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.

Mission report of Activity: 4.1a Update on Bologna Context

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.1a Update on Bologna Context

Name of the Experts: Ms Helka Kekäläinen, Head of Unit, FINEEC

Ms Heli Mattisen, Director of EKKA

Dates of the Mission: 25-29 January 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. The interviews with the MoE representatives indicated that there is also a plan to establish a new, independent evaluation agency within the next half a year. A draft has already been prepared and submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers.

Despite of some good examples, the interviews in the earlier missions have shown that general understanding of the fundamentals of internal QA systems and how it can serve HEIs institutional management is still at a very early stage in Azerbaijani higher education institutions.

On 15-16 December 2015, the first 2-day training of the Activity 4.1a was organised at Baku State University by STEs Kirsi Hiltunen and Helka Kekäläinen. The training consisted of introductory presentations and consequent discussions as well as a workshop. In the workshop, the participants conducted a self-evaluation on the ESG Standard 1.2 (Design and approval of programmes) and on the Standard 1.7 (Information management). In addition, these themes were discussed in small groups and good practices were shared.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The overall 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 (ESG) and test them with three higher education institutions. The objective of the Activity 4.1a is to train and update BC experts on the EHEA context, the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) as well as on EHEA trends and practice.

The second training of Activity 4.1a was targeted again for future QA experts, university staff and MoE staff. The aim was to give examples of good practice from Estonia, to share challenges that the Estonian system had faced and overcome, and to have a workshop in which the participants would apply the ESG Standards 1.3 (Student-centered learning, teaching and assessment) and 1.5 (Teaching Staff) into Azerbaijani higher education.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

On 26-27 January, a 2-day training was organised in the form of introductory presentations by STEs and consequent discussions as well as a workshop at the Azerbaijani Language University. Consecutive interpretation was organised by the RTA’s office. The training and the workshop offered participants an opportunity to share experiences and good practices, too. Introductory presentations included “Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Estonia: Programme Approach” and “What is high quality education made of? Centres of Excellence in University Education in Finland”.

In the workshop, the participants conducted a self-evaluation on the ESG Standard 1.3 (Student-centered learning, teaching and assessment) and on the Standard 1.5 (Teaching Staff). In addition, these themes were discussed in small groups and good practices were shared. Discussions of the workshop were lively and intensive. The participants were given a written assignment with three questions to be answered: What are the benefits of programme accreditation based on ESG in Azerbaijani context? What are the benefits of institutional accreditation based on ESG in Azerbaijani context? What is your preference at the moment and why? The assignment is expected to be send by e-mail to RTA Reijo Aholainen by 1 February 5 PM.

The training gathered approximately 35 participants from several universities and MoE. Participants represented various actors of universities: university management, professors, teachers, administrative staff and staff responsible for quality assurance in their institutions.

On 28 January, a workshop on Estonian experience in establishing external QA agency was organised at the Ministry of Education. The discussion on Azerbaijani challenges was lively. STEs provided examples from the Estonian and Finnish QA system.

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

Completion of the written assignment could be used as an entrance requirement for the last part of the training to be held in 23-24 February 2016.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

The number of the participants and their commitment to the training has been a very positive sign of the potential to develop the Azerbaijani higher education. Training provided a good platform for sharing experiences and disseminating good practices. However, there is still a need for the support in gaining deeper understanding and practical implementation of QA systems in Azerbaijani higher education institutions as well as in understanding the importance of involving students and external stakeholders in the quality work.

Mission report of Activity: 4.1a Update on Bologna Context

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.1a Update on Bologna Context

Name of the Expert:

Ms Kirsi Hiltunen, Counsellor of Evaluation, FINEEC

Ms Helka Kekäläinen, Head of Unit, FINEEC

Dates of the Mission: 14-18 December 2015

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. The interviews with the MoE representatives indicated that there is also a plan to establish a new, independent evaluation agency within the next half a year. A draft has already been prepared and submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers.

Despite of some good examples, the interviews in the earlier missions have shown that general understanding of the fundamentals of internal QA systems and how it can serve HEIs institutional management is still at a very early stage in Azerbaijani higher education institutions. It seems that the following standards and guidelines mentioned in the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG, 2015) are still not covered in the internal QA systems: policy for quality assurance, student-centred learning, teaching and assessment, information management for the effective management of their programmes and other activities and public information about their activities to society.

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 the Mission (Activity 4.1a) is to train and update BC experts on the EHEA context, the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) as well as on EHEA trends and practice. The training was targeted for future QA experts, university staff, students, working life representatives and MoE staff. The aim was to give examples of good practice from Finland, to share challenges that the Finnish system had faced and overcome, and to include a workshop in which the participants would apply the ESG into Azerbaijani higher education,

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

On 15-16 December, a 2-day training was organised in the form of introductory presentations by STEs and consequent discussions as well as a workshop at Baku State University. Consecutive interpretation was organised by the RTA’s office. The training and the workshop offered participants an opportunity to share experiences and good practices, too. Introductory presentations included an introduction to the project and to the Bologna process and the European Higher Education Area, examples and good practices from Finland in enhancing the quality of education, an introduction to the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG), as well as an introduction to student and stakeholder participation in QA of education.

In the workshop, the participants conducted a self-evaluation on the ESG Standard 1.2 (Design and approval of programmes) and on the Standard 1.7 (Information management). In addition, these themes were discussed in small groups and good practices were shared. Discussions of the workshop were lively and intensive.

The training gathered approximately 40 participants from several universities and MoE. Participants represented various actors of universities: university management, professors, teachers, administrative staff and staff responsible for quality assurance in their institutions. During the training, it became evident that institutions do not have autonomy in the design and establishment of study programmes. Furthermore, students and other stakeholders do not seem to be involved in the design of programmes. It was also brought up by some participants that ECTS are not implemented in a systematic way and that understanding and implementation of learning outcomes in the curriculum design is at a very early phase. However, some institutions do cooperation with international world-class universities and use these institutions as benchmarks. In general, there still seems to be need for improvement regarding the collection and utilization of key performance indicators, utilization of information regarding students’ satisfaction with their programmes and collection and utilization of information regarding career paths of graduates.                         

During the training, benefits and experiences of accreditation conducted in Azerbaijan were also discussed. Participants seemed to be satisfied with accreditations and recommendations they provide to the institutions.

On 17 December, a workshop on ESG adaptation in Azerbaijani higher education and on a roadmap for Institutional Arrangements was organised at the Ministry of Education. The discussion on the new ESG and especially Parts 2 and 3 was lively. STEs provided examples from the Finnish QA system

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

There is a need for hands-on exercise in general concepts and implementation of QA. Participants also expressed a wish for hands-on exercise in formulating learning outcomes at different levels in relation to learning, teaching and assessment. It would also be important to involve BC students and other stakeholders in the further missions and trainings of the project.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

There is a great potential in Azerbaijani higher education institutions for implementing the ESG. However, there seems to be great differences with regard to the level of understanding of QA at higher education institutions. Training provided a good platform for sharing experiences and disseminating good practices. There is a need for the support in gaining deeper understanding and practical implementation of QA systems in Azerbaijani higher education institutions as well as in understanding the importance of involving students and external stakeholders in the quality work.

Piloting Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Azerbaijan - AzSG

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

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

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

AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

Name of the Expert: Ms Kirsi Hiltunen

Dates of the Mission: 23-27 May 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Azerbaijan joined the Bologna Process in 2005. International cooperation in quality assurance has been an essential element of the Bologna Process aiming to create a European Higher Education Area. A central tool in the work has been the publication Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (also known as ESG). The revised ESG 2015 were adopted by the Ministers responsible for higher education in the European Higher Education Area in May 2015. As a result of the participative revision the responsible bodies are confident that they reflect a consensus among all the organisations and ministries involved on how to take forward quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area and, as such, provide a firm basis for successful implementation.

The focus of the ESG is on quality assurance related to learning and teaching in higher education, including the learning environment and relevant links to research and innovation. In addition, institutions have policies and processes to ensure and improve the quality of their other activities, such as research and governance. At the heart of all quality assurance activities are the twin purposes of accountability and enhancement. Taken together, these create trust in the higher education institution’s performance. A successfully implemented quality assurance system will provide information to assure the higher education institution and the public of the quality of the institution’s activities (accountability) as well as provide advice and recommendations on how it might improve what it is doing (enhancement). Quality assurance and quality enhancement are thus inter-related. They can support the development of a quality culture that is embraced by all: from the students and academic staff to the institutional leadership and management.

The ESG may be used and implemented in different ways by different institutions, agencies and countries. The EHEA is characterised by its diversity of political systems, higher education systems, socio-cultural and educational traditions, languages, aspirations and expectations. In order to create the Azerbaijani understanding of the ESG the Twinning project and the Azerbaijani Ministry of Education invited a drafting group to work on a proposal. The drafting group consists of stakeholders from Azerbaijani universities, representatives from the Ministry of Education, students and experts from Finland and Estonia.

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 (AzSG). A Drafting Group was appointed by MoE in April 2016 to work on AzSG. The aim of the Mission was to formulate a proposal for AzSG to be discussed and developed further in a national seminar on 1 June 2016, and at the same time to draft a manual (incl. the description of the evaluation procedure, assessment areas and criteria) for the pilot evaluations that will take place in spring 2017. After the national seminar, the input of the seminar will be analysed and a decision will be made on the final proposal.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

Drafting group members:

Ms. Elmira Ismayilova, Baku State University

Mr. Ruslan Mammadov, Ganja State University

Mr.  Anar Naghiyev, Azerbaijan University of Languages

Ms. Nargiz Mammadova, Azerbaijan University of Languages

Mr. Tofig Ahmadov, Ministry of Education

Mr. Afgan Abdullayev, Ministry of Education

Mr. Sohrab Isayev, Azerbaijan State University of Economics

Ms. Elmira Manafova, Ministry of Education, ANO

Mr. Elshan Nuriyev, Ministry of Education, ANO

Ms. Helka Kekäläinen, Finland

Ms. Kirsi Hiltunen, Finland

Ms. Heli Mattisen, Estonia

Guest experts: Mr Natig Ibrahimov, Mr Emin Emrullayev

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The main result of the mission is the preliminary draft of the manual for pilot evaluations.

Based on ESG, taking into account the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan, previous interviews and discussions with different stakeholders, the STE’s Kirsi Hiltunen, Helka Kekäläinen and Heli Mattisen prepared the first draft of the manual: overall framework and objectives, description of the evaluation process, composition and tasks of the panel, assessment criteria and possible outcomes as well as the proposal for assessment areas and criteria.

The drafting group had a 3-day-workshop in Quba. The process of pilot evaluations as well as the possible modifications for further evaluations were discussed and the purpose of the external quality assurance elaborated. Different interactive methods were used in order to facilitate the discussions and agree upon the focus areas for improvement and define the aim of pilot evaluations. Following areas for improvement were defined: strategic management and internal quality assurance;  development of learning outcome based study programmes in accordance with the needs of the economy and expectations of the society; student centered teaching and learning; assessment of achieved learning outcomes; research based teaching and learning; internationalization; academic ethics.

The aim of pilot evaluations was set: to support the strategic management of institutions, provide external feedback to the institutions’ own internal quality assurance procedures as well as to inform internal and external stakeholders of the compliance of the process and outcomes of teaching and learning to the ESG. The pilot evaluations will have the institutional approach with the focus on teaching and learning. The evaluation report will provide recommendations for institutions’ further developments.

3 working groups were asked to elaborate and present criteria for (2-3) assessment areas proposed by STE-s (mission statement and strategic planning; governance and administration; study programmes; teaching and learning; research and development; academic staff; students). As the result of discussions 2 assessment areas (mission statement and strategic planning and governance and administration) were merged and all criteria were discussed during the last session on May 27.

Based on the results of the discussions, the STE’s drafted a modified version of the manual for pilot evaluations and made agreed amendments to the structure and content of the assessment areas.

Parallel to the main activity the discussions with the Accreditation and Nostrification Office have been carried out. The people from the ANO are very much aware about the benefit the Twinning project might have for the launching the new external quality assurance system in Azerbaijan and are eager to be involved in all relevant activities.

6. Unexpected Results

The active participation of the newly founded Accreditation and Nostrification Office in the drafting process was a very positive unexpected result of the mission.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

There is some more work to be done in the drafting of AzSG. Project Leaders and the RTA office should agree on the circulation of the draft within in MoE and institutions after the draft is finalized.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

The next missions of Component 4 will take place in 29.8.-2.9.2016 and 12.-16.9.2016. The draft of the AzSG should be discussed in detail with the pilot institutions: Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University, Azerbaijan State University of Economics and Azerbaijan Technical University. The timetable for the 3 trainings for fostering the self-evaluation capacity of the institutions should also be agreed, as well as, the contact persons for the pilot evaluations in the universities should be appointed.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

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

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

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 Experts: Ms Helka Kekäläinen, Ms Heli Mattisen

Dates of the Mission: 23-30 May 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Azerbaijan joined the Bologna Process in 2005. International cooperation in quality assurance has been an essential element of the Bologna Process aiming to create a European Higher Education Area. A central tool in the work has been the publication Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (also known as ESG). The revised ESG 2015 were adopted by the Ministers responsible for higher education in the European Higher Education Area in May 2015. As a result of the participative revision the responsible bodies are confident that they reflect a consensus among all the organisations and ministries involved on how to take forward quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area and, as such, provide a firm basis for successful implementation.

The focus of the ESG is on quality assurance related to learning and teaching in higher education, including the learning environment and relevant links to research and innovation. In addition, institutions have policies and processes to ensure and improve the quality of their other activities, such as research and governance. At the heart of all quality assurance activities are the twin purposes of accountability and enhancement. Taken together, these create trust in the higher education institution’s performance. A successfully implemented quality assurance system will provide information to assure the higher education institution and the public of the quality of the institution’s activities (accountability) as well as provide advice and recommendations on how it might improve what it is doing (enhancement). Quality assurance and quality enhancement are thus inter-related. They can support the development of a quality culture that is embraced by all: from the students and academic staff to the institutional leadership and management.

The ESG may be used and implemented in different ways by different institutions, agencies and countries. The EHEA is characterised by its diversity of political systems, higher education systems, socio-cultural and educational traditions, languages, aspirations and expectations. In order to create the Azerbaijani understanding of the ESG the Twinning project and the Azerbaijani Ministry of Education invited a drafting group to work on a proposal. The drafting group consists of stakeholders from Azerbaijani universities, representatives from the Ministry of Education, students and experts from Finland and Estonia.

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 (AzSG). A Drafting Group was appointed by MoE in April 2016 to work on AzSG. The aim of the Mission was to formulate a proposal for AzSG to be discussed with the Advisory Group in the seminar on 1 June 2016, and at the same time to draft a manual (incl. the description of the evaluation procedure, assessment areas and criteria) for the pilot evaluations that will take place in spring 2017. After the seminar, the input of the seminar will be analysed and the draft will be developed further.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

Drafting group members:

Ms. Elmira Ismayilova, Baku State University

Mr. Ruslan Mammadov, Ganja State University

Mr.  Anar Naghiyev, Azerbaijan University of Languages

Ms. Nargiz Mammadova, Azerbaijan University of Languages

Mr. Tofig Ahmadov, Ministry of Education

Mr. Afgan Abdullayev, Ministry of Education

Mr. Sohrab Isayev, Azerbaijan State University of Economics

Ms. Elmira Manafova, Ministry of Education, ANO

Mr. Elshan Nuriyev, Ministry of Education, ANO

Ms. Helka Kekäläinen, Finland

Ms. Kirsi Hiltunen, Finland

Ms. Heli Mattisen, Estonia

Guest experts: Mr Natig Ibrahimov, Mr Emin Emrullayev

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The main result of the mission is the preliminary draft of the manual for pilot evaluations.

Based on ESG, taking into account the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan, previous interviews and discussions with different stakeholders, the STE’s Kirsi Hiltunen, Helka Kekäläinen and Heli Mattisen prepared the first draft of the manual: overall framework and objectives, description of the evaluation process, composition and tasks of the panel, assessment criteria and possible outcomes as well as the proposal for assessment areas and criteria.

The drafting group had a 3-day-workshop in Quba. The process of pilot evaluations as well as the possible modifications for further evaluations were discussed and the purpose of the external quality assurance elaborated. Different interactive methods were used in order to facilitate the discussions and agree upon the focus areas for improvement and define the aim of pilot evaluations. Following areas for improvement were defined: strategic management and internal quality assurance;  development of learning outcome based study programmes in accordance with the needs of the economy and expectations of the society; student centered teaching and learning; assessment of achieved learning outcomes; research based teaching and learning; internationalization; academic ethics.

The aim of pilot evaluations was set: to support the strategic management of institutions, provide external feedback to the institutions’ own internal quality assurance procedures as well as to inform internal and external stakeholders of the compliance of the process and outcomes of teaching and learning to the ESG. The pilot evaluations will have the institutional approach with the focus on teaching and learning. The evaluation report will provide recommendations for institutions’ further developments.

3 working groups were asked to elaborate and present criteria for (2-3) assessment areas proposed by STE-s (mission statement and strategic planning; governance and administration; study programmes; teaching and learning; research and development; academic staff; students). As the result of discussions 2 assessment areas (mission statement and strategic planning and governance and administration) were merged and all criteria were discussed during the last session on May 27.

Based on the results of the discussions, the STE’s drafted a modified version of the manual for pilot evaluations and made agreed amendments to the structure and content of the assessment areas.

The overall framework and objectives as well as the reviewed assessment areas were translated into Azerbaijan in order to provide written material for the discussion to the Advisory Group consisting of the vice rectors and other representatives of different higher education institutions as well as representatives of the Ministry of Education. The preliminary draft of AzSG was presented to the Advisory Group by the STE’s Helka Kekäläinen and Heli Mattisen and members of the Drafting Group, representatives of the MoE Tofig Ahmadov and Afgan Abdullayev.

The members of the Advisory Group disputed the complexity of the standards and the extensive number of the criteria. Concrete proposal were made for the improvement: to put more focus on internationalisation, withdraw the criteria for funding etc. The STE’s reminded the participants of the enhancement lead approach of the pilot evaluations and of the need to distinguish between different types of external evaluations. As the enhancement lead approach is new for the institutions in Azerbaijan there is a need for further seminars and trainings which will be provided to the pilot institutions in autumn 2016 (Technical University, Pedagogical University, University of Economy).

The Twinning Office will publish the preliminary draft of AzSG on the website of the project in order to get written feedback about the assessment areas and criteria. The feedback will be considered and the necessary amendments made by the STE’s.  At the end of August a seminar for pilot institutions and Advisory Group members will be organized where the updated version of the manual for pilot evaluations will be discussed and the evaluation criteria agreed.

Parallel to the main activity the discussions with the Accreditation and Nostrification Office have been carried out. The people from the ANO are very much aware about the benefit the Twinning project might have for the launching the new external quality assurance system in Azerbaijan and are eager to be involved in all relevant activities.

6. Unexpected Results

The active participation of the newly founded Accreditation and Nostrification Office in the drafting process was a very positive unexpected result of the mission.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

There is some more work to be done in the drafting of AzSG. Project Leaders and the RTA office should agree on the circulation of the draft within in MoE and institutions after the draft is finalized.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

The next missions of Component 4 will take place in 29.8.-2.9.2016 and 12.-16.9.2016. The draft of the AzSG should be discussed in detail with the pilot institutions: Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University, Azerbaijan State University of Economics and Azerbaijan Technical University. The timetable for the 3 trainings for fostering the self-evaluation capacity of the institutions should also be agreed, as well as, the contact persons for the pilot evaluations in the universities should be appointed.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

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

Communication Strategy of EHEA in Azerbaijan

Twinning – A Tool to Develop Education and Evaluation Systems

Finnish Education Evaluation Centre