Study title

Evaluation of Degree Reform in Finland 2010: Higher Education Institutions

Dataset ID Number

FSD2677

Persistent identifiers

https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD2677
https://doi.org/10.60686/t-fsd2677

Data Type

Quantitative

Authors

• Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)

Other Identification/Acknowledgements

• Nokso-Koivisto, Aleksis (Student Research Foundation (Otus))
• Penttilä, Johanna (Student Research Foundation (Otus))

Abstract

The evaluation survey examined how well the objectives set for the Bologna Process had been achieved in higher education institutions in Finland and how well the new two-cycle degree structure functioned at institutional level. Other main themes included mobility of students and degree requirements.

A number of questions investigated how well national goals for the degree reform and goals set by the institution itself had been achieved. Other topics included the sufficiency and usefulness of national support for implementing the reform at institutional level, how well the institution had succeeded in organising the reform and how actively certain stakeholders had participated in the reform. Cooperation with other higher education institutions was charted. The functionality of the two-cycle system was studied with several open-ended questions relating to the status of bachelor degree, master degree and the university of applied sciences (UAS) master degree. Further questions investigated the impact of the reform on the length of study, that is, how quickly students complete their course.

The next set of questions studied whether the reform had facilitated and increased domestic and international mobility of students. Questions covered, for instance, progressing from bachelor degree programme to master degree programme, mobility between different types of university and study fields, mobility of international students to Finland and Finnish students' periods of study abroad.

One theme focused on the impact of the reform on curricula and degree requirements and what factors had been taken into account in education planning when amending the requirements. Finally, the respondents were asked to evaluate the implementation and success of the degree reform in their own institution.

Background variables included the name of the institution and whether it was a university or a university of applied science (polytechnic).

Keywords

curriculum; educational policy; educational systems; higher education institutions; tertiary education; university courses

Topic Classification

• Social sciences (Fields of Science Classification)
• Educational policy (CESSDA Topic Classification)

Series

Individual datasets

Distributor

Finnish Social Science Data Archive

Access

The dataset is (B) available for research, teaching and study.

Data Collector

• Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council

Data Producers

• Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council

Time Period Covered

2002 – 2010

Collection Dates

2010-03-01 – 2010-03-31

Nation

Finland

Geographical Coverage

Finland

Analysis/Observation Unit Type

Organization/Institution

Universe

Finnish universities, universities of applied sciences and the National Defence University

Time Method

Cross-section

Sampling Procedure

Total universe/Complete enumeration

Total study of all Finnish higher education institutions. Participating institutions could decide for themselves how to set about producing the response within their own institution. In its instructions, FINHEEC expressed a wish to get a shared view. Two thirds of the institutions started by collecting views from their major stakeholders, such as faculties, schools, central administration or student services, compiled a response based on the views received and then had the response draft discussed in the highest executive body or teaching council. One in five compiled a draft response first and then asked major stakeholders to comment on it.

Collection Mode

Self-administered questionnaire: Web-based (CAWI)

Research Instrument

Semi-structured questionnaire

Data File Language

Downloaded data package may contain different language versions of the same files.

The data files of this dataset are available in the following languages: Finnish.

FSD translates quantitative data into English on request, free of charge. More information on ordering data translation.

Data Version

1.0

Related Datasets

FSD2678 Evaluation of Degree Reform in Finland 2010: University Faculties

FSD2680 Evaluation of Degree Reform in Finland 2010: University of Applied Sciences Programmes

Weighting

There are no weight variables in the data.

Citation Requirement

The data and its creators shall be cited in all publications and presentations for which the data have been used. The bibliographic citation may be in the form suggested by the archive or in the form required by the publication.

Bibliographical Citation

Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC): Evaluation of Degree Reform in Finland 2010: Higher Education Institutions [dataset]. Version 1.0 (2011-10-12). Finnish Social Science Data Archive [distributor]. https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD2677

Deposit Requirement

Notify FSD of all publications where you have used the data by sending the citation information to user-services.fsd@tuni.fi.

Disclaimer

The original data creators and the archive bear no responsibility for any results or interpretations arising from the reuse of the data.

Related Materials

Niemelä, Jari & Ahola, Sakari & Blomqvist, Carita & Juusola, Henna & Karjalainen, Merja & Liljander, Juha-Pekka & Mielityinen, Ida & Oikarinen, Kerttu & Moitus, Sirpa & Mattila, Johanna (2011). Tutkinnonuudistuksen arviointi 2010. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 17:2010 [verkkodokumentti]. Saatavissa: http://www.kka.fi/files/1217/KKA_1710.pdf [viitattu 14.10.2011].

Related Publications

Niemelä, Jari & Ahola, Sakari & Blomqvist, Carita & Juusola, Henna & Karjalainen, Merja & Liljander, Juha-Pekka & Mielityinen, Ida & Oikarinen, Kerttu & Moitus, Sirpa & Mattila, Johanna (2011). Tutkinnonuudistuksen arviointi 2010. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 17:2010.