1. Launch Conference Summary

1.3 Some notes from keynote presentations
1.3.1 Prof Wendy Morgan – Bologna Process

2. Thematic Network Pillar Summaries

2.1 TP1: Europeanisation
2.1.1 TUNING Project
2.1.2 Planning TP1: Europeanisation
2.1.3 Conclusions

3. Final Plenary

1. Launch Conference Summary

1.3 Some notes from keynote presentations

1.3.1 Prof Wendy Morgan – Bologna Process

Professor Morgan is one of two UK representatives on the Bologna Promoters Group of the European Universities Association.

Main function of the Bologna Process
Signed in June 1999 – agreed now by 29 European Ministers of education, thus it is broader than the EU and seeks to establish a European Area of Higher Education and to promote a European System of Higher Education worldwide.

6 initial objectives:
* readable, comparable degrees – Bologna supplement, transparency
* two main cycles (undergraduate and postgraduate), minimum 3 years undergraduate
* credit system – like ECTS
* promote mobility (of students and staff) in higher education
* cooperation in Quality Assurance
* a European Dimension

Prague meeting added three objectives with a mandate to push forward by 30+3 countries (Cyprus, Croatia, Turkey) and the organisation of follow-up process:
· role of Quality Assurance and accreditation
· role of lifelong learning
· competitive attractiveness of curricula with a European dimension

Two central political drivers
a) to increase the attractiveness of European higher education to overseas students, central to the process
b) to reduce the cost of the higher education system – especially in continental Europe where there are long degree courses (5-7 years)

There is also the European vision creating an integrated Europe, with the employability of graduates on a Europe-wide basis. A top-down approach. This will have a marked effect, with new structures by legislation.

Study by the EUA (European Universities Association) of the undergraduate and postgraduate systems shows the follow state of play
Traditional: UK, Ireland, Malta
Established: Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Turkey
Consolidating: Czech Republic, Slovenia, Finland, Bulgaria, Poland, Portugal, Cyprus
New structure: Italy, Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Belgium (Flemish)
Not following: Hungary, Romania
Undecided: Belgium (French), Greece, Croatia

top

Bologna Effects
Two main effects so far:
a) two-tier structure (Bachelors-Masters) – greatest effect
b) ECTS use – widespread, influenced by the University Charter

Other likely effects:
a) Quality Assurance, suggested there might be a super European Quality Assurance Agency, though this is greatly opposed. One European body ENQA (European Network of Quality Assurance) already exists as a liaison body.
b) TUNING Project, suggesting curriculum convergence and outcomes at subject level considered valuable and interesting. Has led to general levels of agreement, but of non-practical use.
c) There are doubts about the effectiveness and acceptability of the Bachelors degree when compared with the employability of graduates at this level. In many countries students stay at university until Masters level. Concern over what is the correct period of study, with some countries considering 5 years as acceptable, i.e. 3+2.
d) Appropriate use of ECTS

The future
Highly political, so changing rapidly and unstable.. Berlin draft is already available for Ministers meeting September 2003.

i) Quality Assurance – European Register for QA, regular use of European nationals in the QA process, call for EUA and European Commission to make it happen, pan-European
ii) Mobility, portability of grants and loans to a member state, to study up to a full degree abroad
iii) ECTS recommended as THE system, appeal to use to the Diploma supplement and in a pan-European context
iv) Increased cooperation beyond Europe, more scholarships, Erasmus World programme
v) Doctoral programmes to be integrated

Opportunities
Considerable opportunities for the Thematic Network:
a) culture is changing, attitudes changing
b) Masters degrees are very messy, need to be sorted out, opportunities for joint programme developments between institutions, 2 year Masters programmes, yet 1 year Masters in the UK for the rest of the world, cost considerations
c) Doctoral degrees incorporated, needs studies and activities
d) Recognition mechanisms for the worth of overseas study periods, needs assistance for it to happen at national level, the use of ECTS may allow it to happen
e) Closer links to establish the European Higher Education Area and European research area to establish Europe of Knowledge.

URLs
Berlin Summit http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/
EUA http://www.unige.ch/eua
Student Association http://www.esib.org/

top

2. Thematic Network Pillar Summaries

2.1 TP1: Europeanisation (led by Karl Donert, Liverpool Hope University College, in the absence of Tatjana Resnic-Planinc, Ljubliana University)

2.1.1 TUNING Project
· Based on a Europe of Knowledge
· A tool to enhance the quality of education
· Reviews generic and subject-based competencies
· Surveys employers, graduates and academics
· Consulting exercise
· Review similarities and differences
· Identify key issues according to countries
· Insisted upon by the European Commission for Years 2 and 3

2.1.2 Planning Europeanisation
In addition to the generic questionnaire, HERODOT should identify Geographical components to analyse via the TUNING questionnaire. These subject competencies and unique approaches formed the basis for group discussion. Three groups focused on the conceptual perspectives of Geography, the skills and content that make the subject unique and ought to be included in European Geography at higher education. Discussion was initiated on what should be included, but it was agreed that a further focused meeting of TP1 needed to take place to establish and agree the questionnaire and process. Also a sub-project on a European Dimension to Geography in higher education was proposed as a Socrates curriculum development application for October 2003.

The groups discussed and presented their ideas for the uniqueness of Geography. In summary; Geography students should be able to study:
· regions and their inter-relationships at different scales
· using a systems approach
· human-environment relationships
· provide a unique spatial dimension

What unique skills can Geography offer to lifelong learning and employability?

What might a unique Geography curriculum in Europe contain?

2.1.3 Conclusions

• It was decided that there would not be a seminar/workshop in Tartu in May 2003, as almost all members of the group were unavailable, this would be postponed.
• Agreed to carry out a generic TUNING questionnaire, with consultation by Tuning, present in other countries. Original survey was questionnaires distributed to graduates, employers and academics. Questionnaires to be translated into other languages (develop and discuss online questionnaire).
• TUNING questionnaire to be provided by Tuning Project in several languages.
• A meeting to discuss and develop the TUNING questionnaire would be held in Malta in June, to be followed up in Tartu next academic year.
• Aim to pilot from September 2003 (if network funded). Significant research needed, Karl Donert to discuss with the TAO (European Commission). Suggested to use OMR (Optical Mark Reading technologies). Send questionnaire by post and email. Should also consider qualitative data collection i.e. an alternative approach.
• Content and features of geography to be discussed and then to be written up and put onto the website for other to discuss.
• Problem solving approaches need to be promoted (which should incorporate TP2 and TP3)
• An application for a Socrates curriculum Development project would be made in October 2003. Those interested would be contacted beforehand to participate. A Masters level review might also be undertaken.
• Olivier Mentz, Karlsruhe University, Germany agreed to lead TP1.

TP1: Europeanisation Development Plan

3. Final Plenary

a) Some concern was expressed over the ‘anglo-centric’ nature of the activities and event. Though this was not intended, this comment was accepted but it had not been intended. The Steering Group was mixed but because of unforeseen circumstances, some members were unable to attend or participate in the launch. The coordinator hoped that the use of the Web and communications area and also the next events would provide a balanced approach. Ideas for speakers and activities were requested.

b) The questionnaire data and Powerpoint presentations were to be used for the project. The data result would be entered into a database and they would be made available to all HERODOT members. The presentations would be reviewed and then placed for access on the Web site.

c) The use of the Web site and discussion area were critical to the future of the network. Some discussion on their use had been undertaken in the groups. Web site access information would be provided by the Web master.

d) It remained important to disseminate the project and continued growth was anticipated, but diversification was essential (organisations, companies and associations) and higher education institutions from beyond Europe.

e) Challenged to develop a European Charter for Geography (probably based on the IGU charter and in conjunction with the IGU). The coordinator would approach the IGU education commission at their next conference in London in April. He was presenting the HERODOT network at this event.

f) The coordinator agreed to send all partners leaflets and information from the launch event. Further questionnaires would be obtained from new members and those who were unable to attend the first meeting.

g) Reminder of the opportunity to publish the HERODOT activities through the Journal of Geography in Higher Education (Martin Haigh)