Curriculum Development Advances in Europe and in Greek ...



Curriculum Development Advances in Europe and in Greek Higher Technological Education

IOANNIS KAZAZIS

Department of Oenology and Beverage Technology

TEI of Athens

Agiou Spyridona, Egaleo, 12210 Athens

GREECE



Abstract: - Curriculum development for the revision of study programmes in Greek higher technological education, on a credit accumulation basis, started in 1998, just before the Bologna declaration(1999).

In recent years 40 European countries following the Bologna process , have decided to reform their higher education systems aiming to make the European system world reference. Quality and transparency are becoming the main features of the setting up of a European Higher Education Area. The adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles (Bachelor-Master) and the establishment of mutually shared criteria and methodologies on curriculum development and quality assurance reflect the new developments.

Curriculum development is progressively based on a student-centered approach. The ECTS, as Credit Accumulation System, is based on the student workload required to achieve learning outcomes, described as competences.

Higher education in Greece is mentioned in connection with the principles, assumptions, criteria, standards and guidelines for curriculum development, as they are applied in higher technological education. Guidelines and criteria are based on: the content of studies (Presidential decree), student work load( SWL) (1500 hours per academic year), ECTS credits (60 credits per year, 25 hours SWL per ECTS credit, 240 credits for study programme) with a restricted number of course units (35-40 course units for the 4-year programme of studies) and balanced categories of subject areas. Course units include aim, objectives with generic and subject specific competences, content and bibliography.

Finally,

what is next is considered, according to the trends in higher education in Europe.

`

. Key-Words: Curriculum, qualifications, learning outcomes, workload, credits, quality assurance, recognition

1. Introduction

In recent years more than 40 European countries following the Bologna process , have decided to reform their higher education systems aiming to make the European system world reference. Quality and transparency are becoming the main features of the setting up of a European Higher Education Area. The reforms include mainly the adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles (Bachelor-Master level) with radical changes in the approach of curriculum development. At the same time, the establishment of mutually shared criteria and methodologies on quality assurance reflect the new developments.

2. The new European approach

The new European approach in curriculum development includes the following elements:

2.1 Qualifications Framework

Qualifications are national according to national legislation (Berg 2004). Qualifications are articulated/located in national qualifications frameworks. Up to now very few

European countries have a national qualifications framework (NQF) internationally understood. In UK the QAA has elaborated a national framework for higher education qualifications in 2001 and recently Germany started to elaborate a qualifications framework for the three academic cycles (Tauch 2004).

The main features of a NQF may include learning outcomes, competences, qualifications descriptors, levels, credits, workload and profile. NQF should include all qualifications in a systematic way with coherent relationship (Bologna WG 2004). It should also explicitly link to academic standards and to quality assurance systems (institutional/national). It is these features that will impact most on the recognition field.

Recently most of the European countries are reforming their education system and they reconsider their qualifications and qualifications frameworks in order to be internationally understood. In this context they have adopted the two-cycle qualification structure based on the Bachelor’s-Master’s distinction, articulating so higher education in undergraduate and graduate studies, but without a common understanding or Europe-wide agreement to distinguish the two qualifications.

National qualification structures include intermediate structures, distinct qualifications and sub-titles. Individual national qualifications frameworks are usually descriptions of an education system’s qualifications and differ greatly in their detail, articulation and approach.

European over-arching qualifications framework

An agreement is required about the types, principles, levels and purposes behind different European qualifications and their place in an over-arching framework. The identification of first and second cycle studies is the first step in developing a European framework of qualifications. 40 European countries have agreed (Berlin Communiqué 2003) to elaborate a Framework of comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education systems. In this way NQF will be compatible with the European framework. As a meta-framework, it is intended to assist in the identification of points of articulation between NQF (Berg 2004). It also serves as a point of reference for those developing national frameworks of qualifications. This framework may provide international transparency, international recognition of qualifications and may help to the international mobility of learners and graduates. For this purpose descriptors of qualifications may be used based on learning outcomes and ECTS credits. It has been proposed the Dublin Descriptors to be the cycle descriptors (see below).

2.2 Level and Qualifications Descriptors

In higher education level descriptors are generic outcome statements of what a student is expected to have achieved at the end of a level of learning either within a first cycle or at post-graduate level. In Europe credit level descriptors were developed mainly in UK, as a guide to the writing of learning outcomes for modules (Moon). Students must achieve the learning outcomes to gain credit for a module. The level descriptors ensure that the outcome statement is clearly related to a particular level and they provide an indication of agreed achievements. The Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer (SEEC) has grouped level descriptors into four headings, i.e. development of knowledge/ understanding and practical skills (more subject specific), and intellectual and transferable skills (generic).

A recent trend in higher education in Europe is to develop descriptors for end qualifications at different levels with a common understanding of the nature, types, principles, purposes and the relationships of such qualifications. There is a need for some more precise understanding across Europe on the boundaries and characteristics of first and second cycles. The adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees to aid recognition requires common and clear descriptors.

Full descriptors of a qualification at each level seem now to be a necessity for transparency.

Qualifications Descriptors are generic statements of the outcomes of study. A successful student at a certain level will be expected to be able to demonstrate these outcomes for the award of a particular qualification.

The Joint Quality Initiative group developed in Dublin in 2002 the known as “Dublin Descriptors” (JQI 2004) as a single generic descriptor for all Bachelors degrees, and similarly a single generic descriptor for all Masters degrees. Some of the criteria used concentrate on the learning outcomes of the programme. They describe knowledge and understanding, applying knowledge and understanding, making judgements, communication skills and learning skills. In case there are several levels of Bachelor degrees awarded, the Dublin descriptors for the Bachelor is meant to correspond with the Bachelor award that gives access to the second cycle.

Other initiatives, like the “Tuning Educational structures in Europe” focus on subject specific descriptors (Gonzalez and Wagenaar), while other initiatives like the Helsinki (Bologna) Seminar on Bachelor-level degrees (2001) led to a series of recommendations for the subsequent Prague summit.

The qualification descriptors are quite distinct from credit level descriptors. The latter are used to locate the level of a module/unit and to inform the definition of learning outcomes and assessment criteria at the specific level. The essential difference is that qualification descriptors relate to whole qualifications and encompass all qualifications at a particular level. In summary, credit level descriptors are essentially aids to course development while qualification descriptors are aids to the quality assurance of programmes and terminal qualifications

In UK more detailed statements of graduate attributes are set out in subject benchmark statements (QAA 2002) produced at broad subject areas mainly at Bachelor level. They indicate what might be the typical achievement of students when they graduate in a subject area. Where subject benchmarking statements have been produced (42 up to now), these will provide further guidance on outcome expectations. Where no such statements have been produced, or where no one statement is relevant, the statements of generic outcomes contained in the Qualifications Descriptors provide particularly important points of reference.

2.3 Programme Profile/Specification

As it is mentioned in the Prague Communiqué (May 2001), programmes leading to a degree may, and indeed should, have different orientations and various profiles in order to accommodate a diversity of individual, academic and labour market needs.

From now on the Institutions should write a programme specification for each course, setting out in detail the knowledge, understanding and skills that the successful student should acquire.

Each specification clarifies what knowledge, understanding, skills and other attributes a typical student will have developed on successfully completing a specific programme for obtaining a specific qualification. It also provides details of teaching and learning methods, assessment, and subsequent career opportunities, and sets out how the programme relates to the qualification framework.

Programme outcomes are likely to look very similar to the learning outcomes in structure. They are inevitably more generalized, covering a greater volume of learning as they refer to the whole programme and they refer not specifically to threshold standard, but to a typical student.

2.4 Learning Outcomes

Up to now detailed experience of learning outcomes is limited to just a few countries at both the institutional and national levels, like in USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, UK and more recently in Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, and other parts of Europe. They offer transparency to higher education systems and qualifications.

A learning outcome is a written statement of what the successful student is expected to be able to do at the end of a course unit or qualification.

Learning outcomes are relatively general statements, related to level, curriculum design, level descriptors, credits, teaching, learning, assessment and assessment criteria and quality assurance. They indicate teaching strategy. They are part of the definition of a credit as part of the measure of volume of learning.

Learning outcomes have application (Adam, July 2004) at the following levels:

1. Institutional level: course units, programmes of studies, qualifications

2. National level: national qualifications frameworks, national quality assurance

3. International level: international educational transparency, international recognition and accreditation

In terms of curriculum design and development learning outcomes are at the forefront of educational change, representing the change in emphasis from “teaching” to “learning”.

When modules or course units are expressed in learning outcomes it is much easier to make accurate judgments because there is much more transparency to help the evaluation process. Learning outcomes improve the transparency of qualifications and make credential evaluation easier and judgments more accurate.

2.5 Student Workload (SWL)

As Bergan (2005) has been pointed out, in recent years there is a shift away from considering the rather imprecise concept “years of study” or even “time of study” as the basic unit for measuring learning. Workload is now most commonly considered as a quantified means of expressing the volume of learning based on the achievement of learning outcomes.

Particularly student workload is the quantity of work required (lectures, practical work, seminars, private work-in the library, at home-examinations and other assessment activities) to complete a certain period of study, like that which is necessary to complete successfully a course unit or an academic semester or an academic year or a full programme of studies. In other words SWL consist of the time required to complete all planned learning activities. ECTS credits are a value allocated to course units to describe the student workload required to achieve the objectives of a programme of studies specified in terms of learning outcomes to be acquired.

2.6 ECTS Credits

The last decade ECTS has been successfully introduced in SOCRATES ERASMUS and used as a credit transfer mobility system impacting upon a relatively small number of students. The Bologna process speeded up the development of ECTS into a credit accumulation system at national level.

In 2002 the European University Association and relevant Ministries and organisations agreed on a number of key features of credit transfer and accumulation and on the importance of introducing widely ECTS as the only tried and tested credit system in Europe. The key features have been recently published by the European Commission (2004).

Within the European context an immediate idea is that in education and training credits should become a currency, a Euro (Gehmilch).

In October 2004 the EUA has made a recommendation on the role of the ECTS in the elaboration of a European Qualifications framework. Particularly the use of credits permits the necessary articulation between sub-levels and cycles each with their own specific learning outcomes. The elaboration of a European framework should therefore provide guidance on level and cycle descriptors in order to provide a structure and reference points for standards, learning, assessment, etc.

2.7 Assessment criteria

The assessment criteria are an implication of the learning outcomes (Moon 2004). They may be developed from the learning outcome or from the assessment task-but in either case they should relate to the learning outcomes. A teaching strategy is designed in relation to the assessment processes, providing the support necessary to enable the student to be successful in attaining the threshold indicated in assessment criteria. Learning outcomes need to be assessable, i.e. they should be written in terms that enable testing of whether or not the student has achieved the outcome.

In general terms an assessment criterion is a statement that prescribes with greater precision than the learning outcome, the quality of performance that will show that the student has reached a particular standard. The standard may be the threshold that is described by the learning outcome or the standard that is required in order to gain a particular grade. For a credit system or for basic use in quality assurance, it is only the threshold criteria that are of importance.

At present the use of effective assessment criteria is not widespread in Europe. It seems that there is a resistance to assessment criteria or there are more subtle reasons why assessment criteria are not widely used. Making learning and the requirements of learning more transparent can expose difficult issues.

2.8 Quality Assurance and Accreditation

In nowadays quality is of paramount importance in higher education. The development of institutional strategy and the ways to enhance institutional quality and quality culture should be based on specifically defined institutional mission and profile. Consideration should be taken for institutional and educational core values, European values and culture, autonomy and accountability, public understanding, cost effectiveness, societal needs, sustainable economic development, employability of graduates, and global competition.

Quality assurance and accreditation are now considered as the basis of a well functioning national education system. Quality assurance is an ongoing process that ensures the delivery of agreed standards. Standards are criteria or reference points are used by agencies when they evaluate or accredit institutions or programmes (Commission 2004). Its goal is to improve education and therefore it should take place on all levels (course unit, programme of studies, faculty, institution). Quality assurance systems should operate in complete transparency with continuous exchange of information both on regional and European level. EUA (2004) has elaborated a code of principles for external QA in Europe.

Quality assurance is a prerequisite for accreditation and it must not be confused with accreditation. Accreditation is both a status (providing a public certification of acceptable quality) and a transparent process (development of criteria, self-evaluation, external accreditation and an accreditation report accessible by all stakeholders).

In the international setting the cross-border recognition of qualifications/institutions is the most important objective of quality assurance. The development of qualifications frameworks will aid international recognition and lessen concerns about quality by placing qualifications in a clear national and international context.

In nowadays it is recognized that international cooperation in methodology, criteria and procedures is necessary to improve the quality, transparency and comparability of degrees and studies. At present there is insufficient level of cooperation between the recognition and quality assurance sectors. Furthermore the aims and methods of quality assurance and accreditation differ from country to country and sometimes there are obscurities in the terms being used.

2.9 Institutional and title recognition

The international recognition of qualifications builds on transparency. Certainly the quality of the particular programme and the institution behind the qualification is of paramount importance.

There are three types of recognition (Rauhvagers), i.e. (1) the institutional recognition both nationally and internationally, (2) the programme recognition as institutional recognition does not necessarily imply that all a recognized institution’s qualifications are nationally or internationally recognized and finally (3) the recognition of an individual qualification nationally or internationally as valid for further studies and employment purposes. This raises the crucial dimension of the level of recognition given-whether full, partial or no recognition is forthcoming.

Stephen Adam(2004) reports on the links between recognition and quality assurance, learning outcomes, legal frameworks, levels, study credit points, new/old degrees, joint degrees, lifelong learning, and transparency tools. With the adoption of a learning outcomes approach the focus of credential evaluation is shifting from an emphasis on input characteristics (admissions criteria, length of studies, qualification titles, curriculum content, status of institution, recommended textbooks, years/hours of study undertaken, level of resources, etc) towards more precise output focused on the results of student learning. Although there are problems associated with the design, definition and assessment of learning outcomes, the later improve the transparency of qualifications and make credential evaluation easier and judgments more accurate.

2.10 Interrelation of reform factors

All the above new developments, which articulate step by step the educational reforms in the European countries, are interconnected and interrelated, as they can be presented in the following graph (see fig 1).

3. Curriculum developments in Greece

The rate of the implementation of the above principles and trends, as well as the willingness to adopt them varies from country to country and from institution to institution.

3.1 Higher Education in Greece

Higher education in Greece includes two categories of institutions:

3.1.1 Fully self-governed public Institutions:

This is the main category of institutions which are supervised by the Ministry of Education and protected by the Constitution including:

(1) 22 Universities with 200.000 students and

(2) 16 Technological Education Institutes (TEIs) with 190.000 students

Both types are multi-discipline Institutions with

duration of basic studies 4 or more years. They offer degrees called Ptychio if the studies last four years or Diploma if the studies last five years. Their graduates have direct access in postgraduate studies (Master or Doctorate). Postgraduate studies are organised by Universities or co-organised between Universities and TEIs

3.1.2 Vocational or specific schools (public or private)

The institutions of this category have duration of studies up to 3 years. They are single-discipline schools supervised by subject Ministries, usually other than the Ministry of Education. The qualifications of the vocational or specific schools, since they don’t lead to post-graduate studies, can be considered as sub-degrees.

Higher education in Greece is basically organised in three cycles. The first cycle lasts four years leading to the Ptychio, which is the prerequisite for the post-graduate studies. The second cycle leads to the post-graduate diploma of specialization (Master level) and lasts 1-2 years.

The situation is still complicated with engineering studies in the Universities, which they consider their unique 5-year diploma as postgraduate qualification (integrated Master). This problem exists also in many engineering schools in Europe (Heitmann).

3.2 The Technological Educational Institutions (TEIs)

The TEIs are multi-discipline Institutions created in 1983. All academic authorities (President, Heads of Departments, etc) are elected for 3 years. The academic staff elects professors. The Department is the basic degree- offering Academic Unit. In 2001 TEIs were upgraded to operate as Institutions of the Technological Sector in parallel with the University Sector of higher education both equally protected by the Constitution. The TEIs offer the first cycle qualifications (Kazazis 2002) and up to now they cooperate

with the Universities for the postgraduate degrees.

3.3 Development of Study Programmes in the TEIs

From 1983 to 1997 the Ministry of Education designed study programmes. From 1998 curricula were developed by the Departments of the TEIs, according to a Presidential Decree, which includes the “Content of Studies” for each discipline of the TEIs. The curricula of the Departments were proposed for approval to the Institute of Technological Education (ITE) of the Ministry of Education. This Institute developed criteria, standards, guidelines and procedures for the final approval (accreditation) of each study programme submitted by a Department of a TEI to the ITE. This period most of the Departments of the TEIs upgrade their study programmes, introducing mainly electronic means for teaching and learning.

Recently it was announced that a new law would come into force in the middle of 2005

stating that each institution will develop its own programmes of study, according to a framework of criteria and guidelines of the Ministry of Education.

3.3.1 Assumptions for Curriculum Development and Accreditation

Each Department offers usually one only study programme always based on a Presidential Decree. The Presidential Decree on the “Content of Studies”, refers to the programme profile or specifications including now the following items:

1. The subject area and the mission of the Department

2. The graduate profile, which is based on learning outcomes. The learning outcomes are expressed as subject specific competences. They are based on statements of what the student is expected to able to do after the completion of his/her studies. The competences are determined in the course units during curriculum development

3. Structure of studies, which is based on general criteria and generic competences.

From 1998 onwards the ITE developed guidelines for the type of Presidential Decrees with the “Content of Studies” of each Department

3.3.2 Criteria and Standards for Curriculum Development

3.3.2.1 General criteria and standards:

Curriculum development for the revision of study programmes in Greek higher technological education, on a credit accumulation basis, started in 1998 (Kazazis 2000), just before the Bologna declaration (1999).

Curriculum development is progressively based on a student-centered approach. The ECTS, as Credit Accumulation System, is based on the student workload required to achieve learning outcomes, described as competences.

General competences are common to any degree course. Subject-specific competences related to a field of study have to be developed, like ability to apply knowledge to the solution of problems, skills in the evaluation, interpretation and synthesis of information and data, skills required for the conduct of laboratory procedures and so on.

Higher education in Greece is mentioned in connection with the principles, assumptions, criteria, standards and guidelines for curriculum development, as they are applied in higher technological education. Guidelines and criteria are based on the above-mentioned “Content of Studies” (Presidential decree) and include the following items:

2. Student Work Load (SWL)

For the achievement of the learning outcomes of the programme of studies it is estimated that 1500 hours per academic year (6.000 hours for the full study programme) are needed (Kazazis 2000). For the calculation of the SWL it is generally estimated in all the TEIs that for one (1) teaching (contact) hour two (2) more hours are needed for private study and exams. SWL is estimated on the basis of 40 working hours per week in an academic semester of 19 weeks (40 hours/week x 19 weeks/semester = 750 hours approximately per academic semester).

2. ECTS credits

ECTS was introduced in the TEIs as a credit transfer system from 1995 (Kazazis 1996) and as accumulation system from 1998 (Kazazis 2000).

For the quantification of the learning outcomes 25 hours SWL per ECTS credit are allocated. This means that 60 credits per academic year are allocated and totally 240 credits for the full 4-year study programme with a restricted number of course units (32-40 course units for the 4-year programme of studies.

Credits are used to quantify the outcomes of learning and give them a value or currency, according to the following scheme (see fig. 2).

The Technological Educational Institutions (TEIs) in Greece, in cooperation with the Institute of Technological Education of the Ministry of Education decided in 1998 to restructure all their curricula from zero basis. The main feature of this reform was the quantification of the learning outcomes in each programme of studies. In the same way in each semester a number of hours of student workload was estimated as a requirement for the achievement of the learning objectives of each course unit.

3.3.2.4 Course units

Study programmes in the TEIs include 32-40 course units for the 4-year programme The number of course units (obligatory+elective course units) refers to obligation of the student to complete the required learning outcomes for obtaining the TEI qualification. Each course unit includes: Aim, learning outcomes with subject specific competences, content and bibliography.

3.3.2.5 Balanced categories of subject areas

The course units are allocated in four balanced categories of subject areas designed according to the established criteria.

3.3.2.6 Diploma Supplement

The Diploma Supplement has been developed in all the TEIs in cooperation with the Institute of Technological Education (Kazazis 2003). Up to now one of the TEIs (TEI of West Macedonia) delivers already the Diploma Supplement in Greek and English language to all the students free of charge together with the degree. It is estimated that by the end of this year most of the TEIs will also deliver the Diploma Supplement.

4. What is next

It has been announced that in 2005 a national organisation for quality assurance will be established. The TEIs expect their evaluation by this organisation in order to obtain the right to award autonomously postgraduate degrees. In this way the two-cycle system will be fully implemented.

It is estimated that these evolutions will coincide with the implementation of the expected European over-arching qualifications framework and the qualifications descriptors.

References

1. Adam, St. (2004). Final Report and Recommendations of the Conference. “Bologna Seminar on Recognition “Improving the Recognition System of Degrees and Study Credit Points in the European Higher Education Area”. University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia 3-4 December 2004.

2. Adam, St. (2004). Learning Outcomes. A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing “learning outcomes” at the local, national and international levels. United Kingdom Bologna seminar 1-2 July 2004. Edinburgh, Scotland.

3. Berg, M. (2004). Learning Outcomes and Qualifications Framework for Higher Education. United Kingdom Bologna seminar 1-2 July 2004. Edinburgh, Scotland.

4. Berg, M. (2004). Towards an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area. 14th Annual EURASHE Conference. Networking in the open European higher education Area. Cyprus College, Nicosia, Cyprus 6-7 May 2004.

5. Bergan, S. (2005). Report by the General Rapporteur. Bologna Conference on Qualifications frameworks. Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and innovation. Copenhagen, January 13-14, 2005.

6. Berlin Communiqué (2003). Bologna Process. Realising the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for higher education in Berlin on 19 September 2003

7. Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Framework (2004). Report on a Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher education Area (December 2004)

8. Bologna declaration (1999). The European Higher education Area. Joint declaration of the European Ministries of Education Convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999. Bologna, Italy.

9. Commission of the European Communities (2004). Proposal for a recommendation of the Council and of the European Parliament on further cooperation in quality assurance in higher education. Brussels, 12.10.2004. COM (2004) 642 final. 2004/0239 (COD).

10. EUA (2004). EUA Recommendation on the role of ECTS in the elaboration of a European Qualifications Framework. Brussels, 25 October 2004

11. EUA (2004). EUA’s Quality Assurance Policy Position in the context of the Berlin Communiqué: Code of Principles for the external QA in Europe. 12 April 2004

12. European Commission (2004). European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). Key Features. European Communities. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. ISBN 92-894-4742-7

13. Gehmilch, V. (2004). Recognition of Credits-Achievements and (Problems) Challenges-A Stocktaking Exercise. Bologna Conference, Riga Dec. 3-5/2004

14. Gonzalez, J., Wagenaar, R. (2003). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe. Final Report, Pilot Project, Phase One. Project Supported by the European Commission in the framework of the Socrates Programme. University of Deusto and University of Groningen. Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao.

15. Heimann, G. (2004). Innovative Curricula in Engineering Education. In Enhancing Engineering Education in Europe (E4). TU Berlin, 7th of May, 2004

16. Joint Quality Initiative (2004). Shared “Dublin” descriptors for Short Cycle, First Cycle, Second Cycle and Third Cycle Awards. Draft 1 working document on JQI meeting in Dublin on 18 October 2004.

17. Kazazis, I. (2003). European experiences for the implementation of the Diploma Supplement in the Departments of the Technological Educational Institutions. Publication of the Ministry of Education (in Greek), Athens, ISBN 960-390-121-0

18. Kazazis, I. (2003). The role of ECTS in higher education. Presentation to the conference of ΤΕΙ of Epirus. Arta, 28 Μarch 2003

19. Kazazis, I. (2002). The new study programmes in the TEIs in the framework of the educational reforms in European higher education. Conference in the TEI of West Macedonia. Kozani 14-15 March 2002.

20. Kazazis, I. (2000). Procedures for curricula reform in the Technological Educational institutions and criteria of the Institute of Technological Education for curriculum assessment and evaluation. Publication of Institute of the Technological Education, Ministry of Education (in Greek), Athens, ISBN 960-7121-15-5

21. Kazazis, I. (2000). The role of student workload in the development of new programmes of studies in higher education on the basis of ECTS. Presentation in the conference “SOCRATES programme-Institutional contract 2001-2”.National Scholarships Foundation (Ministry of Education). TEI of Athens 9 October 2000.

22. Kazazis, I. (1996). The European Credit Transfer system (ECTS). Presentation in the conference of the TEI of Thessaloniki for the SOCRATES programme. 21 March 1996. Publication of the Institute of Technological Education, Ministry of Education. Athens. ISBN: 960-7121-04-X.

23. Moon, J. (2003). Linking Levels, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria. Exeter University.

24. Quality Assurance Agency (2002). Benchmarking academic: Subject statements (Phase 2)-March 2002.

25. Quality Assurance Agency (2001). The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - January 2001.

26. Rauhvangers, A. (2004). Improving the Recognition of Qualifications and Study Credit Points. “Bologna Seminar on Recognition “Improving the Recognition System of Degrees and Study Credit Points in the European Higher Education Area”. University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia 3-4 December 2004.

27. Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer (SEEC) (2003). Credit Level Descriptors for Further and Higher Education. January 2003.

28. Tauch, Ch. (2004). Learning outcomes-the German experience. United Kingdom Bologna seminar 1-2 July 2004. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Figure 1. Interrelation of educational reform factors in higher education in Europe

Figure 2: The ECTS credit as the European Educational Currency

This work and its dissemination efforts have been funded by the Greek Operational Programme for Education and Initial Vocational Training (O.P. Education) under the action :2.2.2.  “Reformation of Undergraduate Studies Programs ”

-----------------------

ECTS credits

Learning outcomes

Workload

Qualifications Framework

Quality Assurance

VZikØÙÚüýþ & 7

p

¨

Á

Ä

Å

•

é

úòëçòÛʾªÊœÊ¾‹|òmcWKcKcWKh4›CJaJmH sH h4›CJaJmH sH h4›CJmH sH h4›6?CJ]?aJmH sH h4›5?CJ \?aJ mH sH !h4›5?B*[pic]\?aJ mH phsH h4›0JB*[pic]mH phsH &[?]?j[pic]h4›B*[pic]U[pic]mH phsH h4›B*[pic]mH phsH jProgramme Profile, Level and Qualifications Descriptors

Assessment criteria

Institutional and title recognition

ECTS credits

Student

Workload

Learning

Outcomes

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download