provision of models on internal quality assurance system, their organisation and use in the institutional management and development.

Annex to the Mission Report of Activity 4.2: Mapping of Current Accreditation and Quality Assurance Practice/Gap Analysis against the European Standards and Guidelines

Annex to The Mission Report of Activity 1.1: Comparative Table

Component 1: Legal and normative framework for HE

ANNEX TO THE MISSION REPORT OF ACTIVITY 1.1: COMPARATIVE TABLE

Mission report of Activity: 3.1 EHEA and QF EHEA Training

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 3. Developing AzQF

Activity: 3.1 EHEA and QF EHEA Training

Name of the Experts: Mr Touko Apajalahti, Ms Eve Eisenschmidt, Mr Tauno Otto, Ms Kristiina Tõnnisson, Ms Maiki Udam

Dates of the Mission: 28 March – 1 April 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

The Azerbaijani Qualifications Framework (AzQF) is a tool to systematise, classify and manage Azerbaijani qualifications. Decree is still officially in a draft form and stipulates the main principles, institutions involved, level descriptions, placement of types of qualifications, and quality assurance of qualifications. More on the relevant state of affairs regarding the AzQF can be found from the mission report of the preceding mission of the Activity 3.1.

National educational standards are developed for each level of the degrees (Sub-Bachelor’s, Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral), as well as for each specialty by expert groups formed of heads of departments of a given field of study, and are formally approved by the Ministry. The national educational standards describe essentially the programme level learning outcomes for given study fields. As the AzQF is still to be approved, it has not been taken into account in the drafting of the national educational standards and it is not completely clear what the relationship between the AzQF and the educational standards is planned to be in the future.

In practice, it can be said that the national educational standards act as field-specific qualifications frameworks. However, in contrast to qualifications frameworks, the educational standards include also very detailed instructions regarding things such as course design, instruction and assessment methods. This leads to the autonomy of higher education institutions being limited mainly to the development of syllabi, following the national educational standards. In addition, higher education institutions or departments can instruct tight forms for implementation of courses, narrowing the scope for individual, learning-outcomes-based planning of the syllabi by teachers or teacher groups.

The main responsibility of individual teachers is the syllabi design, based on the national educational standards and institutional and departmental guidelines. The heads of departments play an important role, in essence by their own motivation either supporting or suppressing innovativeness of teachers, which can be seen for example in how limiting individual teachers experience the national educational standards.  Use of information collected through feedback from e.g. students or external stakeholders for the syllabi design and renewal is not systematic.

The assessment of students is also highly regulated: every subject must include a final exam, which has to account for 50 % of the final mark; the other 50 % must be formed by 10 % based on presence, 10 % paper/project (or similar exercise suitable for the given field) and 30 % activity  during the course. The possibilities of individual teachers to design their teaching in this regard can in many cases be further limited by institutions’ own regulations that stipulate same or similar approaches to be used for all courses in the institution or in a given department. Simply put, the teacher’s choice when designing a course is not whether or not there will be a final exam, whether or not its weight will be 50 % but only, what questions to ask in the exam.

Nevertheless, the firm formal settings for the development of the educational provision within the higher education institutions do allow introduction of diverse pedagogical methods following a learning-outcomes based approach. This is especially a possibility for teachers who have developed a sufficient understanding of the methodology, in order to be able to justify the use of novel approaches to colleagues and superiors that might not yet be that keen on changing away from the traditional ways.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

Objectives of the mission were:

• To train university staff on writing learning outcomes in relation to AzQF in teacher training, technology and business education
• To update experts on the QF EHEA, outcome based learning and assessment

Methods used to fulfill the task of the mission were 2-day trainings for university staff in the mentioned three sectors and meetings with the MoE.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

During the mission, three 2-day practical trainings concerning writing learning outcomes in relation to the AzQF were delivered for Azerbaijani public and private university staff (20-22 participants per training). During the trainings, methods and processes for assessing a student’s levels of knowledge, skills and competencies (formal and informal exams, classroom participation, assignments, self-evaluation, peer evaluation etc.) and linking ECTS to different modules were outlined by the experts. The experts provided also future reference materials to participants, see presentations in annexes.

All expected results were achieved.

The seminar programmes, study materials and the lists of participants are provided in annexes.

6. Unexpected Results

No unexpected results occurred.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues regarding the mission were left open.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

As the Heads of Departments/Deans are an important group for enabling change, some trainings could be specially targeted to this group. Also the management teams in general both on institutes’, faculties’ and universities’ levels could be targeted if possible.

In the workshops with teachers, the most sought after information appeared to be real-life examples of course descriptions: learning outcomes, teaching methods and assessment. Future workshops could be prepared with even more concrete examples, while at the same time stressing that there are no right answers to be copied. More concrete examples could be offered from various countries and from various disciplines targeted specifically to certain disciplinary target groups.

Additionally it would be wise to contact schools/premises before the meetings to check the availability of different learning aids (white boards or any kind of boards at all, availability to move chairs etc.) to be aware of room support abilities for active learning, as well as enabling wireless internet connection for course participants to share materials electronically and to analyse the visibility of syllabus and learning outcomes on different universities.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Our conclusions are based on the observations made during the four trainings, and on the discussions conducted with the representatives of the MoE.

As an overall conclusion we see that the roles of and the relationship between the AzQF and the national educational standards are currently not clear, and should be defined, for example by stating the AzQF is the top document, and the national educational standards are then formulated based on the AzQF. Furthermore, more coherent and defined use of terminology both in Azerbaijani and English language, what concerns educational standards, curriculum, study programme and syllabus, would make it easier for the ordinary teachers to absorb the new way of thinking. Concerning the project, a clear definition of terms used and their hierarchy would also make the preparation and implementation of workshops more efficient.

Regarding learning outcomes, there seems to be a great amount of variation in the knowledge of teachers: some have attended many similar trainings and are very familiar with the approaches, while some have difficulties in grasping the basic concepts. This was reflected also in the willingness of participants to think about how to develop the teaching and assessment methods. When it comes to the details of subject implementation, the participants’ understanding about how limiting the national educational standards truly are, varies essentially. Development of a systematic in-service training system would be useful for coherent knowledge building of teachers. 

In the workshops it was also clear that the tight state regulation in many cases restrains the development of a true learning outcomes based approach. This is especially the case when it comes to the assessment methods: if the methods are highly regulated, it is evident that they cannot be suitable for all different kinds of learning outcomes. It would be good to touch in the future all three aspects of the learning circle together: learning outcomes - assessment methods - teaching methods.

9.1. Conclusions regarding economics education

In the workshop in economics education limited independence of teachers was often raised. Based on that both learning outcomes, teaching methods and assessment methods were appreciated as “theoretical possibilities” but not so much as something they can start to use right away. Additionally there was expectation that there are certain “right” learning outcomes suitable for all. In the future it would be wise to address the points that are more under teachers’ control and at the same time to raise additionally their awareness about possibilities to use different approaches within given framework. More attention should be paid to connect AzQF, national educational standards and syllabi.

9.2. Conclusions regarding engineering education

In the workshop in engineering education it seemed that the most commonly shared areas in need of further development were the systematic inclusion of students and industry stakeholders to the planning of education, the analysis of learning outcomes of taught subjects in relation to the national educational standards or AzQF, and the use of a variety of assessment methods. Also the question of limited independence was discussed from multiple points of views.

Another topic of interest concerns development and support to individual study path of students, what is important for international student exchange (e.g., in terms of Erasmus Plus programme) but also national student mobility.

9.3. Conclusions regarding teacher training

In the workshop of teacher education the participants appreciated the integrated theory-practice model where students start to fulfil the practical tasks in the real classroom environment from the very beginning of their studies. It enables to extend the variety of teaching and assessment methods, supports to achieve the learning outcomes as well as increases the quality of future teachers. This model could also be recommended to Azeri teacher education.

The participants found the competences in the Estonian teacher professional standard more relevant for teacher’s work than respective national educational standards in Azerbaijan. Although some participants, especially from the private HEI-s use various assessment methods, the majority felt to be restricted by the national regulations for assessment. Both assessment methods and criteria require more attention and should be reflected in further trainings.

In conclusion, the STE-s appreciated the thorough preparation by the RTA team and MoE representatives concerning the organisation of the seminars, including translation of the materials and interpretation, as well as explaining the situation in Azeri higher education to the STE-s. The interest and active engagement by the seminar participants were highly valued by all STE-s. The STE-s recognise the full support of all four HEI-s who were kindly providing their facilities for trainings.

_______________________          _____________________

(Date and place)                    (Signature of Expert)  

_______________________          _____________________

(Date and place)                    (Signature of Expert)  

_______________________          _____________________

(Date and place)                    (Signature of Expert)  

_______________________          _____________________

(Date and place)                    (Signature of Expert)  

_______________________          _____________________

(Date and place)                    (Signature of Expert)  

Mission report of Activity: 2.2 Coordination of EHEA Reforms

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 2. Coordination and Networking

Activity: 2.2 Coordination of EHEA Reforms

Name of the Experts:

• Mr Kauko Hämäläinen, Component Leader, Professor Emeritus, Finland
• Mr Jouni Kangasniemi, Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland
• Mr Rait Toompere, Archimedes Foundation, Estonia

Dates of the Mission: 14-18 March 2016, Baku

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

This mission (Activity 2.2.) was a continuation of missions 2.1. and 2.5.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The objective of the mission activity was to assess the present institutional set up within the Azerbaijan Ministry of Education and the related institution, based on comparison with best practices in similar administrative set up in EHEA, and recommend improvements for the overall institutional architecture.

On the first day of the mission, BC Project leader Emin Amrullayev and the STEs discussed the objectives of the mission and the main concerns in the higher education system in Azerbaijan. It was said, that the Twinning project as a whole is a good “reality check” for the Ministry to see how they can manage the change needed. Also, it can support the on-going activities already initiated.

Currently, the university sector in Azerbaijan is wide (53 universities). Responsibilities are divided between different sectors. 19 universities operate under the Ministry of Education and 19 under other ministries. There are also 15 private universities.

The following issues were identified in the discussion:

• The number of study places in the universities has not followed the demographic changes in the country. Currently the number of students competing for the seat has been as low as 1,4.
• Student mobility to the neighboring countries and recognition of their degrees obtained is problematic (5 000 students studying in neighboring countries every year).
• Lack of proper exchange of data about the degrees obtained in the universities abroad
• Lack of discussion forums with the stakeholders (e.g. possibility of commenting different documents) and continuity of their involvement to support MoE.
• Roles of different persons inside the ministry (HEI department) were a bit unclear.
• There is a need to simplify the formats of the most important policy reports so that the key outcomes could be disseminated more effectively. (Challenge of using all documents delivered for or prepared by the ministry)
• There is rather weak link between the financing of the higher education and HE policies. Most of the funding is allocated according the student numbers
• There are only about 10 persons working for the HE sector in the Department of Research, Higher Education and Vocational Education – compared to the number of staff the ministry seems to have too many responsibilities to follow up.

RTA Reijo Aholainen suggested that quality assurance system is one of the main issues to focus during the week.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Planned action was achieved.

This report is based on interviews of the MoE staff (3 persons), two workshops arranged by the project, and on previous mission reports and background information received. Also, experiences and good practice implementing Bologna process in Estonia and Finland has been used.

6. Unexpected Results

Unexpected results were not identified during the mission.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

Involvement of Erasmus+ Agency in the internationalization of HEIs: Meeting with the Agency could not be arranged during the mission. Also, general information about the funding of universities in AZ would benefit the work of ST experts in the future, when preparing the recommendations.

8. Recommendations (including recommendation for future missions)

1. Issues related to the ministry and stakeholders

• Main findings: There is still a challenge with the organizational settings. It was clear, that the number of staff promoting HEI sector and Bologna process in the Ministry of Education is small and tries to work effectively. In the workshops (during the mission) it became clear that resources need to be used wisely and priority areas of the work need to be identified. A lot of staff’s time is spent on issues with minor impact (such as advising students/parents about study possibilities, advising universities on single issues etc.). A lot of direct requests are sent directly to the ministry. Even issues, where universities have/should have greater responsibility to advise/inform. Division of work between the ministry, universities and external stakeholders remains unclear in several areas of work.
• Recommendations for MoE: MoE is recommended to renew the procedures and clarify the responsibilities and delegation of powers in the ministry/Department for Higher Education (e.g. Act on the MoE/ Permanent Secretary’s (Head of the Ministry) Decision on the ‘Work in the Ministry’ or similar decision).
• Bologna process should not be seen as a separate project belonging to few civil servants, but as one of the main policy reforms and areas to work in the Department of Research, Higher Education and Vocational Education.
• Members of the workshop stressed the importance of internal capacity building. To strengthen the knowledge on Bologna process, the following issues should be taken into account: General understanding of Bologna process issues need to be shared between the whole Departement. Ensuring the language skills. Fluency in Azerbaijan and English languages are needed. Summaries of the most important reform reports should be made available in Azerbaijan language, even if it produces some extra work in the beginning.

2. Co-operation with the stakeholders

• Main Findings: The implementation of the Bologna process into the HEI sector in Azerbaijan is seen as an important reform. It enables full access of Azerbaijan HEIs to international HE co-operation and improves the quality of the higher education sector as a whole. Since that is seen as a top priority at the moment, it became clear that the Ministry should prioritize the areas, where it takes the full responsibility of the process and areas where planning and decision making is delegated to universities or other stakeholders.
• Recommendations for MoE: As far as experience from Finland and Estonia can be learned, new discussion and decision making forums and bodies could be considered, even establishing a separate support agency to promote Bologna process. (In Finland cimo.fi, and in Estonia www.archimedes.ee). The agencies and different working forums have been used regularly to support the work between the ministry and universities (in several fields, not only Bologna process): Annul meetings with the executive group of the universities (especially rectors), Meeting with the vice rectors/deans of the universities on study related issues, Regular meetings with the university rectors confederation, Curriculum development task force and Forums created for targeted priority areas e.g. Teacher Forum to promote quality of teachers work and new opportunities for professional development. e.g In Finland, the current Teacher forum consists of broad variety of representatives/stakeholders from universities, research institutes, labor market organizations, student organizations and ministry personnel. The Chairperson of the Forum is nominated from the university sector, secretarial work is provided from the ministry and participants represent their own organizations. Similar practice could be used when establishing new forums.

3. Political framework and steering of Bologna process

• Main findings: For implementation of Bologna process in the country there is a need for mapping of all tasks and responsibilities of Bologna process and have a clear distribution of the roles of the stakeholders. It should be clear “who is doing what and when“, and necessary resources should be made available accordingly.
• Recommendations for the Moe: Have a holistic and clear picture of Bologna process implementation in Azerbaijan. It is essential to map all tasks and responsibilities and ascertain all necessary parties (stakeholders).The MoE is recommended to compile roadmap for future actions and find out if new resources are needed or re-allocation of resources.
• Recommendation for future missions: Planning more trainings and consultations with the aim to raise the visibility and understanding of (complexity of) Bologna process among the stakeholders. (Universities, Study guidance councellors, Student unions, Representatives of working life, researchers, external experts, rectors conferences etc.)

4. Internationalisation of HE (Mobility, recognition of learning outcomes, ECTS)

• Main findings: Internationalisation of HE in the context of mobility and ECTS is mainly universities responsibility. It easily leads to varied understanding (not a common/shared understanding) of general principles of Bologna process and internationalisation.
• Recommendation for the MoE: It is recommended that MoE drafts a up-dated policy document for the implementation of the Bologna process and internationalisation of HE sector. This document should give a central view of what should be done in a near future and where to prioritize the resources. Main subdivisions are follows: 1) Creation of a supporting legal environment (from quality to immigration policy); 2) The internationalisation of teaching (set quantitative and qualitative objectives); 3) The support system for internationalisation.

Drafting special programmes and set- up implementing bodies as following steps are necessary.

• Recommendations for future missions: Further consultations and seminars of good practice implementing Bologna and internationalisation.

5. External evaluations

• Main findings: Up until now, MoE has organized accreditation itself, and accredited 12 HEI´s already during the past two years. Accreditation processes have been implemented effectively with very small resources. Only one person has been responsible for organizing them and the evaluation groups have not been paid anything, even when they are using relatively long time for evaluations. Evaluation teams have been large compared to many European countries and time used for evaluation visits have been longer than in many other countries. The accreditation process has been analyzed in more details in the mission report 2.1.
• Soon to be established Evaluation and Nostrification Department will meet most of the European standards for quality assurance agencies, e.g. the new Department has a legal status, which seems to guarantee the independent and autonomous functioning, The Department regularly publishes reports, it’s resources are adequate. The process of evaluation includes self-evaluations, evaluation visit and public reporting of the results as well as follow-up of the use of recommendations.
• MoE has a clear plan to establish Accreditation and Nostrification Department (AND). It will be attached to the Ministry of Education. The number of staff will be 32 people. The legal expertise and licensing section is developing the regulations of the new Department. Also the structure, staff schedule, financing and budget of the Department etc. will be decided.
• Recommendations to the MoE: The new accreditation and recognition department will be relatively big compared to the number of staff of higher education department in MoE. It is good to analyse, if other functions can be united to these two functions, e.g. mobility and ECTS promotion, as is done in Estonia. Now the staff of HE department is so small, that all persons working there are overloaded with work. In many countries MoEs are policy oriented strategical organisations and operational work is done in other organisations under the Ministry (compare e.g. Archimedes in Estonia or CIMO in Finland). Also, Ministry could consider using seconded/temporary staff (university personnel, int’l experts) to share both the information and workload.
• It is important to re-define the role of (AND’s) stakeholders in different phases of evaluations: in negotiation the scope of the evaluation, selection the criteria on which it will be judged, taking part in the evaluation teams, interpreting the results and utilization of the results.
• General recommendations: It is good to think, if accreditation is the only form of evaluation. It could also be useful for MoE to organize also other kinds of evaluations like audits of quality assurance systems of HEIs (compare the procedures in Finland) or thematic evaluations of important areas of higher education policy (such as mobility, lifelong-learning, recognition processes etc).
• It is good to evaluate the new department for accreditation and recognition (nostrifications) according the European standards for quality assurance agencies. One good objective can be to try to become an affiliate member of ENQA (European Network for Quality Assurance) and then later on apply a full member status. Critical points now seem to be the role of students and other stakeholders in participating in planning, implementing and using the results of accreditations.

6. Potential conflicts of interests implementing Bologna process

• Main finding: The Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan is planning to establish Accreditation and Recognition (Nostrification) Department.
• Recommendations for the MoE: Establishing accreditation system, we recommend to follow the standards set in „Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education.“ According to the standards: “Agencies should be independent and act autonomously. They should have full responsibility for their operations and the outcomes of those operations without third party influence. Organizational independence, demonstrated by official documentations that stipulates the independence of the agency`s work from third parties such as higher education institutions, governments and other stakeholder organisations.”
• We recommend to follow Bologna process and establish ENIC centre (http://www.enic-naric.net/) to meet the Lisbon recognition convention regulations. ENIC centres are international networks created for facilitating the true and fair recognition of education obtained abroad and for promoting academic and professional mobility. They are evaluating foreign qualifications and diplomas, providing information about foreign HE systems, making qualification assessment according state higher education standards (making recognition proposals), providing information about state higher education system for international use.
• The use of the concept of “Nostrification” is not widely used in European context. We would recommend using the term recognition instead of nostrification, in the future.
• Recommendations for future mission: Further consultations are needed

7. Internal Quality Assurance

• Main findings: There are more and more examples of promising practices in HEIs in Azerbaijan in developing quality assurance system, but according experiences from other countries it takes many years to develop useful QA system for an institution. Same situation is also in Azerbaijan. According to an international evaluation there is still lack of quality culture in HEIs and real QA systems are not yet fully functioning in Azerbaijan. Management of quality work must be developed, quality of teacher – student relations and connections to working life as parts of QA work need also improvement.
• Recommendations for the MoE: Evaluation of quality systems can be part of accreditation. There are good examples of standards for quality systems in some countries (e.g. in Finland), which can be modified to the use of HEIs in Azerbaijan.
• In the workshop, it was proposed that training courses for people responsible of QA systems in universities should be organized. Also, international experiences (from Finland and Estonia) could be distributed in the same occassions. The Twinning project could help Ministry in organizing these training courses.
• More targeted training programs on ‘Bologna issues’ should be created for persons working in Quality Assurance Units in the different universities.
• Voluntary networking between the QA Units could help sharing good practice between the universities. Ministry of Education could activate and encourage the universities to be active in forming the networks.

8. Bologna activities and Erasmus+ agency cooperation

• Main findings: The ST experts had limited knowledge on Azerbaijan Erasmus+ agency and it’s activities. Therefore, recommendations below, are based on experience from other countries.
• Recommendations for the MoE: When planning further national activities, it`s good to map all possibilities in a frame of Erasmus+ now and in the future. HE quality improvement (quality and better competitive advantage) is a key factor. For measuring of quality improvement it is needed to set up proper set of indicators. In Estonia, special programmes supporting teaching quality and educational sciences in universities are in use. Special attention is being paid in improving the efficiency and quality of doctoral studies and increasing the number of specialists holding PhDs in all sectors of the economy. Each doctoral graduate will have spent at least one semester studying abroad. There should be clear picture what kind of opportunities students, staff and trainees in HE have and what kind of information needs to be shared. Also, what kind of cooperation is possible between HE institutions, research and business organisations within Azerbaijan and internationally.
• ECTS is a critical point for student mobility. Therefore, it is important to have a common framework for implementing ECTS. Good example to promote this could be ‘Erasmus+ Learning Agreement’ model, where all parties agree on conditions and how learning outcomes are recognised in student mobility programmes, within and between the universities, so that studies/credits obtained abroad/other universities can be included in the degree programme (at student’s home university).
• Recommendation for future missions. Future missions could help in setting national priorities and in mapping possibilities for future cooperation between Erasmus+ agency and MoE.

9. Support for student mobility and general communication

• Main findings: A lot of students are studying abroad, especially in the neighboring countries. Student mobility between universities in Azerbaijan is relatively small. Also, International and already established exchange programs (Erasmus) could be used much more actively between the neighboring countries and EU countries.
• It would be useful to produce a brochure for the universities to clarify the aims, different elements and working areas of Bologna process. The brochure could then be delivered to the universities (e.g. “Bologna Process in short”). Other materials should be prepared, collected, linked and made easily available through ministry’s (or relevant body’s) web page (National EHEA/Bologna website).

Picture 1: Web page on Bologna process, Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland

Picture 2: National EHEA website of www.Archimedes.ee. See also www.CIMO.fi

• National Erasmus+ Agency has an important role to inform about Bologna process and assist the Ministry in doing so.
• For the Ministry of Education and to wider international audience, it would be useful if the Ministry would prepare a document describing the higher education sector in Azerbaijan and universities/programs available. E.g. in Finland a small booklet “Higher Education in Finland (currently 2015-2016) is prepared every two years. The booklet consists of the following sections:
  • Why to study in Finland (info for students/parents) (1 pg.)
  • Short description of the Higher education sectror and structure of (Finnish) Education System (2 pg)
  • Short presentation of all universities (and universities of applied sciences) (0,5-1 pg each), consisting of information about its location, size, facilities, fields of education, bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes taught in other language than Azerbaijan), international activities and areas of specialization and possible status (accreditation/private/public etc.). Address to the institutes web page.
  • Summary of Fields of study/institutions and degree programs offered for foreign students/locals. (a copy of the Finnish booklet will be provided
• Recommendation for next mission: Quality agreement between Azerbaijani universities could be a good starting point for recognition of learning outcomes in different universities. Willingness to prepare such an agreement should be explored. Good practice from Estonia: Universities have made together an agreement on supporting the quality in HE. We would recommend a similar co-operation to take place also in Azerbaijan: http://www.ern.ee/index.php/en/quality-agreement

Mission report of Activity: 3.2 Gap Analysis of the AzQF

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 3. Developing AzQF

Activity: 3.2 Gap Analysis of the AzQF

Name of the Expert: Ms Maiki Udam, Ms Aune Valk

Dates of the Mission: 4-15 April 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

The Azerbaijani Qualifications Framework (AzQF) is a tool to systematise, classify and manage Azerbaijani qualifications. The development of AzQF started in 2011 supported by World Bank and European Training Foundation projects. A draft Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers on AzQF has been developed by 2012, stipulating the main principles, institutions involved, level descriptions, placement of types of qualifications, and quality assurance of qualifications. Seminars introducing the AzQF to stakeholders and international partners were held in 2012 and 2014. Nevertheless, the Decree is still in a draft form, and hopefully will be adopted this year. A draft of the implementation plan for the AzQF has also been prepared.

The AzQF consists of eight levels described in terms of knowledge, skills, autonomy and responsibility. The level descriptions of these eight levels are compatible with the level descriptions of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). One of the aims of developing the AzQF was to make it compatible with the EQF, and particularly with the Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA).

The draft Decree stipulates, that Sub-Bachelor degree, awarded by colleges (secondary specialised education), shall be placed on level 5, Bachelor’s degree on level 6, Master’s degree on level 7, and Doctoral degree on level 8. A specificity of the AzQF is that level 8 includes two types of doctoral degree: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Doctor of Science (DSc).

Qualifications are certificates, diplomas and other formally issued documents acknowledging that a person has achieved learning outcomes (LOs) that are described in standards. In Azerbaijan these are normally national educational standards. National educational standards are developed for each level of the degrees (Sub-Bachelor’s, Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral), as well as for each specialty. As a result, the number of national educational standards potentially involved in the Azerbaijani Qualifications Framework for Higher Education is huge: about 150 on Bachelor’s level, about 150 on Master’s level, about 400 on PhD level, and about 400 on DSc level. These are used by higher education institutions (HEIs) as starting point for developing their curricula.

LOs are the basis for moving Azerbaijan towards a competence based higher education system. There need to be more flexible ways of learning, while assessment and certification need careful quality assurance.

Moreover, in the future it is important that educational standards and curricula are defined on clearly identified needs. This means that the link with the labour market needs to be improved. Finally, LOs and the AzQF are instruments for recognition of prior learning and comparing qualifications from Azerbaijan with those of other countries in order to facilitate mobility.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The main aim of the mission was to facilitate a verification process of the AzQF against the overarching QF EHEA. From this the following tasks derived: to identify the level of knowledge of the QF EHEA in Azerbaijani universities; to update experts on the QF EHEA, external reference points, EHEA trends and practice; and to map relevant rules, regulations and practice.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The expected result of the mission was Gap analysis report with the recommendations for changes. All expected results were achieved. The Gap analysis is provided in the Annex.

6. Unexpected Results

No unexpected results occurred.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

The purpose of the mission was fulfilled and no issues were left open at the end of the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

The STE-s had chance to attend some seminars of the Nizami project (Erasmus+) that is aimed to develop doctoral studies in Azerbaijan which to a great extent overlaps the aim of the Twinning activity 3.3. Therefore it is recommended to the STE-s of 3.3 to be aware of the progress of the named project, interviewing during the missions, among others, the key players of the Erasmus+ Project: Dr. Eldar Shahgaldiyev from Khazar University, Professor Hasanova from Baku State University and representatives of the Academy of Science. 

For future missions (and Twinning projects) including training, we also recommend to consider that instead of training large groups of local academic staff, to conduct seminars with smaller groups of local experts to prepare trainers, draft training plans, analyse training needs in respect to the development stage of the specific issue, etc. This recommendation is based on the feedback from some MoE representatives as well as on our own experience from numerous meetings indicating that English language skills of the majority of the academic staff are not sufficient for effective communication and active participation in discussions that are led by foreign experts. Although high-level interpretation has been provided, it cannot replace invaluable spontaneous communication between trainers and trainees. We have also experienced that the differences between the local situation and EHEA are in some aspects still large which complicates the understanding due to e.g. new terminology.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

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.

The situation in Azeri higher education and ETF’s recommendations concerning the AzQF are relevant also today, therefore the Gap analysis is to a great extent based on the ETF document as well as on the topic-related previous mission reports and on the meetings with various stakeholders - representatives of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection as well as university representatives, and members of the national educational standards committees. 

The topics in the Gap analysis have been chosen according to the main principles in the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). When analyzing the AzQF compatibility with EQF, the STE-s focused on two aspects :

• the compatibility of AzQF (levels 6-8) with the current practices in the field of higher education (both in the universities and on the government level);
• the compatibility of AzQF (levels 6-8) with the principles of EQF.

The STE-s value highly the efficient work done by the RTA team and Twinning Project counterparts from the MoE while organizing the numerous meetings with different stakeholders. We also appreciate the time, openness and hospitality provided to us in the MoE, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, and universities.

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 Kirsi Hiltunen, Ms Helka Kekäläinen, Ms Heli Mattisen

Dates of the Mission: 18-22 April 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Azerbaijan started to implement the Bologna Process in 2005. In the Action Plan on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan (2013), the Ministry of Education (MoE) has set ambitious strategic objectives for the upcoming years. These extend from creating content of competency-based personality-oriented education to creation of a legislative framework for granting administrative, academic, financial and organizational autonomy to educational institutions in 2018-2020.

A new Accreditation and Nostrification Office (hereinafter ANO) under the Ministry of Education was established in end of the year 2015.The purpose of the body is to effectively organize the work of accreditation of education institutes and recognition of education documents of foreign countries. The department has newly appointed Director and other staff.

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 with three higher education institutions. The objective of Activity 4.3 is to assist BC stakeholders with the elaboration of a concrete proposal for the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan. The aim of the Mission was to interview, based on the European Standards and Guidelines, MoE staff, HEI representatives, student unions and other relevant stakeholders about the possible model for QA in Azerbaijan. Another objective was to organise a workshop in which the participants start formulating criteria for the new evaluation model by applying the European Standards and Guidelines in the Azerbaijani higher education system.  

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

On 18 April the introductory meeting with MoE counterparts and EHEA experts took place. Based on previous mission reports and gap analyses the most challenging ESG standards in Azerbaijani context were presented and discussed:1.2 Policy for quality assurance; 1.2 Design and approval of programmes; 1.9 On-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes; 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose; 2.3 Implementing processes; 2.5 Criteria for outcomes; 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance; 3.3 Independence. The process of drafting standards and guidelines for external quality assurance in Azerbaijan higher education was introduced and discussed by participants.

On 19 April the BS Project Leader and Deputy Head of the Department for Higher Education and Science were interviewed by STE-s regarding the external evaluation model and the status and tasks the newly founded agency (Accreditation and Nostrification Office, hereinafter ANO).

Two pieces of information gathered during the interviews are very relevant for the whole project:

1) The Department for Higher Education and Science has prepared a new version of the State Higher Education Standards and Programmes, which will presumably be approved in the next future. RTA office will translate the new version of state standards and make them available for all STE’s.

2) The Director of the ANO as well as the head of the accreditation unit of the office have recently been appointed by the Minister of Education. The office is founded under the MoE and it will take over the current accreditation activities, but (as to the Director of ANO) in the future the office might gain organizational independence. The Director confirmed that the goal of ANO is to meet in the future the ESG. However, the ANO was very interested in cooperation with the Twinning project and the STE’s invited their representatives to the seminars preparing the drafting process of AzSG.

The students the STE’s met  had a clear understanding of areas for improvement in the higher education of Azerbaijan: level of research and student’s participation in research; update of teaching and learning methods; more practical work integrated with theory; more space for student’s individual educational needs, independent work and autonomous learning; international mobility of teachers as well as students.

On 20 and 21 April the seminars were held in order to prepare the drafting of AzSG for higher education quality assurance. The workshops were focused on defining criteria for the most challenging standards and guidelines: Design and approval of programmes; On-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes; Student-centred learning, teaching and assessment. In addition two “horizontal topics” have been discussed among the participants: internationalization and research and development. The participants were asked to elaborate and discuss the minimum criteria for the standards/topics concerned as well as the evidences needed. Outcomes of the discussions will be used for the drafting of AzSG.

STE’s presented for the discussion following documents:

• the working plan for drafting AzSG
• the draft of Contents for the Proposal for Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan / Manual for the Pilot Evaluations
• criteria and procedure for selecting experts to the drafting group.

The following Work Plan for drafting the Proposal for the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Azerbaijan & Pilot Evaluations was discussed in the workshop:

The Terms of References for drafting AzSG were developed which included the criteria for selecting experts to the drafting group. On 22 April the experts were selected by Project Leader Helka Kekäläinen, BC Project Leader Emin Amrullajev and Junior Project Leader Heli Mattisen and submitted to the Minister for approval.

During the meeting with the Minister several relevant topics were discussed: status, role and main activities of the ANO; purpos and expected outcomes of the new quality assurance model; internal communication; involvement of the Department for Higher Education and Science and the ANO in the project and the division of responsibilities.

All results of the mission were achieved.

6. Unexpected Results

The STEs did not recognize any unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open regarding the tasks of the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

As the draft of new State Higher Education Standards and Programmes developed by the Department for Higher Education and Science seems to include relevant changes compared to the existing regulation, increasing the autonomy of the universities in developing the programmes, it is very important to translate the document into English and share it with STE’s in order to update their understanding about the state of affairs.

The representatives of the Accreditation and Nostrification Office should be invited to all relevant activities of the project. Special training for the ANO staff could be offered during next missions, if possible. It is essential to involve ANO staff in drafting the AzSG.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

The seminars provided a good opportunity to discuss the working plan and table of contents as well as the criteria for selecting experts to the drafting group with a number of well trained, experienced and committed representatives of higher education institutions and the Ministry of Education. The members of the drafting group had an opportunity to start formulating criteria, discuss their relevance and applicability in Azerbaijan context. In May the drafting group will have 3 intense working days outside Baku and is expected to present the first draft of AzSG and discuss it in a seminar open for EHEA and Bologna experts, representatives of pilot institutions and all other relevant stakeholders. After the seminar the feedback gathered will be analyzed and necessary amendments will be made. Next autumn the pilot institutions will receive training in drafting the self-evaluation and preparing for the external review.

Mission report of Activity: 2.7 Communication Strategy

 AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 2. Coordination and Networking

Activity: 2.7 Communication Strategy

Name of the Expert: Dr. Eila Heikkilä

Dates of the Mission: 7-11 March 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

The EU-Azerbaijan Twinning Project “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” is signed between the European Union, represented by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Azerbaijan on one hand and the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) and Estonian Higher Education Quality Agency (EKKA) on the other hand. The Final Recipient of the Action is the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan (MoE).

The overall objective of the project is to further develop Azerbaijan’s higher education system through integration in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The purpose is to increase the institutional capacities of the Ministry of Education and other key institutions of Azerbaijan for the development of Bologna related policies and the implementation of the EHEA objectives and reference tools.

The objective of the Project in Component 2 of Networking and Coordination and Activity 2.7 of Communication Strategy is to assist the Ministry of Education in preparing a public awareness and communication strategy for the issues pertinent to EHEA and Bologna. The purpose is to support MoE in establishing coordination, networking and communication mechanisms leading to improved capacity and awareness of issues pertinent to EHEA and Bologna Process. The Bologna Process is a collective effort of public authorities, universities, teachers, and students, together with stakeholder associations, employers, quality assurance agencies, international organisations, and institutions, including the European Commission, where effective coordination, communication and networking is crucial for successful implementation.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

Based on the Twinning Contract, the aim of the mission is to carry out the activities of Component: 2 Coordination and Networking. The objective of Activity 2.7: Communication Strategy is to assist in preparing a public awareness and communication strategy on Bologna / EHEA issues and its implementation. In this regard, the specific objectives are:

• Review of the current communication methods and practices on Bologna/EHEA issues in Azerbaijan;
• Twinning Workshop on best practices for the MoE and other target groups;
• Planning of the implementation timetable and evaluation practices.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

5.1. General observations related to the coordination, communication and networking on EHEA and Bologna

Progress Review:

The meeting on 7.3.2016 focused on needs analysis of the activities related to coordination, communication and networking on EHEA and Bologna. It can be noted that while Bologna agreement was signed already in 2005, there is weak awareness of the benefits of EHEA related issues and Bologna process among the public audience in the country. It is also noted that while the agreement was signed at policy level, there has been weak coordination and networking of MoE and the universities to implement Bologna with coherent and consistent national approach. The lack of a separate unit or department for EHEA and Bologna issues is indicated as one of the reasons for weak performance. In the discussions, the BC has indicated the need of support by the project to continue the coordination, networking and communication on EHEA and Bologna. The need of raising public awareness communicating the benefits of EHEA and Bologna has been highlighted in the discussions on needs analysis.

Recommendations for MoE:

A Communication Strategy Draft communication strategy with objectives, target groups, key messages, communication channels, timescale, evaluation will support the MoE in coordination and networking with the universities and stakeholders to implement Bologna with coherent and consistent national approach. It was agreed in the meeting that in the framework of the Component 2 and Activity 2.7, a coherent and consistent Communication Strategy will be developed to enhance the coordination, networking and communication of MoE with universities and stakeholders.

5.2. Defining key steps and actions for developing a Communication Strategy on EHEA and Bologna

Progress Review:

The Workshop at MoE on 9.3.2016 convened the partners and stakeholders to develop a draft Communication Strategy. The purpose with the presentation was to train the key steps in developing a communication strategy, including the objectives, target groups, key messages, communication channels, timescale and evaluation. The case study of Bologna communication by MoE and CIMO in Finland served as best practice models in the workshop. The workshop applied the participative approach by involving the participants into the development of the Communication Strategy regarding key messages and different target audiences (worksheet). There was a good understanding of the needs of different target groups regarding EHEA and Bologna related issues. The ideas of the participants were presented and discussed. The expert analysed and summarised the input of the participants and integrated into the draft Communication Strategy.

Recommendations for MoE:

The participants of the meetings and workshop are an important ‘team’ and network to build up a sustainable Communication Strategy and ownership of EHEA and Bologna in Azerbaijan, including MoE, public and private universities and stakeholders. The internal cooperation with the PR department is a valuable support in the implementation of the strategy. The language needs must be decided regarding the communication.

5.3. Drafting the Communication Strategy

Progress Review:

The draft Communication Strategy with objectives, target groups, key messages, communication channels, timescale and evaluation were discussed in the meeting at MoE on 10.3.2016. The strategy serves as a basis for future development and elaboration at MoE, universities and stakeholders. The project needs to further discuss and decide who will lead the University Network of EHEA and Bologna. The MoE needs further support in facilitating the universities’ communication with the stakeholders as well as in communication with other line Ministries on Bologna (Learning Outcomes). It was agreed that the written comments by e-mail from the MoE and partners will be integrated into the next versions of the draft Communication Strategy.

Recommendations for MoE and the Project:

It is recommended to share the results of the project also to the universities in terms of experts’ recommendations, e.g. in Component 3. The Project’s website can publish some of the Project related documents.

The results of the mission in terms of the Draft Communication Strategy, the Workshop Presentation and Worksheet and the lists of Participants are annexed to this report.

6. Unexpected Results

The STEs did not recognize any unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open regarding the tasks of the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

The next mission should decide on the institutions and people responsible for the implementation of the Communication Strategy (who does what). The communication strategy needs to be further developed with an action plan for the implementation, including the timetable and evaluation measures. Overall, the Communication Strategy needs to be finalized according to the Project’s requirements.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

None.

Mission report of Activity: 3.1 EHEA and QF EHEA Training

EU Short Term Expert Mission 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 3. Developing AzQF

Activity: 3.1 EHEA and QF EHEA Training

Name of the Experts: Ms Maiki Udam, Mr Olav Aarna

Dates of the Mission: 15-19 February 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

The Azerbaijani Qualifications Framework (AzQF) is a tool to systematise, classify and manage Azerbaijani qualifications. The development of AzQF started in 2011 supported by World Bank and European Training Foundation projects. A draft Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers on AzQF has been developed by 2012, stipulating the main principles, institutions involved, level descriptions, placement of types of qualifications, and quality assurance of qualifications. Seminars introducing the AzQF to stakeholders and international partners were held in 2012 and 2014. Nevertheless, the Decree is still in a draft form, and hopefully will be adopted this year. A draft of the implementation plan for the AzQF has also been prepared.

The AzQF consists of eight levels described in terms of knowledge, skills, autonomy and responsibility. The level descriptions of these eight levels are compatible with the level descriptions of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). One of the aims of developing the AzQF was to make it compatible with the EQF, and particularly with the Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA).

The draft Decree stipulates, that Sub-Bachelor degree, awarded by colleges (secondary specialised education), shall be placed on level 5, Bachelor’s degree on level 6, Master’s degree on level 7, and Doctoral degree on level 8. A specificity of the AzQF is that level 8 includes two types of doctoral degree: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Doctor of Science (DSc).

Qualifications are certificates, diplomas and other formally issued documents acknowledging that a person has achieved learning outcomes (LOs) that are described in standards. In Azerbaijan these are normally national educational standards. National educational standards are developed for each level of the degrees (Sub-Bachelor’s, Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral), as well as for each specialty. As a result, the number of national educational standards potentially involved in the Azerbaijani Qualifications Framework for Higher Education is huge: about 150 on Bachelor’s level, about 150 on Master’s level, about 400 on PhD level, and about 400 on DSc level. These are used by higher education institutions (HEIs) as starting point for developing their curricula.

Only few national educational standards and curricula clearly define LOs, but this will have to change, once the AzQF is adopted. LOs are the basis for moving Azerbaijan towards a competence based higher education system. There need to be more flexible ways of learning, while assessment and certification need careful quality assurance.

Moreover, in the future it is important that educational standards and curricula are defined on clearly identified needs. This means that the link with the labour market needs to be improved. Finally, LOs and the AzQF are instruments for recognition of prior learning and comparing qualifications from Azerbaijan with those of other countries in order to facilitate mobility.

3. 3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The objective of the mission was to identify the level of the knowledge of QF-EHEA, to update local experts on the QF-EHEA, external reference points and EHEA trends and practice, and to map relevant rules, regulations and practice.

Methods/tasks were consisting of interviews/working meetings with the Ministry of Education (MoE) and universities’ management, teaching staff and students, and of a one-day seminar for the MoE and universities’ staff.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The expected results were:

• trained local experts,
• training material/reference literature & documentation,
• increased knowledge on Bologna developments among the experts.

All expected results were achieved. The programme of the seminar is provided in Annex 2, the list of participants in Annex 3, and the presentations of the seminar, including references, in Annex 4.

6. Unexpected Results

It turned out in the beginning of the seminar workshop that the draft document of AzQF was not in the participants’ folder and the participants were not informed about the document before the event either. Although the RTA team was able to solve the problem rather quickly, it caused some unnecessary stress for all counterparts – the experts, organisers and participants, and somewhat diminished the expected outcomes of the workshop. A MoE representative explained, that as the Decree on AzQF is not yet approved by the Cabinet of Ministers and is still an informal document, it cannot be disseminated to the university representatives. This indicates that transparency and stakeholders’ involvement is not yet a common practice in Azerbaijan.     

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

The purpose of the mission was fulfilled and no issues were left open at the end of the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

It would be highly recommendable that the respective counterparts at the MoE give constructive feedback to the training programmes and materials well in advance in order to maximize the usefulness of trainings.  

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Our conclusions and observations are based on the interviews conducted with the representatives of the MoE and three universities (see p.4 – Time Schedule), and on discussions during the seminar. The main aim of the EQF, the QF-EHEA as well as of the AzQF is to support recognition of learning, independent on the learning paths and places. Qualifications frameworks focus on LOs more than on procedures, and an essential part of their implementation is involvement of stakeholders and quality assurance. The subtopics below are chosen according to these principles.

9.1 Learning outcomes

Study programmes developed by HEIs are based on the national standards and HEIs can fill in 30% of the content of the programme. The representatives of the visited universities expressed their wish for more academic autonomy that would support introduction of changes into the programmes according to the labour market and students’ needs.

Teachers were aware of the concept of LOs and described adequately how the development of subject syllabi occurs, starting with the comparison with similar programmes at foreign universities, defining the LOs, dividing the content between lectures and choosing relevant study materials. The student assessment as one of the most important aspect at the outcome-based approach was not mentioned, though. The overarching assessment method is apparently the multiple choice test (especially in the Technical University), with some additional alternatives – projects, presentations – in the Qafqaz University and Baku State University.  

Student assessment seems to be currently the main challenge while implementing the LOs and principles of the qualifications framework. Skills and competencies can definitely not be assessed with multiple choice tests.  

Another challenge is related to the teaching methods. The main method is still lecturing that is not well-taken by the students who participated in the interviews. Students expect more interactive and hands-on methods. Teaching is divided clearly between theory and practice and there is hardly any interaction between these parts.

Neither students nor teachers favour the regulation that requires students’ obligatory attendance in lectures. This regulation contradicts essential principles for recognition of prior learning, based on validation of LOs. More importantly, this regulation ignores the fact, that students are adult responsible persons, and inhibits development of active and responsible citizens.

9.2 Autonomy of universities

Autonomy of universities is one of the focal points in developing the EHEA, particularly in assuring the quality of higher education. The autonomy of HEIs involves two major aspects: academic and financial. In both aspects the mission revealed several problems.

In 2013, the HEIs got limited financial autonomy that enables them to decide over some budgetary issues themselves. The major problem here is the inability of the university management and teaching staff to take advantage of the possibilities of diversifying the income base.

Academic autonomy of universities has two important aspects: autonomy in developing the curricula, and autonomy in awarding the degrees. Concerning the autonomy in developing the curricula universities have to follow detailed national standards for specialties (see p.2). Although the interviews revealed that universities would like to have more academic autonomy, the discussion at the seminar brought to the conclusion, that most universities are not ready to abolish these standards and develop their curricula based just on framework standards for degree levels. One of the intermediate options proposed was to develop national standards for wider study programme groups, e.g. humanities, engineering. Thus, development of a new generation of national standards for specialties (altogether about 1100) based on LOs needs careful consideration.

The autonomy of universities to award academic degrees is currently restricted in two aspects. One of them is incorporated into the present model of accreditation, which includes external testing (knowledge test with multiple choices) of potential graduates. Another aspect is related to the model of awarding PhD and DSc degrees by the Higher Attestation Commission.

9.3 Quality Assurance

Only quality assured qualifications can be included into the AzQF. Therefore, the quality assurance (QA) of higher education institutions and programmes is crucial for the implementation of the AzQF.

The present higher education QA system in Azerbaijan consists of internal QA systems in the HEIs and external QA system on the state level. The internal QA particularly involves collecting student feedback. Currently the legal framework for the internal QA in HEIs is absent.

The external quality assurance is based on regular accreditation of HEIs. This process also involves the elements of study programme accreditation. The criteria for institutional accreditation are prevailingly quantitative. The Accreditation Committee conducting site visit (about 10 members) often includes representatives of the MoE. This and many other aspects of QA on state level do not meet the requirements of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG) that is the main tool to assure the quality of implementing the QF-EHEA.

A positive example came up in the Technical University who passed the international accreditation (conducted by ASIIN) in study programmes of electronics. Participation in international accreditations helps to increase the understanding of ESG and could therefore be encouraged among all universities.

9.4 Recognition

Although in theory the university staff is aware of LOs, in practice the recognition does not take place because of the rigid formalities (e.g. obligatory attendance in lectures) and of a still input-based approach. Both students and teachers admitted that recognition of studies at other universities is based on course titles, or in some rare cases on course content. It indicates that the understanding of the core idea of LOs and qualifications frameworks is missing, and there is hardly any chance to recognize formal learning in other HEIs and no chance at all to recognize any informal or non-formal learning.

In addition, there is a very diverse understanding of the credit points (CP) and their value. At the MoE we learned that 1 CP equals to 30 hours student’s work. In the universities some teachers said that 1 CP is 15 hours students’ classroom work, some said that 15 hours contain both classroom and independent work and some did not understand the meaning of a credit point at all. The lack of recognition and of a common understanding of credit points is a great obstacle for student mobility.

Another issue that came up during the meeting at MoE was about the qualification level of medical doctors. Important amendment has been added to the draft Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers on AzQF concerning the diploma of basic higher medical education, and the diploma of residency. The diploma of basic higher medical education has been placed on the AzQF level 6 (together with Bachelor’s degree), and the diploma of residency on the AzQF level 7 (together with Master’s degree).

The basic medical education programme belongs to the integrated study programmes typical for regulated professions (human medicine, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, architecture etc.). As in most European countries, including Estonia, these programmes are on the 7^th level and graduates’ diploma equals to the Master’s degree, then it may cause recognition problems for Azerbaijani medical doctors who want to continue their studies on the next (doctoral) level in foreign universities. Correspondingly, the qualification awarded on graduation from residency is recommended to be placed on the AzQF level 8. The latter might cause confusion in the context of Azerbaijani doctoral qualifications, though. The best solution could be to remove reference to the qualifications in human medicine from the draft Decree, because besides these qualifications many other quality assured qualifications not mentioned in the decree can be included into the AzQF during its implementation. Another option is to indicate that qualifications awarded on graduation from integrated study programmes are placed on the AzQF level 7.

9.5 Involvement of stakeholders

One of the principles in QF-EHEA is stakeholders’ involvement. This seems not to be a widely used practice in the Azerbaijani higher education yet. Students and employers are not involved in study programme and syllabi development, and HEIs have not been involved in development of the AzQF, although the managers of the visited universities recognized the change-orientation of the current Minister of Education and said that they had participated in discussions about some reform plans at the MoE.

In all visited universities there is a feedback system where students can evaluate their teachers and subjects, and in a couple of cases the teachers have been replaced due to the request of students, but no systematic involvement of students or other stakeholders is taking place in development processes. 

9.6 Conclusions and recommendations 

The MoE has started positive developments related to the involvement of stakeholders and giving HEIs more autonomy, and we would encourage MoE to go even further with it, and especially increase the stakeholders’ involvement in the development and implementation of the AzQF.

During the seminar, the representatives of HEIs pointed out that in some cases the wording of outcomes in the draft document of the AzQF was unclear, and the outcomes in the column “Autonomy and responsibility” did not always reflect these characteristics. They expressed their strong interest to participate in further discussions concerning the document.

Concerning the implementation of the AzQF there is a great need for trainings at HEIs and they should focus especially on the following aspects:

• Student assessment and its link to LOs,
• Recognition of (prior) learning,
• Active teaching methods,
• Internal quality assurance.

The MoE may want to consider carefully the need of specific standards for each and every specialty (study programme). As pointed out by the university representatives during the seminar, the specialties could be organized into bigger study program groups, i.e. humanities, law, engineering etc., and standards could be worked out for these groups, and/or some pilot universities could be given full autonomy for developing study programmes themselves, following the AzQF at the respective level.

We would sincerely like to thank the RTA team and the MoE counterparts for the very well organized visits at the universities. We highly appreciate that the university representatives found time to meet us and were openly willing to share their experience. We have been impressed by the exceptional hospitality at the MoE and the universities.  

ANNEX 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Activity 3.1: EHEA and QF EHEA Training                  

Date: 16.02.2016

Interviews at Ministry of Education from 09:00 to 11:00

1. Emin Amrullayev - BC PL, Head of the Educational Development Programs Department
2. Azad Akhundov - BC CL III, Senior Adviser,  Science, Higher and Secondary Professional Department
3. Vusala Gurbanova, BC CL II, Leading Adviser, Science, Higher and Secondary Professional Department
4. Gulnara Garalova - Senior Adviser, Science, Higher and Secondary Professional Department
5. Tofig Ahmadov - RTA Counterpart, Senior Advisor, Science, Higher and Secondary Professional Department
6. Afgan Abdullayev - BC CL IV, Senior Adviser,  Science, Higher and Secondary Professional Department

Interviews at Qafqaz University from 14:00 to 17:00

1. Sarvar Gurbanov - Head of Economy Department
2. Khalil Ismayilov - Dean of Engineering Faculty
3. Zafar Hasanov – Director of Project Development and Teacher Transfer
4. Akbar Aslanov – Director of School of Languages
5. Narmina Aliyeva – Head of Translation /Interpretation Department
6. Adalat Mikayilov – Head of HR Department
7. Sevil Imanova - Vice-rector for external affairs
8. Elmir Gurbanov – Vice director of School of Languages
9. Nargiz Nahmatova - Teacher at Department of Public Adminstration
10. Venera Suleymanova - Teacher at Department Enlish Language and Literature
11. Gulnar Zulfugarova - Teacher at Department of Public Administration
12. Nail Tahirov - Teacher at Department of Industrial Engineering
13. Polad Poladov - Teacher at Translation Department
14. Sannur Aliyev - Teacher at Economics Department
15. Adiljon Abdurazzakov - Teacher at Center Entrepreneurship Development 
16. Alishiram Alakbarov – Student, Computer Engineering
17. Tabriz Isgandarov – Student, Computer Engineering
18. Hikmat Jafarli - Student, Computer Engineering
19. Minura Isgandarova –Student, World Economy
20. Chaquira Issufe – Student, Business Administration
21. Leyla Hasanova - Student, Public Administration
22. Hikmat Mursalzada – Student, Accounting and Audit
23. Roya Karimli – Student, English Language and Literature
24. Sabina Ahmadova - Student, English Language and Literature

Date: 17.02.2016

Interviews at Baku State University, from 09:00 to 12:00

1. Adil Khasayev – Dean of Geology Faculty
2. Nazim Shamilov – Dean of Ecology and Soil Science Faculty
3. Aydin Kazimzada – Vice-rector for science and innovations
4. Irada Aliyeva – Vice-rector for academic affairs
5. Gulheyran Rahimova – Head of International Relations Department
6. Maharram Valiyev – Dean of Philology Faculty
7. Nizamaddin Isgandarov – Dean of Mechanics-Mathematics Faculty
8. Akif Guliyev – Dean of Biology Faculty
9. Alizada Mammadov –Law Faculty, Head of Chair on International Private Law and European Law
10. Taladdin Baghirov – Physics Faculty, Matter Structure Chair
11. Abdulsayid Azizov – Dean of Faculty of Chemistry
12. Jasarat Shabanov – Faculty of Ecology and Soil Science
13. Magsad Gojamanov – Faculty of Geography, Head of Geodesy and Cartography Chair
14. Farda Imanov – Dean of Faculty of Geography
15. Elmira Ismayilova – Head of International Projects’ Department
16. Zohrab Aghamaliyev – Senior scientific worker of Nano-research Centre
17. Elvin Azizbayov – Faculty of Mechanics-Mathematics
18. Namig Shikhaliyev – Faculty of Chemistry
19. Fatima Ahmadova – Student, International Relations
20. Khoshbakht Janhasanzada – Student, History
21. Osman Zeynalli – Student, History
22. Roza Naghiyeva - Student, History
23. Parvin Abdullayeva - Student, History
24. Lala Mamiyeva – Student, International Relations
25. Gunel Asadova - Student, International Relations
26. Sara Alasgarova - Student, International Relations
27. Elnara Aliyeva - Student, International Relations

Interviews at Azerbaijan Technical University, from 13:00 to 16:00

1. Jehan Aslanzada – Dean
2. Arastun Mammadov - Dean of Faculty “Machine engineering”
3. Subhan Namazov – Faculty of Metallurgy
4. Hasan Huseynov – Head of Technology Chair
5. Khalig Yahudov – Vice-rector for academic affairs
6. Isa Khalilov – Vice-rector for scientific affairs
7. Hikmat Aliyev – Head of Chair “Electro-mechanics and electrical equipment”
8. Ziyafat Karimov – Head of Chair “Automobile technics”
9. Imran Yolchuyev - Head of “Sabah Centre”
10. Vahid Farhadov – Chair “Automation and Management”
11. Elchin Gozalov – Head of Chair “Communication…
12. Elchin Rzayev – Chair “Technology of Machine-building”
13. Huseyn Mirzayev – Chair “….
14. Sarkhan Kamilbayli – Student, Technology of arm and arm systems
15. Ilgar Aliyev – Student, Technological and Light Industry Machines
16. Leyla Abbasli – Student, Technological and Light Industry Machine
17. Javahir Babanli – Student, Engineering business and management
18. Ajdar Hummatov – Student, Metallurgy
19. Ilkin Ahmadli – Student, Transport

ANNEX 2

The AZQF: Linking Azerbaijani qualifications to the European Higher Education Area and Lifelong Learning

Joint Seminar of the Ministry of the Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan and European partners

18 February 2016 –Hotel Europa, Baku

     The Azerbaijani Qualifications Framework is a new tool to classify and manage Azerbaijani Qualifications that should be adopted this year. Qualifications in the international understanding are certificates, diplomas and other awards, formally issued documents that acknowledge that a person has achieved learning outcomes that are described in standards. In Azerbaijan these are normally state educational standards.

Only few state educational standards and curricula clearly define learning outcomes but this will have to change once the AZQF is adopted. Learning outcomes are the basis for moving Azerbaijan towards a competency based education system. Learning outcomes are statements that describe what a person is expected to know and able to due at the end of a learning process.

The ways these learning outcomes can be obtained, are verified and assessed is also changing how state educational standards should be used. There need to be more flexible ways of learning, while assessment and certification needs to carefully quality assured.

Moreover, in the future it is important that standards are defined on clearly identified needs. This means that the link with the labour market will need to be improved. Finally, learning outcomes and the AZQF are instruments for comparing qualifications from Azerbaijan with those of other countries in order to facilitate mobility.

How all these issues should be developed and implemented once the AZQF is approved will be discussed in this seminar. We will start by looking at the AZQF in an international and lifelong learning context. Then we will move in two separate directions. One group will focus more on the implications for higher education, through the Bologna Process and the integration of Azerbaijan in the European Higher Education Area. The second group of stakeholders will focus on vocational education and adult learning with a clear labour market orientation. At the end of the seminar we would like to agree recommendations for the implementation plan of the AZQF.