At issue is the national review of the quality assurance work of higher education institutions currently being conducted at most faculties. The Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) has specified six assessment areas and a number of workshops were held at LU last spring about how these points are to be interpreted and managed. Åsa Ekberg, head of the Quality and Evaluation office, is the project manager.
"We know that we have high quality education. But now it is a question of how the system for quality assurance works," she says.
The processes work more or less well in different places
The first UKÄ assessment item is 'governance and organisation'. As LU is so decentralised, there isn't a single procedure for quality assurance but several. The students' unions are understanding about that, but not for the fact that the processes work more or less well in different places.
"It is a good thing that the faculties can adapt the systems to their individual circumstances – but regardless of the system, the level must be the same", says Ella Sjöbeck.
Åsa Ekberg agrees, and thinks that the broad and decentralised University in this case can be a challenge.
"We have most things in place at the central management level and within the faculty boards – but it is important that it works all the way out to the capillaries", she says.
It doesn't, however, according to the students, who ran their own workshop in the spring and are now signing an petition to be added to the self-evaluations from the faculties.
"There is a difference, however, between student influence and student presence"
One example of quality assurance is student influence, which has high status at LU and is mentioned in many policy documents.
"There is a difference, however, between student influence and student presence", says Ella Sjöbeck, who finds that students are far from always being listened to.
It also happens, she says, that everyone forgets to summon the student representative to a meeting and it goes ahead anyway.
"That would hardly happen if it was the chair they had forgotten to call", she observes.
With regard to the list of students' rights, Ella Sjöbeck thinks that some people perceive it as a recommendation – but it is to be followed pursuant to a vice-chancellor's decision.
"And the doctoral students don't even have a list of rights, which is a major shortcoming."
The way in which course evaluations are handled is also criticised by the students.
"The results are not made available to the students".
Ella Sjöbeck agrees with Åsa Ekberg, however, that most things work as they should at the management level and higher up in the hierarchies.
"It is in the preparatory bodies and less formal units that things work less well", says Ella Sjöbeck.
Digitisation needs to be taken up a notch
Another UKÄ assessment item is that of "conditions"; here the students find that Lund University does not measure up.
"The teaching staff lack expertise in teaching and learning in higher education. Of course it is important for education to be linked to research, but unless the teaching staff can transmit that knowledge to the students, there is no point."
Nationally, teaching staff are recommended to undergo ten weeks of compulsory training in higher education teaching and learning – but only five weeks are required at LU.
"We have full respect for the fact that it is tedious and difficult. But initiatives for better and appropriate teaching methods are needed. And not least now in the pandemic, where we have seen how badly digital assessment works. Digitisation needs to be taken up a notch", says Ella Sjöbeck.
Now Åsa Ekberg and her project colleagues are working on compiling the self-evaluations to pass them on to the assessment group. The group is led by a former university chancellor in Helsinki. In the spring, the group will make two visits on location, one in March and one in May. The report is to be finalised in autumn 2021.
FOOTNOTE: Read more about the UKÄ review of quality assurance and the areas of assessment on uka.se under publications.
