FSD2680 Evaluation of Degree Reform in Finland 2010: University of Applied Sciences Programmes
The dataset is (B) available for research, teaching and study.
Study description in other languages
- No other files available
- Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC)
curriculum, educational policy, educational systems, higher education institutions, tertiary education, university courses
The evaluation survey examined how well the objectives set for the Bologna Process had been achieved in degree programmes at Finnish universities of applied sciences (UAS) and how well the new two-cycle degree structure functioned. Other main themes included student mobility and changes in degree requirements.
First questions investigated to what extent degree programmes had been aware of the goals set for the degree reform, what were the most important goals for them and how well these goals had been achieved in their field. Other topics included participation in field-specific projects connected to the reform at national or European level and the usefulness of such projects. Degree programmes were asked to evaluate the implementation of the reform in the university of applied science, to what extent different stakeholders had participated, how useful national level support for the implementation had been and how well the field had succeeded in transferring from the previous to the new degree structure. The functionality of the two-cycle system was studied with a number of questions relating to the status and feasibility of UAS bachelor and master degrees. Further questions investigated the impact of the reform on the length of study, that is, how quickly students complete their courses.
The next set of questions studied whether the reform had facilitated and increased domestic and international mobility of students and in what ways. Another theme focused on the impact of the reform on curricula and degree requirements. Questions covered, for instance, to what extent curricula had been changed, what factors had been taken into account in planning them, equivalence between credits and workload and whether the needs of working life had been taken into account. Finally, the respondents were asked to evaluate the implementation and success of the degree reform in their own field.
Background variables included the name of the institution (UAS) and field of study.
Metadata record is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.