Krisztián Pálvölgyi

(1)

EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY

DOCTORAL SCHOOL OF EDUCATION LEARNING-TEACHING PROGRAM

Krisztián Pálvölgyi

ANALYSIS OF THE HUNGARIAN BOLOGNA IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

EXAMINATION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INSTITUTION-LEVEL PROCESSES

Theses of the doctoral (PhD) dissertation

Supervisor: Gábor Halász PhD, professor of education

2018

Budapest

(2)

2

I. Introduction

The Bologna Process is an intergovernmental initiative started in 1999, which aimed at establishing the European Higher Education Area by 2010. The countries signing the Bologna Declaration initiated significant reforms related to their higher education systems based on the ten action lines of the process. Although at first it did not have a decisive role in the Bologna Process, learning outcomes (LeO) approach gradually got into the center of attention and nowadays learning outcomes are indispensable, multifunctional instruments of the above mentioned action lines. On the one hand, learning outcomes have complex regulatory functions at the international, national, and institutional level in higher education. On the other hand, they are the building blocks of a new, mainly student-centered and outcome-oriented pedagogical paradigm (Adam, 2008).

This shows quite well that a profound and highly complex change process started in the country’s higher education system with Hungary joining the Bologna countries and monitoring this change is a core task for higher education research. The empirical part of this doctoral research deals with the institution-level processes of the Bologna implementation. As most of the Bologna research focuses on the international and national level, the detailed mapping and understanding of institution-level processes may expand our practical knowledge of the Bologna Process and its implementation.

II. Theoretical background

This doctoral research focuses on the institution-level implementation of the Bologna Process.

However, in order to have a well-founded premise, an expanded interpretation framework must be outlined, which explains the whole implementation process, displays its main mechanisms and locates the implementation level studied during the empirical research. The Bologna Process must be examined from different viewpoints and several parallel interpretations must be managed at the same time to establish a sufficiently rich interpretation framework, which can orient the empirical examination as part of the doctoral research.

II.1 Establishing the Bologna Process’ set of goals and instruments

Shaping the Bologna Process’ set of goals

The first and basic level of this analysis is the overview of the goals set out in the policy documents of the Bologna Process, while understanding and tracing a historical process, which led to the development of these goals and drew the policy outlines of the European Higher Education Area. The countries signing the Bologna Declaration (The Bologna Declaration, 1999) – based on the Sorbonne Declaration – undertook to establish the European Higher Education Area and to implement the six following action lines (Towards…, 2001;

“Realising…, 2003):

1. adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees,

2. adoption of a system essentially based on two main (bachelor and master) cycles, 3. establishment of a system of credits based on ECTS and promoting mobility, 4. promotion of student and teacher mobility,

(4)

4 5. promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance,

6. including the dimension of lifelong learning.

These action lines were extended with four additional elements at the ministerial meetings of 2001 in Prague and 2003 in Berlin:

7. direct engagement of higher education institutions and students, 8. promotion of the European dimension in higher education,

9. promoting the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area (the demand to establish a common qualification framework),

10. closer cooperation between the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area.

These ten action lines still define the European Higher Education Area. This shows how quickly the focus of the Bologna Process was enriched. This enrichment mainly meant the constant expansion of the action lines, which happened gradually – as described earlier – with the process moving on. The other dimension of enrichment was the increasing number of participating countries. This “moving target” nature has been a significant characteristics when it comes to the implementation of the Bologna Process as the subject of the implementation is not a static object, but a dynamically developing set of goals and instruments, which understandably posed challenges for the implementing countries and increased the complexity of the implementation process.

The Bologna Process operates with a special management structure, which has a profoundly different nature than the ordinary solutions used in the European Union. Policy literature describes this modus operandi as an “intergovernmental and open political non-EU platform”

(Lažetić, 2010). This description defines a forum, where countries can contribute to the development process in a more open discourse than during bureaucratic EU procedures. The Bologna Process is characterized by informality, less hierarchy, network operation, direct engagement of stakeholders and voluntary participation. A certain mutual adjustment is in place, where the actors can communicate freely, reach agreements, but they may disregard those as well, if it fits theirs interests. This management respects national and institutional autonomy and facilitates the establishment of an effective, workshop-like learning environment.

The cornerstones of this management structure are the ministerial conferences organized every two year, where education ministers of the participating countries meet to evaluate their progress, shape the future of the process and to make decisions about those countries who wish to join. Between ministerial conferences the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG) is the appointed decision-making body, which meets at least twice a year. The Bologna Follow-Up Group includes representatives from the countries signing the declaration, from the European Commission and other advisors. The BFUG establishes the international working groups, which examine the key areas identified at the ministerial meetings and they comply recommendations for the next ministerial meeting. The Board – includes the representatives of the country responsible for organizing the next ministerial meeting – and the Bologna Follow-Up Group Secretariat – providing administrative support to the Bologna Follow-Up Group – are also part

(5)

5 of the management structure. The Bologna Process Stocktaking Reports and the Trend Reports of the European University Association are also important instruments to coordinate the Bologna Process.

Connection between the Bologna Process and the education policy of the European Union

The Bologna Process is not an EU, but an intergovernmental initiative; therefore it operated separately from the EU at first. However, the higher education initiative involving EU member states soon captured the interest of the European Union, which was more and more engaged in education at the time.

The Bologna Process was particularly interesting for the EU, because about a decade earlier, in 1991 the Commission also published a memorandum focusing on higher education (European Commission 1991). This memorandum was the logical next step of the Commission’s conscious network development work addressing European higher education institutions, which made – among others – the COMETT and ERASMUS programs possible. However, the 1991 higher education memorandum was received badly by European rectors and policy stakeholders. The concept was mainly criticized for its strongly economic orientation and consequently for not taking into account and understanding the real nature of higher education (Corbett, 2011). Here, it must be highlighted that the EU higher education policy is dominated by the concept of social and economic return instead of traditional academic and cultural aspects. This approach is interpreted by its advocates as an openness to real-life social and economic problems, while its critics claim that it is merely excessive instrumentalism (Karseth 2008; Hussey and Smith, 2009; Corbett 2011). Based on the above mentioned points it is not surprising that the European Commission was intrigued by the Bologna Process, which started harmonizing the higher education systems of voluntarily joining countries on a similar basis as the 1991 policy incentive including the aspects of the common European economy. Practically the decade-old futile attempt of the European Commission emerged on its own.

At first, the European Commission – often considered to be the government of the European Union – only participated at the meetings related to the Bologna Process as an observer, but later it took on more and more important roles, which led to the establishment of special dynamics. One of the early signs of this unique relation (Witte, 2006, page 129-130) was that the text of the Sorbonne Declaration and the Bologna Declaration was drafted by a working group (Friedrich, 2005), whose members were appointed with the agreement of the participants of the Meeting of Directors General for Higher Education run by the EU.

A further milestone in the strengthening of an education policy approach specially focusing on economic demands was reached, when the Commission published the Delors white paper on

“Growth, competitiveness, and employment” (European Commission, 1993), which defined the establishment of a lifelong learning policy as the key to the competitiveness of the European economy. This policy was established in the early 2000s (Halász, 2013), when the ministerial meeting accepted the document “Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality”

(European Commission, 2001), which defined the cornerstones of lifelong learning. As mentioned before, the Prague ministerial meeting included lifelong learning in the action lines

(6)

6 of the Bologna Process in 2001. This step is significant, because the paradigm defining the education policy of the European Union (European Commission, 2001) was incorporated in the action lines outlining the development of the European Higher Education Area.

The EU was aiming for a closer and closer relation with the Bologna Process and this led to a cooperation, where the two worlds started using each other’s instruments. The two players started – as aptly described by Corbett (2011) – to play a “ping-pong game”. The Bologna Process based on the higher education organizations and networks established by the EU in the earlier decades. It used the Erasmus Program as an instrument, involved ENQA established in 2000 (Crozier et al., ed., 2010) in the field of quality assurance and included lifelong learning in the action lines with the 2001 Prague Communique, while developing the ECTS system within the Tuning project. After accepting the learning outcome-based qualification system of the European Higher Education Area in 2005, in 2008 – somewhat lagging behind – the European Union accepted a lifelong learning qualification framework also based on learning outcomes, which was similar to the framework of the European Higher Education Area in many respects (Derényi, 2009).

II.2. Main characteristics of the learning outcomes approach and its relation to the action lines of the Bologna Process.

Learning outcomes are usually defined as follows: “Learning outcomes are statements of what a student is expected to know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of a process of learning.”(Kennedy, 2007, p. 22) This definition proves that the learning outcomes approach revolves around the student and his/her competences after finishing the learning process; therefore, it is a student-centered and outcome-oriented approach.

The examination of the communiques, which were published related to the ministerial conferences of the Bologna Process, shows the trend as the learning outcomes approach appears and becomes an indispensable policy instrument in the Bologna Process. The learning outcomes approach contributes to higher education at different levels and dimensions (Adam, 2008). At an institution/program level the definition of learning outcomes helps establishing the learning- teaching and evaluation process (Biggs and Tang 2011). It provides the students and future employers with clear information and simplifies the recognition of the students’ formal, non- formal and informal learning (Derényi and Tót 2011).

At a national level, learning outcomes are instruments to describe qualification systems. They facilitate transparency – and international comparability – among qualification systems;

therefore they enable more effective quality assurance. Moreover, it ensures seamless connection, transition between higher education and vocational education (Adam, 2008;

CEDEFOP, 2009). At an international level, learning outcomes – although in a much less detailed form than at the national and mostly at the institutional level – are instruments for describing levels of the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area and the European Qualifications Framework. They help national developers to shape the national qualification frameworks and – as national frameworks are based on international ones – they provide actual transparency, comparability and mobility (Coles et al., 2011).

(7)

7 Considering this complex functionality, the interest in the application of learning outcomes should be interpreted from different viewpoints. If multiple viewpoints are taken into account, the nature and importance of the shift towards a learning outcomes approach can be understood (Halász 2017). One important interpretation perspective deals with the processes of curriculum planning and implementation. Learning outcomes are effective curriculum design tools, which enable the establishment of student-centered study programs. This is one of the main goals of the Bologna Process – as particularly specified by the London Communique. Related to the planning of the learning outcome-based study programs, the constructive alignment approach by Biggs became rather significant (Biggs, 1999; Biggs and Tang, 2011). The essence of this approach is that teaching and learning activities and assessment solutions applied during the course are based on intended learning outcomes. The significance of the constructive alignment approach in the Bologna Process is underlined by the fact that the program development chapter of the 2015 ECTS Users’ Guide (European Commission, 2015) directly refers this approach and the documents related to the Tuning project, which establishes the set of implementation instruments of the Bologna Process, regularly mention it (González and Wagenaar, 2008;

Adelman, 2014, Serbati and Surian, 2014,; Wagenaar 2014; Serbati, 2015).

Learning outcomes interlace and connect the action lines of the Bologna Process and their implementation processes; therefore, their significance in the interpretation and analysis of the Bologna implementation process cannot be overstressed.

It has been mentioned earlier that constructive alignment strives for the harmonization of intended learning outcomes, student activity and evaluation. This also means that – besides design logic – a learning-management and assessment culture is also closely related to the learning outcomes approach. Certain learning-management and evaluation solutions can be identified, which are closely related to the learning outcomes approach and therefore they are quite relevant during the implementation of the Bologna process. The goals of the Bologna Process are aiming at a student-centered higher education based on student activity. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the literature often connects the student-centered interpretation of the Bologna Process with the increasing popularity of solutions facilitating active learning, cooperation and competence development, such as project-based learning or problem-based learning (Hernández-Encuentra and Sánchez-Carbonell, 2005; Stamoulas, 2005; De los Ríos et al., 2010; Kolmos, 2010; Fernandes, 2014; Requies et al., 2018). Of course, a student- centered assessment culture is also related to these learning-management solutions (Pereira et al., 2015).

II.3. Interpretation and research paradigms of the policy implementation processes

The understanding of implementation has gone through profound change during the development of implementation theory and implementation research. The first wave of implementation literature, such as the 1973 work of Pressman and Wildavsky, focused on the failures of policy implementation processes and the differences between policy goals and actual policy implementation processes and outcomes.

(8)

8 The first, rather pessimistic phase of implementation research was followed by the so called

“top-down” approach, which tried to understand how and under what circumstances implementation activity and outcomes of the implementation process can remain consistent with the decisions and intentions of policy makers. Identifying the defining factors of this consistency has become the main topic for researchers using the top-down implementation perspective. In his study, O’Toole (1986) collected more than 100 pieces of research conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which attempted to identify implementation success factors.

Among these, some (e.g. Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975; Sabatier and Mazmanian 1979) connected the identified key variables to more complex theoretical models.

The top-down approach has been heavily criticized since the end of the 1970s. One of the main points of criticism was that these approaches – with only a few exceptions – only identify the key implementation factors and compile lists of relevant factors without creating a more in- depth implementation model (O’Toole, 1986). Another point of criticism was a characteristic of the top-down interpretation, namely that it laid too much emphasis on policy decisions and the assigned legal structures without taking the special interests, goals and policy-related individual interpretations of the many actors affected by the implementation process into account (Berman, 1978; Hjern and Hull, 1982, Sabatier 2005).

This criticism led to another big implementation research paradigm, the “bottom-up”

perspective unveiling at the end of the 1970s and at the beginning of the 1980s. The starting point of this approach was the “backward mapping” of the networks of actors involved in the implementation process and it aimed at describing the goals, strategies and complex interactions of the actors and at interpreting the implementation process based on that (Elmore, 1980). The studies carried out in this period focused on the different nature of macro-implementation and micro-implementation problems and on key implementation phenomena, such as mutation (Berman, 1978). The different viewpoints of the advocates of the top-down and bottom-up approach led to lively debates.

However, the bottom-up approach does not calculate with the special role of policy decision- makers and overestimates the force exerted by peripheral actors on policy centers (Sabatier, 2005). Therefore, the “bottom-uppers” do not pay real attention to those considerations, which are emphasized by the advocates of the top-down approach the most.

In the second half of the 1980s, implementation research was mostly driven by the need to find new directions and synthetize existing results. More and more model appeared, which attempted to reconcile the top-down and bottom-up approaches (Hill & Hupe 2002; Sabatier, 2005).

These hybrid models consider and leverage the factors defined as the conditions for effective implementation by the top-down oriented researches, but they also calculate with the fact that the actors implementing the policy at a local level will interpret policy goals and instruments in line with their own context and will try to manage the implementation process according to their own interests.

One of the most influential hybrid models, the advocacy coalitions framework by Sabatier was published during this period and it was gradually fine-tuned in the following decades (Sabatier, 1986, 1988, 1998, 2005). Advocacy coalitions were defined by Sabatier (1986, page 39) as

(9)

9 groups of actors, who are members of various state and private organizations, but who also share a well-defined set of beliefs, have a common set of views and therefore continuously strive for the implementation of their common goals derived from this common set of views.

Sabatier interprets the implementation processes of the policy subsystem and its relation to its environment (Figure 1) in this perspective.

Figure 1 Flow chart of the advocacy coalitions framework (Weible et al. 2011)

(10)

10 II.4. Implementation and innovation in the Bologna Process – Conclusions of the Tuning project

The central objective of the Bologna Process was to establish the European Higher Education Area, where higher education institutions operate using a common interpretation framework, approaches and instruments. The “Tuning Educational Structures in Europe” project is a crucial implementation instrument of the Bologna Process.

From the analysis of the results of the Tuning project documented in the specialized literature several key conclusions may be drawn, which are essential to interpret the Bologna implementation process. On the one hand, the project operates in a similar manner as those school development networks, which were described by Glazer and Peurach (2013) as quasi- education systems. Micro- and macro-processes may be identified in the operation of these quasi systems as in case of traditional education systems. The analysis of the Tuning project (Pálvölgyi, 2017) made the different natures of the micro- and macro-processes apparent, proved the expectations related to the high complexity of the Bologna implementation processes and showed that the implementation process does not equal to the transfer of instruments and technologies, as it necessitates their reinterpretation and recreation in a special national/institutional context.

II.5 Characteristics and changes of the university organization

Higher education institutions are generally described as organizations where: a multitude of values are represented, goals and institutional strategies are usually blurred and quite unclear, many organizational units operate, authority is more decentralized compared to many other organizations and – in line with this – implementation processes are only loosely controlled and a culture of collegiality is dominant (Dufty, 1980; Halász, 2010). Coupling is a key term in the understanding and description of higher education organizations. Coupling refers to a relation (Plowman, 1998), where organizational units/phenomena/events interact with and react to each other, but every coupled unit/phenomena/event has its own identity, uniqueness and is separated from the others to a certain extent. Plowman (1998) defines different higher education organizational models based on the different types of coupling between the organizational units (collegial, bureaucratic, political, anarchical). However the author claims that to some extent all of these models can be found in the operation of a higher education institution.

Another important characteristic of higher education institutions is that more and more of them move towards organizational patterns, which are usually the trademarks of the corporate world (Halász, 2010). Jongbloed (2015) describes higher education institutions governed by two different models as hybrid organizations: on the one hand, government regulations control their operation, while market forces also have a profound impact on them. Therefore, these organizations have to apply and find a balance between traditional higher education task steering and market steering mechanism of the corporate world adapting to environmental factors. The organizational theory literature lists several strategies, which the organizations can

(11)

11 apply in these situations. These include decoupling (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Westphal and Zajac, 2001), which is based on the disconnection of accepted formal structures and actual practices, compromise (Rowan 1982; Oliver, 1991;), which strives for balance with the slight modification of accepted structures and selective coupling, which cherry-picks unmodified task and market steering elements (Pache and Santos, 2013).

Institution-level implementation of the Bologna Process postulates profound organizational changes in the implementing higher education institution. Two basic change interpretation and management models can be distinguished (Liebhart and Garcia-Lorenzo, 2010). The first is a traditional approach, which interprets change as a planned process (e.g. Evans and Henrichsen 2008), while the other reflects on emergent change (Bess and Dee, 2008, page 807) Of course, using the emergent change model does not mean that leaders become irrelevant when it comes to the change process. It may be better described as a change of roles, during which the centralized and controlling leaders shift towards the role of a facilitator, where their task is to support and monitor creative experimenting. This facilitating management can only be realized in a more decentralized organizational environment. The difference between planned and emergent change models is the organization-level reflection of the problem, which is mentioned as the top-down – bottom-up debate in implementation theory literature.

Those, who describe higher education institutions as complex, adaptive systems (Meister- Scheytt and Scheytt, 2005; Halász, 2010), will lay emphasis on the interaction between the organization and the environment when interpreting organizational change. In his classical organizational theory work, Mintzberg (1979) describes two dimensions of the organization’s environment – complexity and stability –, which define the behavior of the organization (Table 1).

Table 1 Effects of environmental factors on the organization (Mintzberg, 1979, page 286)

Stable Dynamic

Complex Decentralized Bureaucratic (standardization of skills)

Decentralized Organic (mutual adjustment)

Simple Centralized Bureaucratic (standardization of work processes)

Centralized Organic (direct supervision)

Organizational change may also be described as learning. A classic example of this is the single loop and double loop organizational learning model of Argyris and Schön (1978, quoted by Bess and Dee, 2008, page 674-678). Single loop learning happens through a feedback loop, which supports the organization in constantly fine-tuning its operational processes and behavior patterns. As opposed to this, double loop learning does not only strive for the monitoring and tuning of current behavioral patterns, but also monitors goals, policies, plans, norms and values in the background of such behavior patterns and revises them, if necessary.

Chan, Cooper and Tzortzopoulos (2005) claims that two separate schools of thoughts may be identified in the research carried out on organizational learning. One of these describes

(12)

12 organizations as anthropomorphic entities, which integrate individual learning processes in the organization and transform these into behavior patterns useful for the organization. Whereas the other approach identities behavior patterns, which help/hinder learning at an individual level. Crossan, Lane and White (1999) outlined a complex and dynamic model of organizational learning, which builds a bridge between the individual and organizational level. The model differentiates between individual, group and organizational learning levels. The premise of the authors is that the process means the perception of similarities, differences, patterns and opportunities at the essential and individual level of organizational learning.

III. Paradigmatic and methodological characteristics of empirical research

III.1. Paradigmatic considerations

Based on the interpretation framework supported by the specialized literature about relevant Bologna-specific research, implementation research and research on organizational changes, it seems that each institution recreates the set of instruments, methodology and study program development paradigm designed on the macro-level in their own organizational reality, when implementing the Bologna Process. The exact method and effectiveness of this process mainly depends on the viewpoints and individual interpretations of the actors and the narrower or wider environment, where the institution operates. Based on this, it seemed more fitting to choose a smaller sample and to take an in-depth look at the case of specific higher education institutions rather than using a bigger sample to carry out a more superficial exploration. This clearly moves the research towards a qualitative research methodology, more precisely towards the case study method.

According to Golnhofer (2001) more and more researchers claim that the complex phenomena of the education world elude positivist, psychometric methods and therefore they turn towards naturalistic, interpretative, hermeneutical, qualitative research. Golnhofer (2001, p. 29) also highlights that the author of the case study has to make a clear decision if they would like to choose the explanatory paradigm looking for casual links or thinks within the conceptual framework of an interpretative study. The author uses the former concept as a synonym for the positivist/quantitative and the latter for the naturalistic/qualitative research paradigm (page 14).

According to Szabolcs (2001, page 19), science presents the world in a descriptive form leveraging symbols and does not aim at defining universal rules within the interpretative paradigm.

The interpretation framework and research questions of this doctoral dissertation deal with casual links at several points. Based on the above described approach, this should result in a positivist/quantitative research methodology. However, the nature of the studied set of problems does not make that suitable. It seems fitting to consider complex, adaptive systems, when interpreting the Bologna implementation process, but if we try to find connections in a complex, adaptive system, feedback loops, learning processes and unique system–environment

(13)

13 interactions reveal themselves. The traditional thinking using dependent and independent variables becomes problematic here, because something operating as an independent variable at a certain point of the process, may later become a dependent variable at another point of the process. Dependent and independent variables can transform into each other during the operation of a complex, adaptive system. If longitudinal, quantitative data collection was used, due to the nature of the problem, only proxy variables could be introduced during the study of complex, adaptive systems and only a relatively low number of variables could be managed.

We think that casual links cannot be unveiled without using qualitative case studies capable of exploring and interpreting unique phenomena in case of the examined Bologna implementation set of problems. In our opinion casual links may be defined in case of qualitative case studies as well, but these connections are casual links of micro-level processes. As micro-level and macro-level/system-level implementation processes are different in their nature and dynamics, casual links shaping macro- and micro-level processes are different as well. This doctoral research took the above mentioned considerations into account and uses qualitative case studies to explore micro-level casual links in an environment, which is considered to be a complex, adaptive system. However, it should be highlighted that results will not be capable of explaining the causality between macro-level/system-level connections.

III.2 Conducting the research and the sample

For practical reasons, the unit of the research was not the institution, but the university/college faculty, because the faculty is characterized by the necessary homogeneity – as it has its own disciplinary orientation, international relations and a unique group of partners from the labor market –, while this unique profile also differentiates it from other faculties of the given institution. Five faculties were studies in the framework of this research. When selecting the faculties, we tried to have a varied sample regarding the field of discipline, the type of the institution, the seat (capital/countryside) and maintainer (state/private). Of course, organizational units smaller than the faculty were often used as a unit of analysis during the research.

The main data collection tools of the research were semi-structured interviews. We also collected and analyzed documents related to study program development and – if applicable – we also used the observation method.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with heads of faculties, academics, students and – if identifiable – the staff of the units supporting the teaching-learning process. Selecting these actors is based on the Bologna implementation interpretation framework designed for this dissertation. Different interview versions were prepared for the four group of actors, but their structure and key focus points are similar. These focus points are also based on the interpretation framework and we gathered information on the given focus point from each actor from their relevant viewpoints. Reliability is provided by a case study protocol and the exact documentation of the research process.

Altogether 42 interviews were conducted, which can be classified based on sample selection as specified by the following table:

(14)

14

Table 2 Classification of interviews

Faculty I Faculty II Faculty III Faculty IV Faculty V Educational area IT engineering engineering humanities economics Institution type university university university college university Seat of the faculty Budapest Budapest countryside countryside Budapest

Maintainer state state state private state

Date of data collection Sept 2014 – March 2015

Nov 2015 – Feb 2016

Nov 2015 Feb 2017 – May 2017

Sept 2017 – Apr 2018 Number of participants at

the management interview 1 2 2 2 1

Number of participants at

the teacher interview 3 3 4 2 5

the student interview 4 2 3 1 6

the support staff interview 1 1¹ 1² 1³

SUM 9 7 9 5 12

1 The member of the support staff was also interviewed as a teacher.

(15)

15

IV. Research questions, hypotheses and results of the empirical research

1 What institutional characteristics play a role in the success of the institutional implementation of the Bologna Process?

The implementation of the Bologna Process was considered to be successful during this research, if there was a shift towards the goals defined by the action lines of the Bologna Process. This does not mean servile implementation, but an organizational learning process, which shifts the operation of the given institution towards a “Bologna-compatible” direction.

The implementation success of the Bologna Process depends on how many action lines were followed by a positive progress at a given institute. Here, the most important success factors of the Bologna Process should be summarized:

1. Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees. At an institution- level, this mainly means the creation and implementation of study program documentations based on learning outcomes.

2. Adoption of a system essentially based on two main (bachelor and master) cycles.

This mainly means the introduction of the BA/BSc, MA/MSc system, which was later complemented by PhD and short cycle programs as the Bologna Process progressed.

This action line is mostly a structural issue.

3. Adoption of the ECTS system. This is considered to be successfully implemented at the institution-level, if the actors of a given institution understand the double definition of credits (student workload and achievement of the learning outcomes planned in the given learning unit) and create a credit management practice, which takes this double definition into account.

4. Promotion of mobility. The importance of teacher and student mobility has to be recognized, enabled and promoted at the institution-level.

5. Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance. The key element of this point is the knowledge about and compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). The ESG also leverages a learning outcomes approach; therefore, this dimension is also essential here.

6. Promotion of the European dimension in higher education. At an institutional perspective, this means positioning in the European higher education context, partnerships, perception and interpretation of European higher education trends.

7. Promotion of the dimension of lifelong learning. At an institution-level, this means the provision of flexible, individual learning paths and the creation of a validation system, which provides an opportunity to recognize the earlier acquired knowledge. The learning outcomes approach plays a key role here as well.

8. Direct engagement of higher education institutions and students. This is a macro- level goal for the Bologna Process. On the institution-side, this can be defined as the involvement in the activities related to the implementation of the action lines, particularly as student engagement.

(16)

16 9. Promoting the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area. While the set of goals of the Bologna Process was shaped, the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area was connected to understandability and transparency.

Consequently, a common quality assurance framework and a common, learning outcomes-based qualification framework was deemed necessary.

10. Supporting the closer cooperation between the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area. On the institution-side, this goal can be defined as a closer connection between the teaching and research activity at the university/college.

Based on the explicit action lines of the Bologna Process, the institutional implementation would be successful, if the above described elements were realized. However, two further key elements must be highlighted besides the already mentioned ten points.

11. Planning a curriculum based on learning outcomes (LeO) expressed in competences. The successful institution-level implementation means the creation/appearance of an institutional study program development culture, where learning outcomes – expressed in terms of competences – described during program design and the learning activities and evaluation solutions are developed based on these intended outcomes.

12. Application of learning-management solutions which are suited for competence development. This point is closely related to the previous one. This is a learning- management approach supporting active learning and cooperation, such as problem- based/project-based learning.

Hypothesis 1.0: We assume that diverse institutional Bologna implementation profiles unveil based on which Bologna action lines the individual institutions – with different profiles, roles, operation and environment – acted on and which goals had relatively small impact on them.

This hypothesis was clearly proven by the five case studies. Indeed, individual faculties progressed at a different pace along the action lines of the Bologna Process. The following table summarizes the results of the studied faculties.

Table 3 Progression of faculties regarding specific Bologna action lines

Faculty of IT Faculty of Engineering 1

Faculty of Engineering 2

Faculty of Humanities

Faculty of Economics Adoption of a system

of easily readable and comparable degrees.

no imp. so far (no LeO)

advanced/succes sful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Adoption of a system essentially based on two main (bachelor and master) cycles.

advanced/succe ssful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Establishment of a system of credits based on ECTS

mutation (LeO is not connected,

seeking alternatives)

no imp. so far (LeO is not connected)

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

(17)

17

Promotion of mobility advanced/succe ssful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance

partial imp. (no

LeO) no imp. so far partial imp. (no LeO)

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Promotion of the European dimension in higher education

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Dimension of lifelong learning

no imp. so far (LeO is not connected)

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Direct engagement of higher education institutions and students

partial imp. partial imp. partial imp. advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Promoting the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Closer cooperation between the European Higher Education Area and the European Research Area

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Planning a curriculum based on learning outcomes (LeO) expressed in competences

no imp. so far advanced/succes

sful imp. no imp. so far advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

Application of learning-management solutions which are suited for competence development

there are pilot labs, but no widespread application

advanced/

successful imp.

advanced/

successful imp.

It is worth noting that even in those cases, where the Bologna action lines progressed significantly, certain elements of the development reached the departments/teachers only partially. The rector of the Humanities College estimated that half of their colleagues leveraged the learning outcomes-based logic when the interview was recorded. Regarding the economics studies, the learning outcomes approach was prominent in study programs, where EFOP projects-related developments were carried out.

Hypothesis 1.1: Knowledge about the learning outcomes/competence-based study program design and operation logic and attitude of the different institutional actors towards these play a key role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

This hypothesis was conclusively proven by all case studies. It was highlighted earlier that the learning outcomes approach became a defining factor in case of most of the Bologna action lines. Presence of institutional actors, who had relevant knowledge on and positive attitude towards the learning outcomes-based program development logic, had a profound impact on the successful implementation of the action lines. At the same time, the lack of these actors

(18)

18 makes the perception of the key dimensions related to the Bologna action lines impossible. For example, the concept of understandable and comparable degree systems – as applied in the Bologna Process – will not make sense for someone, who does not know how and for what learning outcomes may be used in the study program development process. This was quite tangible in all of the case studies.

Hypothesis 1.2: The distance between the situation/operation of the institution at the starting point of the institutional implementation and the goals of the Bologna Process plays an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

This hypothesis was supported multiple times by the case studies. At faculties with earlier college education – in some cases parallel to university education, e.g. in case of the Faculty of IT – the degree structure introduced as part of the Bologna Process was not really new for the employees of the faculty; therefore, it was not met with much resistance. Maybe the only point was – and this appeared quite heavily in case of the Faculty of IT – that the real or assumed loss of the advantages of the earlier system generated a sense of loss in the academic community and this affected the perception of the Bologna study structure. In case of the Humanities College, the traditionally practice-oriented mindset focusing on the demands of the labor market and the pedagogical/methodological sensitivity due to the teacher training activity of the organization were already existing factors, which affected the successful implementation of the Bologna process the most. Related to the case study conducted at the economics institution, the organizational characteristics of the department participating in the BSc study program development, the incentives of the new head of department related to training innovations and the younger staff at the department created an optimal environment for the EFOP project including the training innovation supporting the Bologna implementation.

Hypothesis 1.3: Participation in international, cross-university education cooperation plays an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

Participation in international education cooperation enabled the Faculty of IT to develop a sense for its own credit management problems – the problematics of segmented courses with too low credit values – and this led to a shift toward the establishment of subjects with higher credit values. In case of Faculty of Engineering 2, the dean argued for the introduction of project- based learning with an international example and we have seen good practices at this faculty, when students held obligatory afternoon presentations about their professional experience after arriving home from an Erasmus program. During the case studies created at the humanities and economics field, we have seen positive examples as the management consciously uses international relations to facilitate organizational learning. At the economics institution, the university management leads the institution towards high-prestige international accreditations, which requires learning outcomes-based study program design.

Hypothesis 1.4: The Bologna Process-related knowledge and attitude of the support units of the given institution play an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

(19)

19 This hypothesis was not clearly supported by all case studies. We have seen examples – e.g. in case of the Faculty of IT and the Faculty of Engineering 2 –, where certain action lines of the Bologna Process were implemented successfully without the support staff having a wider/more complex interpretation of the Bologna Process beyond the multicycle degree structure. In case of the Faculty of Engineering 1, it seemed that the support unit could fulfill a Bologna implementation support role not due to its knowledge and attitude related to the Bologna Process, but rather because of its transfer function connecting the university and business world.

However, in the humanities and economics case study, we have seen explicit and strong examples that organizational units supporting a high-quality teaching-learning activity can successfully contribute to the institutional implementation of the Bologna Process, if they interpreted the process in a wider sense and had significant organizational opportunities, such as the vice-rector level or professional management of the EFOP projects.

Based on the experience of the five cases, it can be concluded that certain action lines of the Bologna Process – quite logically the action lines closely related to the application of the learning outcomes approach – are more sensitive to how familiar the organizational units supporting the development of the study program quality are with the characteristics of the learning outcomes-based study program development logic and how complex they interpret that.

Hypothesis 1.5: Considering the involvement of students in the planning of their own learning activities plays an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

We found examples in case of every examined faculties (except for the Faculty of IT) that student feedback had significant impact on the operation and content of the study programs. As the Bologna process mainly applies a student-centered study program design logic, attention to student needs and considerations helps the implementation of the Bologna Process. We have seen several examples, where the mindset of the academics shifted towards a practice-oriented or even a project-based direction according to the articulated needs and feedback of the students.

Hypothesis 1.6: The institution management’s knowledge on and attitude towards the Bologna Process play an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

In four out of the five cases, we have seen that the management interpreted the Bologna Process focusing narrowly only on the multicycle structure or maybe additionally on the problem of mobility. Compared to this the institutions progressed along a surprisingly high number of Bologna action lines. It seems that the lack of complex knowledge on the management side does not necessarily goes hand in hand with unsuccessful Bologna implementation. This is mainly proven by the example of the Faculty of Economics, where the work of the support units balanced the narrower management interpretation and could achieve results basically along all Bologna action lines; although with fluctuating institutional validity.

(20)

20 At the same time, the case study carried out at the field of humanities illustrates the advantages of a wider interpretation of the Bologna Process by the management of the institution.

Hypothesis 1.7: The management mindset on the university organization and organizational change play an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

In the case study carried out at the Faculty of IT, the management mindset was not revealed to a sufficient degree to draw conclusions. However, we could identify examples supporting this hypothesis in all other cases. In this respect, the Faculty of Engineering 2 and the Humanities College are extremely telling examples. The dean of the Faculty of Engineering 2 interprets organizational difficulties quite sensitively, has a complex view over the operation of the organization and handles problems – such as academic burnout or the salary gap between the university and business sphere – with creative management solutions. Moreover, the management defines its relations with the local industry and makes it clear that the faculty reflects on quality based on this cooperation. This management attitude shapes the identity and image of the faculty and helps Bologna compatible changes, which can already be found at the faculty. The rector of the Humanities College consciously prepared for the organizational development work, had sensitivity to the facilitation of the colleges learning processes and had complex knowledge on organizational learning, which enabled the institution to reach its current status.

Hypothesis 1.8: Cooperation with labor market actors plays an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

This hypothesis was heavily supported by all five case studies. A few examples:

In case of the Faculty of IT, the BA students drained by the industry were the drivers of innovation and project labs jointly operated with corporate partners were a key unit to reform the mindset on learning-teaching at the faculty.

Shift towards the application of learning outcomes at the Faculty of Engineering 1 was facilitated by the fact that the organizational unit supporting the technology transfer between the business and university world started organizing forums, where business actors could express their opinion on the content of the course descriptions of the program.

Relations with the business world is also a key issue in case of the Faculty of Engineering 2.

This extremely close, symbiotic relation with the industry drives the faculty towards a practice- oriented approach, project-based education, constant communication and through all of the above, adaptivity.

In case of the Humanities College – as this is a private institution partly operated within a business framework – connections with labor market actors exceeded a mere discourse about the content of the program. The College is willing to learn from its corporate partners when it comes to its own operations.

(21)

21 In case of the economics field, several related examples could be mentioned. One of the most prominent examples is the defining role of business feedback in the demand of the department to revise the BSc program mentioned in the case study. This demand made the department open to the developments carried out within the framework of the EFOP project.

Hypothesis 1.9: Capability of the institutional organization to learn and change plays an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

The importance of this institutional characteristic is strongly proven by the case studies. In case of the Faculty of IT, implementation difficulties of the Bologna action lines were explained by isolated and slow organizational innovation, i.e. organizational learning characteristics. The strong suit of the Faculty of Engineering 2 is the conscious and adaptive reaction to its environment and change, a willingness to learn from industry and international relations and to change based on these. The ability of the Humanities College for organizational learning and change is extraordinary. The institution helps organizational learning with the operation of the internal information management systems and with the establishment of support units. The private status seems to play an important role in the establishment of this modus operandi, as the institution can only remain competitive compared to big universities this way. In the background of the adaptation-based modus operandi lies the interpretation of the rector, which describes the Bologna Process as a European level adaptation process. According to the rector, the Bologna Process is an answer to the function changes of the European university. In case of the economics faculty, the learning process of the academics participating in the development of the BSc program illustrates the steps and key importance of organizational learning during the Bologna implementation process.

Hypothesis 1.10: The field of discipline of the given higher education institution or organizational unit plays an important role in the successful institutional implementation of the Bologna Process.

We found points in all five case studies, which prove this hypothesis.

The Faculty of IT used its own computer programming knowledge for the complex analysis of the data from their education management system. They established a study program revision based on that. In case of the Faculty of Engineering 1 the adverse effects due to the significant difference between university and engineering salaries were defining factors in the operation of the faculty. This caused problems at the Faculty of Engineering 2 as well, but the dean tried to find a solution to the problem. In case of the Faculty of Engineering 2, the unique mindset and dynamics of the field of discipline defined how the dean thought about the faculty organization as well: he described the changes of the faculty organization with a system theory used in engineering. It seems that strong industry relations enhance the impact of the characteristics of the given field on the study program at this faculty. In case of the humanities, it seemed to be hard to define the “world of work” which led the institution to take into account the analysis needs of banks as well, when defining the learning outcomes of their undergraduate program in history. In case of the faculty of economics, certain disciplinary content become obsolete quite rapidly; therefore, people responsible for study programs must initiate revision processes regularly.

(22)

22 Related to this research question, a quite interesting phenomena occurred. The institutions, where the interpretation of the Bologna Process was narrow and mainly focused on the multicycle study structure and the process had a negative perception, also progressed along some of the Bologna action lines – and they were quite proud of the results. This means that they may not have an overview of the Bologna Process and they often dislike it, but they still carry out Bologna implementation processes. Moreover, they do so enthusiastically. The Bologna Process may be interpreted as the adaptation of higher education to the expectations raised in relation to European social and economic changes. If we interpret the Bologna Process as an answer or adaptation to the change of the socio-economic environment, it may be no longer surprising that a higher education institution, which operates as part of the same European environment, where the Bologna Process started, shifts towards Bologna-compatible or similar directions. We may assume that the environment affects the institution. International relations and – as seen earlier – relation with the business and corporate world is a part of this.

It seems that the European Higher Education Area itself also operates as a strong, indirect implementation mechanism.

2. How can the learning outcomes and competence interpretations of the higher education actors be classified?

Hypothesis 2: Interpretations and experience related to the learning outcomes and competence approach can be classified based on four main dimensions (cognitive, practical, technical, affective)

In general, the four presumed dimensions of the learning outcomes and competence interpretations appeared in the five case studies. Therefore, the classification seems to be applicable. However, every case and sometimes even different actors of the same case highlighted different dimensions when formulating the related interpretations and experience.

In the case of the IT faculty, basically only the affective dimension appeared, but they do not actually know what learning outcomes are (cognitive dimension), how to use them in the study program development (technical dimension) and therefore they do not use this instrument in their practice (practical dimension).

In case of the Faculty of Engineering 1, a small group of academics had already used learning outcomes to design a short cycle program at the time of the interviews and this group presumably started to grow when the fifth generation BSc curriculum was designed (practical dimension). The competence interpretation of the dean was quite close to the interpretation used related to the macro-level developments of the Bologna Process (e.g. Tuning project), but they did not fully understand at the time of the interviews, what “competence” means in a Bologna context, because they were only considering generic competences. Indeed, none of the actors connected the Bologna Process and the competence-based/learning outcomes-based study program design approach (cognitive dimension). Academics were rather skeptical about the actual effect of the competence-based design (affective dimension). The technical feasibility of the learning outcomes-based design (technical dimension) only occurred to those academics

(23)

23 among the interviewees, who also participated in the pilot process of the establishment of the previously mentioned competence-based short cycle program. Apparently, not all crucial technical questions were answered related to this study program development process.

In case of the Faculty of Engineering 2, the faculty management was definitely more knowledgeable about the nature and application opportunities of the learning outcomes than the teachers questioned. However the dean did not find significant difference between competence- based and content-based study program design, but the vice-dean responsible for education interpreted the establishment of competence-based qualification and output requirements as a cross-university power play (cognitive dimension). The dean considered the revision of the qualification and output requirements as a minor fine-tuning, but found the cooperation with colleagues inspiring. Therefore, he had a very positive attitude towards the process (affective dimension), while the vice-dean had a rather skeptical, negative attitude towards the issue of competence-based learning. As the dean did not see any major differences between competence- and content-based learning and teaching, technical considerations of the implementation were irrelevant for him. Meanwhile, the technical dimension was irrelevant for the vice-dean, as she did not think that the modification of the training and outcome requirements will have a real impact on study program design in the future. Three out of the four academics interviewed at the faculty did not have meaningful information on learning outcome/competence-based study program design and the impacts of training and outcome requirements based on these or they draw false conclusions based on incorrect/partially incorrect information. Their attitudes were mainly neutral or slightly positive. The fourth academic – who is an instructor of a faculty integrated not long ago in the examined faculty – defined the learning outcomes approach correctly, had a positive attitude and demonstrated some knowledge regarding the technical application as well. However, the faculty did not use learning outcomes in any of its course descriptions. Therefore, the practical dimension was missing from the interpretation of the whole faculty, they did not have any experience in that field.

At the Humanities College, the key actor was the vice-rector – responsible for the operation of their Higher Education Methodology Center – related to the interpretation of learning outcomes.

The vice-rector has a deep knowledge about learning outcomes-based/competence-based study program design (cognitive dimension). This knowledge is based on his personal involvement in national development and cooperation processes, such as the TÁMOP 4.1.3 project with European financing. The vice-rector has a very positive attitude towards the learning outcomes approach and undertakes its institution-level implementation (affective dimension). He considers this attitude feasible (technical dimension) and has a complex overview of the practical challenges lying ahead. He moves in this world in a complex and confident manner and so he is able to express justifiable criticism – supported by examples – about certain elements of the national level Bologna-implementation, which is not based on emotions or comes from a natural resistance to change. The conscious institutional implementation work of the vice-rector is reflected by the mindset of the academics as well. The rector claimed that about half of the study programs of the institution used this approach when describing their courses (practical dimension).

Krisztián Pálvölgyi

EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY

DOCTORAL SCHOOL OF EDUCATION LEARNING-TEACHING PROGRAM