Report template country research - Russia (стр. 7 )

Along with government regulation in Russia there is a voluntary system of quality assurance via professional – public accreditation of education programs and public accreditation of education institutions. The key indicators for professional – public accreditation of programs are рrogram management, content and organization of learning, students, program resources. The key indicators used in the framework of public accreditation are international QMS standards requirements. Regardless of the form of regulating the quality of education (state of public) education institutions apply self-examination procedures according to the relevant criteria.

The quality of the education results is recognized by means of professional qualifications assessment for professional standards. The key indicator is that qualification is relevant to the professional standard requirements.

The most important indicators for providing high quality education according to providers

The respondents emphasise successful allumni’s employment (in the field, with acceptable fee), their achievements (since they have started to study) and employers’ satisfaction (as a key criterion for high quality education). Some respondents highlight the importance of correspondance to regulatory requirements. It is similar to a national key indicator that is that qualification should be relevant to the professional standard. Some replies cover the importance of managing the quality of a learning process.

Similarities / differences with EQAVET indicators

In general respondents are aware of EQAVET models and indicators. Majority of respondents confirmed that EQAVET cycle has been implemented in this or that way. The most frequent bottlenecks are weak focus on relevant needs / demands, (“Planning” stage) indicators evaluation and analysis (“Analysis and evidence” stage).

Some respondents named problems that they face analyzing and evaluating the activity such as shortage of time for performing the analysis that correlates with the conclusion about realization descriptors in CQAF VET model.

We may state as well relatively weak concentration on relevant needs\ demands supposingly die to labor markets needs indicators that are not comprehensive enough.

Another bottleneck that has been mentioned is time and resourse defficiency for providing high quality education.

Similarities / differences with CQAF VET indicators

The interview analysis shows that according to the respondents opinion indicators that reflect the interests, level and interaction with students are evaluated as the lowest in the application rating. Indicators reflecting quality of elaboration and implementation of curricula and academic results recognition are estimated a bit higher. Indicators demonstrating the structure and work performed by faculties and tutors are estimated quite high. And the highest group is represented by indicators concerning different aspect of administering education institution.

The basic challenges concerning faculty engagement and necessary support measures refer to the faculty qualification. The second significant group of challenges refers to managing the learning process and education institution as a whole, specifically to the quality management.

The respondents strongly emphasise government support for education institutions in general as well as for private people (faculty and trainers). They highligh the importance of supporting cooperation with employers and partners.

The respondents wish to get informational and methodological  as well as regulatory and methodological support via professional development system. They are intersted in beign more involved in the management processes in their education institutions.

Suggested amendments / replacement for the model

All amendments and replacement for the model are caused by the peculiarities of its usage.

The respondents suggest to evaluate teaching quality with no regard to the quality of the organization institution management, thinking that even poor managed organizations might have quality teaching.

None of the respondents said that education quality improvemenet is possible to improve if the following conditions are guaranteed:

Understanding the consumers’ requirements,

Setting the targets basing on these requirements,

Managing the targets at all levels up to the executor and fee for the achieved result.

Here is how along with Russian specificily discovered withing the project it is worthwhile to emphasise understanding of the consumers’ requirements, target-setting andf managing the education institution basing on the quality principles.

Annexes 1. Participant list

Date of interview	Name	Organisation	Signature
26.01.2016	Irina I. Koryagina	Ivanovo State University
28.01. 2016	Andrey S Babenko	National Research Tomsk State University
28.01. 2016	Sergey A. Dochkin	T. F. Gorbachev Kuzbass State Technical University
28.01. 2016	Andrey A. Simatov	Transbaikal State University
29.01. 2016	Irina G. Temnikova	National Research Tomsk State University
29.01. 2016	Viktor V. Timchenko	The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia
29.01. 2016	Natalya A. Kazachenko	Transbaikal State University
31.01. 2016	Olga G. Echevskaya	Novosibirsk State University
02.02. 2016	Tatyana G. Ozernikova	Baikal State University
03.02. 2016	Natalya V. Kuznetsova	Baikal State University
04.02. 2016	Nadezhda N. Babanova	Ivanovo Power Engineering Institute named after V. I. Lenin
04.02. 2016	Larisa V. Romanyuk	Moscow University for the Humanities
04.02. 2016	Svetlana G. Sablina	Novosibirsk State University
04.02. 2016	Vladimir I. Strunin	Omsk State University n. a. F. M. Dostoevskiy
05.02. 2016	Olga I. Votyakova	Ivanovo State Medical Academy
05.02. 2016	Natalya L. Sheveleva	Ural State Pedagogical University
05.02. 2016	Inna I. Ivanova	Yaroslavl State Medical University
05.02. 2016	Valeriya I. Ivanova	Yaroslavl State Technical University
06.02. 2016	Larisa M. Turanova	Siberian Federal University
06.02. 2016	Konstantin E. Pisarenko	Ufa State Petroleum Technological University
08.02. 2016	Svetlana B. Veledinskaya	National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
08.02. 2016	Vitaliy I. Nifontov	Ural State Pedagogical University
08.02. 2016	Viktoriya A. Golkina	Yaroslavl State Technical University
08.02. 2016	Alexandr A. Bolshakov	Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov
09.02. 2016	Valeriy P. Shishkin	Ivanovo Power Engineering Institute named after V. I. Lenin
09.02. 2016	Vera A. Shumakova	Ivanovo State Medical Academy
10.02. 2016	Konstantin V. Kulakov	Ivanovo Branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
10.02. 2016	Olga S. Phenda	Ivanovo State Agricultural Academy named after D. K. Belyaev
11.02. 2016	Nataliya A. Amosova	Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
12.02. 2016	Sergey A. Sergeev	International Institute of Management LINK
12.02. 2016	Svetlana A. Legostaeva	The Orel State Institute of Economics and Trade
12.02. 2016	Ekaterina I. Mosina	The Orel State Institute of Economics and Trade

Annexes 2. Profiles of the respondents involved

Tabl mmarized data on the respondents

Item:	Respondents N= 32
Role/position: TOP-namager Head of the department Faculty Specialist	5 14 11 2
Years in this position: < 5 5-10 > 10	12 13 7
Public or private? public private	30 2
Higher Adult Prof Education (4, 5, 6, ) 03 — Bachelor’s degree 04 — Master’s degree 05 — specialist 06 — post-graduate	1 1 3 27
Pure AVET institute? Yes No	19 13
Estimate average age of participants:	21,7
Amount of staff: <25 25 – 49 50 – 299 300>	- - 5 27
Amount of students at institute: < 5000 5000 – 10000 10000 - 15000 >15000	12 5 4 11
Drop-out %:(average rate of students who quitted the HEI 6,2%): < 5 % 5 - 10 % 10 %  < unable to answer	14 10 7 1
Areas of education (technical, economics etc.) humanities natural sciences medical sciences social sciences agricultural sciences technical sciences	23 15 5 20 5 18
ISO certified? Yes No No, but preparing to get it	23 8 1
Reason using ISO: yes / no (all answers, without processing)	To be trendy, systemize administration processes and decision making; Was required for the state accreditation in the past ; Inner necessity; HEI QMS is a basis for implementing processes aimed at improving quality of education; For effective administration of the academy activity; Quality education; Organization competitiveness; I don’t now, this decision has been made without me. I can only provide hypothesis; Necessity for building, functioning and improving QMS; Necessity for improving the effectiveness of managing processes in the HEI; Guarantee quality of all processes; Proves its ability to provide highquality educational services according to the stakeholders requirements; Optimize education and administration in the HEI; Optimize control system for production processes; Improve the quality of the allumni; Improve the quality of administartion and prestige; Improve the quality of managing the HEI, direct education and additional processes at building values for the learners, employers, customers ordering learning courses and  research and development products; Improving the quality of management and prestige; Improbig competitiveness; QMS design, improve effectiveness and productivity of the academy activity ; Improving HEI processes and clients requirements; Desire to inprove quality of education; Required by clients and external scrutineers, efforts to improve the quality of management system; Management model; We don’t use ISO 9001 for proving meeting the requirements; no; improving the quality of student training, their employability  and competitiveness; Ministry of education and science requires; Desire to meet international quality standards; Imrove the organization activity
Other QA model used? Yes / no Yes No	19 13
If “yes” which one? (all answers, without processing)	EFQM; EFQM, UNIQUe EFQUEL, ESG ENQA, CDIO; ESG ENQA; TQM; Introduction of a project management system; Annual self-examination; Unable to answer; Quality competitions; Model on the basis of a concept of continuous EFQM improvement; Student and allumni quality education monitoring, positive changes in world university rankings, teaching at the leading online platforms (Coursera); For instance, Expert Quality Council for further education at the federal university; Public system of higher education quality assessment; Quality awards, accreditation; Certificate about QMA meeting the requirements of state standard ISO 9001-2011 (ISO 9001:2008) (in the sphere of education and scientific research) in force till March, 19, 2016
Reason for choosing this model? (all answers, without processing)	The founder requires It wasn’t my decision Necessity to meet modern standards, including international ones More applicable to HEIs ESG ENQA standards and recommendations are designed for higher education Unable to answer The most effective Anable multidimensional measurement of the quality of education Well applied, give real result on improving the quality According to the basic directions of the organization activity Improving the quality of the university management, e-learning, students practical training, improving university recognition on an international arena We don’t need an ISO certificate As the most methodologically elaborated and recomended by Supervision Service (Rosobrnadzor) They better meet the HEI needs concerning learning process improvement Recommended by the Ministry of education and Science of the Russian Federation

Tabl 2. Each respondent's profile (in Russian)