Content uploaded by Cezar Mihai Hâj
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cezar Mihai Hâj on Sep 26, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Student Centred Learning: Translating
Trans-National Commitments into
Institutional Realities. The Romanian
Experience
Liviu Matei, Cezar Mihai Hâj and Daniela Alexe
Keywords Student-centred learning Bologna process Teaching and learning
Learning outcomes ECTS system Teaching quality Innovative teaching methods
1 Introduction
1.1 Theoretical Framework
The Bologna Process was launched in 1999 as a voluntary inter-governmental
initiative aiming at the formation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
“Bologna”is both a transformation process of European higher education systems
and a political institution (Reinalda 2008). As many researchers propose, the pro-
cess can be viewed as a consequence of European integration, or as a proactive
attempt of Europeanization of higher education systems. “Europeanization”in this
context means more than just the expansion, or evolution of the European
Union (Trodal 2002; Corbett 2003; Corbett 2005; Corbett 2006; Veiga 2005;
Adelman 2009; Damme 2009). Pursuing a European integration agenda, the
Bologna Process started as an intergovernmental initiative independent from the
L. Matei (&)
Department of Public Policy, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary
e-mail: mateil@ceu.hu
C.M. Hâj D. Alexe
Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding
(UEFISCDI), Bucharest, Romania
e-mail: cezar.haj@uefiscdi.ro
D. Alexe
e-mail: daniela.alexe@uefiscdi.ro
C.M. Hâj
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration (SNSPA),
Bucharest, Romania
©The Author(s) 2015
A. Curaj et al. (eds.), Higher Education Reforms in Romania,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08054-3_6
105
European Union (it was not launched and it is not controlled by the EU, although
the EU Commission is a formal member). Several countries that were not members
of the Union signed the Bologna Declaration from the very beginning, and other
non-EU countries quickly came to the conclusion that being inside the Bologna
circle was more beneficial than being left out, which determined them to join
later (Haskel 2009). The special nature of the Bologna Process, involving the
participation of both EU and non-EU countries within the geographical area of the
European Cultural Convention (47 at present altogether), and of the European
Commission, shaped the evolvement of the overall process and influenced the
actual course of the envisaged reforms in higher education.
Far from having a homogenous or linear impact in all signatory countries, the
Bologna Process, as characterised above, had a varied but noticeable influence
across European higher education systems. Part of this influence was possible given
the fact that Bologna Process brought about new concepts, a new vocabulary, and
also new policies, tools, and practices in higher education. The concept of SCL and
associated policies and practices are an important illustration of this process, at least
for the case of some countries in the European Higher Education Area.
The original development of the SCL concept (ESU 2010), is credited to Hay-
ward (as early as 1905) and to Dewey’s work (including posthumous publications
after 1956). Carl Rogers expanded this approach into a theory of education in the
1980s. This approach to learning has also been associated with the work of Piaget
(developmental learning) and Malcolm Knowles (self-directed learning). A review
of the SCL literature resulted in the following characterisation of the concept: the
reliance on “active rather than passive learning”, an emphasis on “deep learning and
understanding”,“increased responsibility and accountability“of the student,
encouraging an “increased sense of autonomy”for the learner, an “interdependence
between teacher and learner”,“mutual respect within the learner-teacher “rela-
tionship and a “reflexive approach to the teaching and learning process”on the part
of both the teacher and the learner (LEA 2003).
SCL takes a broadly constructivist view as a theory of learning, built on the idea
that learners must construct and reconstruct knowledge in order to learn effectively,
with learning being most effective when, as part of an activity, the learner expe-
riences constructing a meaningful result. Consequently, adequate teaching methods
become an important part of this approach.
SCL is also connected to transformative learning, which takes into consideration
a process of qualitative change in the learner, on an on-going basis, focusing on
enhancing and empowering the learner and developing her/his critical thinking
ability.
Efforts have been made, as part of the Bologna Process, to include SCL in the
broad program of reforms of higher education. In turn, the on-going process of
learner transformation and empowerment can be analysed within the Bologna
Process, inter alia, with the help of other key “Bologna concepts”, such as,
Learning Outcomes and the ECTS.
106 L. Matei et al.
1.2 General Overview
1.2.1 The Bologna Process in the European Context
The chief objective of the Bologna Process, the creation of a European Higher
Education Area (EHEA), was to ensure more comparable, compatible and coherent
systems of higher education in Europe. The main “action lines”of the Process are
reflected in the directions which, throughout the years, have represented official and
explicit priorities of the Bologna Process. The list of action lines includes besides
other areas such as social dimension, lifelong learning, recognition of prior learn-
ing, internationalization of education, mobility, quality assurance etc., a Student
Centred Learning dimension as well.
Student-centred learning is rather a new concept and it has not been directly
addressed at the beginning of the Bologna Process. Moreover, when SCL started
being considered, it was not a separate action line, but rather regarded as a
“transversal concept”. With the adoption of the Leuven Communiqué, an increased
emphasis has been placed on teaching and learning in higher education institutions,
on curriculum reorganization, and on the introduction of learning outcomes as an
instrument in the teaching process. In turn, this new focus brought about more
attention to SCL: student-centred education involves focusing on the learner, new
approaches to teaching and learning, effective support and guidance structures.
The curriculum reform is a continuous process that will lead to high quality
education trends, flexible and focused on the individual (Communiquéof the
meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education 2009). The Leuven
Communiquétalks about the impact of student-centred education on the develop-
ment of student skills, which are considered necessary for a labour market that is in
constant change, and also for the integration of students into society as active and
responsible citizens. The most recent Bologna Ministerial Communiquéadopted in
Bucharest established the stimulation of student-centred learning and of innovative
learning methods as priorities for the next period in the European Higher Education
Area (Communiquéof the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher
Education 2012).
The present article considers the existence of a wide range of definitions given to
the SCL. However, it specifically looks at the implementation of SCL in Romania
using as a proxy the meaning of the concept as expressed in the Bologna com-
mitments formulated in the Ministerial Communiqués. In fact, for better or worse,
the introduction of SCL in Romania is strictly related to the Bologna Process, with
no other policy or conceptual references. In this regard, we have analysed the
successive official Communiqués adopted during the Bologna Process in order to
extract and resume the main commitments regarding SCL. They can be summarized
as follows:
•The institutions should strike a connection between study credits, learning
outcomes and student workload and include learning outcomes acquisition in
the assessment procedures (Bucharest 2012);
Student Centred Learning …107
•The commitment must be reiterated to promote student-centred education
characterized by innovative teaching methods and by the involvement of stu-
dents as active partners in their own education (Bucharest 2012);
•Higher education institutions should pay attention to improving the quality of
teaching within the study programmes at all levels (Leuven 2009);
•Student centred education involves focusing on the learner, new approaches to
teaching and learning, effective support and guidance structures. The curriculum
reform is a continuous process that will lead to high quality education trends,
flexible and focused on the individual (Leuven 2009).
Based on this summary, this article will try to look at how higher education
institutions in Romania, as a signatory country of these communiqués, understand
the concept of SCL through ECTS, learning outcomes, student workload, innova-
tive teaching methods and quality of teaching.
1.2.2 The Bologna Process in Romania
Romania signed the Bologna Declaration in 1999, at the very beginning of the
Process. Since then, Romania has voluntarily taken steps to align its higher edu-
cation policies to the objectives and the policies promoted by Bologna. As a
consequence, the higher education system in Romania has undergone a series of
fundamental reforms, by adjusting legal procedures, promoting new national public
policies, creating new institutional structures, regulations and guidelines for uni-
versities (UEFISCDI 2013).
The Bologna Process has been implemented in Romania in a context charac-
terized first of all by one of the biggest increases in student population in Europe
until 2008 (the number of bachelor students increased more than five times from
1990 to 2008). However, after 2008, student numbers began to rapidly decline. One
can see the same trend in the evolution of the number of higher education insti-
tutions (both public and private): this number increased almost three times from
1990 to 2003, and from 2003 it started to decline. On the legal side, a new
framework was adopted between 2004 and 2006 to allow for the implementation of
the Bologna Process in Romanian universities (mainly linked to the introduction of
the three cycle system, the ECTS, diploma supplement implementation and creation
of new quality assurance arrangements).
The national institutions responsible with implementing the Bologna Process in
Romania were: the Ministry of National Education (MEN), aided by its consultative
bodies: the National Council for Higher Education Funding (CNFIS); the National
Council for Research in Higher Education (CNCSIS - abolished with the adoption
of the new Law of Education No. 1/2011); the Romanian Agency for Quality
Assurance (ARACIS); the National Agency for Qualifications (ANC); the Execu-
tive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding
(UEFISCDI) and the Romanian Rectors’Conference (CNR), in close interaction
with higher education institutions, national student federations and teachers’unions.
108 L. Matei et al.
Between 2010 and 2012, in particular, Romania played an active role within the
Bologna Process by organizing the 2012 Bologna Ministerial Conference, the Third
Bologna Policy Forum, and by hosting the Bologna Follow-Up Group Secretariat
(the Secretariat developed for the first time during this period a permanent EHEA
website and a very useful online archive of Bologna policy documents).
1.3 The Context of This Article
The article is based on the work carried out by the authors within the project
“Higher Education Evidence Based Policy Making: a necessary premise for pro-
gress in Romania”implemented by the Executive Agency for Higher Education,
Innovation and Development Funding (UEFISCDI). The project undertook to
systematically identify all commitments assumed by Romania within the Bologna
Process and then to analyse their implementation, including those regarding SCL.
Methodologically, the authors relied on extensive desk research that included
gathering and analysing information about the national legal framework, gathering
and analysing official documents of international and national institutions, as well
as perception studies and research articles in the field of SCL. The most important
legislative sources relevant for the current analysis were the Law of Education no.1/
(2011) and the ARACIS methodology for institutional quality assurance assess-
ments. In addition, seven focus groups were organized within the above mentioned
project, with the participation of former and present Romanian representatives
within various Bologna Process structures (BFUG, Working Groups, Networks),
representatives of the national institutions that deal with the Bologna Process
Implementation (ARACIS, CNFIS, ANPCDEFP, MEN), national experts and
former representatives of the Romanian Bologna Secretariat (2010–2012).
The research about the implementation of the Bologna commitments in Romania
was a ground-breaking effort (there is very little similar research in any other
country of the European higher education area). When gathering information about
this topic, regarding implementation aspects rather than just policy blueprints and
generic frameworks, one realises that relevant data regarding the Romanian higher
education system, both at system and institutional level, is hard to come by. We
have been able, fortunately, to access two very useful and somewhat unexpected
sources of information/data, which are directly relevant for the current analysis.
One of these sources is the European University Association’s institutional evalu-
ation of Romanian universities, which includes a first and second wave of insti-
tutional reports (2012–2013). The second one consists of the institutional strategies
made public on their official websites by the Romanian universities.
The European University Association (EUA), through its Institutional Evalua-
tion Programme (IEP), evaluated a large section of public Romanian universities:
41 public institutions were evaluated in 2012–2013. For the article, an analysis of
27 institutional reports was conducted. The analysed reports included 27 univer-
sities from two of the three university categories (research intensive universities and
Student Centred Learning …109
teaching and research universities), according to the university classification in
Romania. From the total number of available reports in the above mentioned two
categories, military and arts universities’reports, were excluded due to their very
specific characteristics which are not relevant for the general picture. Education-
intensive universities, the third category in the Romanian context, were not
included in the analysis, as the IEP reports were not yet public for all of them and
the review process is still on-going.
Another source of information used in the analysis of the implementation on
Bologna commitments with regard to SCL in Romania were the “strategic frame-
works of universities”, mainly for the period 2013–2016. Such strategic framework
documents (published as “strategic plans”,“development strategies”,“managerial
contracts”,“managerial programmes”,“strategies”etc.) were elaborated and
adopted in the context of the election for the university leadership and Senate
membership organised in 2012–2013. Thirty-three public universities’strategies
were analysed. The strategic documents of the rest of sample institutions could not
be found on their official web sites.
2 SCL in Romanian Higher Education System
2.1 Approaches to Student Centred Learning—from the
National to the Institutional Level
In the process of mapping the national legislation on education, we found that a
main chapter of the Law of education no. 1/(2011) is entitled the “student centred
university”. This chapter includes chiefly provisions regarding student rights at
national and institutional level, student admission, data collection, financing, stu-
dent services or student representation. There are no explicit mentions regarding
SCL, but the chapter provides for the adoption of a “Student Rights and Obligations
Code”(The Student Statute), in which further details are regulated. The Student
Statute specifically describes the students’right to “benefit from SCL for personal
development, integration into society and the development of skills to gain initial
employment, to maintain it, and to be able to move within the labour market”.
We have analysed the above mentioned reports from 27 public universities
considering the Bologna commitments regarding SCL. We focused on the general
institutional approach to student centred learning and on specific elements of SCL,
namely: the situation regarding the implementation of learning outcomes at insti-
tutional level, the links between the ECTS system and the students’workload, the
existence of innovative teaching methods and the approaches to enhancing quality
of teaching.
As a general remark, in 11 institutional reports there is a mention regarding the
limited awareness or partial understanding of the Bologna principles by the aca-
demic communities, referring either to Bologna policies in general, or to certain
110 L. Matei et al.
commitments regarding SCL, ECTS, learning outcomes, or the European Standards
and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG). These remarks
appear to indicate that even if the Bologna action lines have been implemented at
national level, not all the subsequent policies are internalised at institutional level.
Oftentimes they are implemented only in a formal way, simply as a consequence of
national regulations.
Analysing the 27 institutional reports regarding the general approach of uni-
versities to SCL, four groups could be identified:
1. Universities with not even a single reference to SCL in their reports. Even
though teaching was included in the IEP evaluation guidelines, five reports were
identified in which no reference to SCL was made.
2. Universities with no institutional approach to SCL. In nine cases, the reports
mention that there is no institutional approach to SCL. The reports either did not
identify a SCL framework, or the evaluators did not find real evidence of SCL
implementation. In these cases the main recommendation formulated by the
external review panels was for the respective institutions to start by adopting a
SCL philosophy. The recommendation is detailed in some reports by formu-
lating more specific guidelines, such as: reduce behind-the-desk teaching in
favour of a more practical, hands-on approach; accurately use ECTS, as both a
measure for student workload and learning outcomes; design a more flexible
curriculum including optional courses to allow for individualised learning
pathways; develop a student-centred curriculum; information provisions for
students should contain an explanation of the overall aims and purposes of the
courses; adopt clear guidelines on written and project work; adopt clear prin-
ciples on performance assessment, marking and feedback to students; adopt a
learning outcomes approach.
3. Universities with some elements of SCL. The third category, in which six
universities are included, can be described as: “some elements of a SCL are
being implemented, but further efforts need to be done”. The recommendations
included in the external reports can be understood as referring to the so-called
second level of SCL implementation - promoting active learning among students
and placing a greater emphasis on the development of transversal competences
and skills.
4. Universities in which clear commitments exist and efforts are made towards
SCL. Seven institutions could be included in this category. The conclusions of
the evaluations mention in these cases that “departments have made sustained
efforts to develop student centred learning”,or“commitments have been made
to a student-centred approach and to the use of a variety of teaching methods to
ensure high standards of student learning”. A good-practice example was
mentioned: one university prepared written guidelines for teachers regarding
SCL.
Considering that in 15 universities there was no evidence of SCL or there were
only some elements in place, while in seven universities serious efforts were
identified, one particular conclusion regarding SCL stood up in the reports. This
Student Centred Learning …111
conclusion might be relevant for the higher education system in Romania in gen-
eral. It states that “it is not sure to what extent the concept of student-centred
learning is clearly understood and perceived in Romania and to what extent it is a
constituent part of the current reform”. The review panels have identified in only
two of the universities under review the existence of a strategic approach to SCL.
For ten institutions the review panels recommended that a teaching and learning
strategy should be developed to further the implementation of SCL principles.
2.1.1 Strategic Institutional Approaches to SCL—A View to the Future
Taking into account Romania’s commitments regarding SCL within the Bologna
Process, we will analyse in what follows how Romanian higher education insti-
tutions refer to SCL in their strategic documents and how they understand and
operationalize the concept, encompassing, inter alia, ECTS, learning outcomes,
student workload, innovative teaching methods, and quality of teaching.
We have analysed the SCL plans and commitments for the future, as reflected in
the university strategies for the immediately next period (mainly 2013–2016).
The first finding is that 20 out of 33 universities have clear statements (including
general or specific objectives) regarding the implementation of SCL. For the
remaining universities, no reference to SCL was found for the near future.
A second finding is that in some cases SCL seems to be defined, rather para-
doxically, through a “teacher-centred”approach. This is reflected, for example, in
the inclusion in the university strategy for the next period of the objective of
“enhancing the activities of information transfer in the context of SCL”. This
approach was also noticed in one of the IEP evaluation reports, in which the
Romanian HE system as a whole is characterised by a continuing focus on infor-
mation transfer (belonging to the traditional methods of teaching), rather than on
the learning process.
Going further, for the case of the 20 universities with clear statements on SCL,
we have analysed how the SCL commitments have been operationalized within
institutional strategies. We tried to identify if any clear measures were envisaged,
subscribed to the concept of SCL as defined within the Bologna Process. We found
that that there is quite a diverse range of measures within the universities, as
described below. In three cases, the only measure envisaged is a study to be
undertaken, or proposal to be developed by an internal university unit or structure
of the way in which SCL could or will be operationalized within the institution.
The most frequently mentioned measure in these university strategic documents
is related to changes in the teaching methods, referring either to the adoption of
new, innovative teaching methods, or to adaptation of the existing teaching
methods to the SCL concept (six cases). The second most common measure is the
involvement of students in research activities (five cases). The third most common
measures (with four appearances) refer to enhancing quality assurance procedures
for teaching processes, and to the adaptation of curriculum to the socio-economic
needs of the community. Other measures mentioned are: involving students in the
112 L. Matei et al.
course assessment; the development of a mentoring system in order to enhance the
collaboration between teachers and students; consistently defining, using and
assessing learning outcomes within the teaching and learning processes; enhancing
the practical experience of students; the active involvement of students in the
academic process; reforming the curriculum; developing social services; encour-
aging students’academic performance; the development of soft skills and others.
Comparing the Bologna proposed approach to SCL with the measures proposed
in the strategic frameworks of these Romanian universities that do include SCL in
their strategic planning, we can conclude that even though in several universities
some Bologna SCL commitments are indeed reflected in institutional strategies, the
majority of institutions have their own understanding of SCL. Another general
remark is that SCL remains a concept under which each university “uploads”
different domestic objectives that have nothing to do with what is broadly under-
stood as SCL in the European context (for example, employing students in the
university or planning activities for alumni). It appears that, similar to other loose
concepts diffused by European-level (Bologna) policy processes, such as like
lifelong learning or the social dimension of education, in Romania SCL became an
umbrella concept under which institutions can push their own specific domestic
agendas, while retaining the legitimacy of European reform models.
2.2 The Link Between Learning Outcomes (LO) and ECTS in
the Context of SCL
According to Ecclestone, learning outcomes can be defined as being something that
students can do now at the end of a unit of learning (e.g. course) and they could not
do previously (Ecclestone 1995). Thus, learning outcomes can be regarded as
changes within a person as a result of a learning experience. In order to be able to
use learning outcomes within higher education, it is important to link them with
assessment: assessment must be both possible and appropriate. The desired learning
outcomes of higher education courses must be therefore not only relevant, they
must also be clearly stated and assessable (Watson 2002).
In Romania, the Law of Education no. 1/(2011)defines learning outcomes as:
what a person understands, knows and is capable to do after finishing a learning
process; they are expressed through knowledge, abilities and competences, and are
acquired through different formal, non-formal and informal learning experiences.
The law also defines the assessment, validation, transfer, recognition and certifi-
cation of learning outcomes. There is no link made in the Law between learning
outcomes and the ECTS system.
According to the Methodology of Implementation of the National Qualifications
Framework in Higher Education (NQF), the grids introduced in the National
Qualification Framework for Higher Education (CNCIS) for each study programme
include the description of the programme in terms of learning outcomes. The first
Student Centred Learning …113
grid makes reference to professional skills, transversal abilities, knowledge and
skills, while the second connects the respective skills with the allocation of study
credits for each skill and per field of study.
Out of 27 evaluation reports prepared for the IEP, in the case of seven univer-
sities there are no references regarding the learning outcomes. Based on these
reports, the main conclusion is that learning outcomes are indeed formally defined
at institutional level (mainly due to the fact that they are legally required), but they
are not fully implemented, and not in a coherent and integrated way across the
institutions, in accordance with the Bologna Process or with the ECTS Users’
Guide. This conclusion is also supported by other main findings from 18 univer-
sities: “learning outcomes were mainly used to satisfy returns and specifications
required by ARACIS, rather than as effective tools for programme delivery”;“while
emphasis is placed on setting objectives and identifying competences, knowledge,
and skills, this still falls short of a learning outcomes approach”.
The findings of the reports, where mentions were found, lead to one main
conclusion regarding the assessment of learning outcomes (although expressed in
various ways): assessment procedures are not aligned with learning outcomes.
In the majority of cases, the IEP external reports recommendations in the area of
learning outcomes refer basically to the need to introduce and develop a learning
outcome approach at institutional level, bearing in mind the wide span of possible
educational objectives.
Two particular issues were signalled in the EUA IEP reports as being present in
the majority of Romanian universities: the need for skills development and also for
developing the practical experience of students. In this regard, in 15 cases the
reports state the lack of or the insufficient opportunities for student internships. The
Romanian legislation mentions the obligation for practical experience to be
embedded in the curriculum, but universities are not always able to facilitate
internships for all the students (often they offer a limited number of internships and
the rest of students are supposed to find internships by themselves). In only six
cases there are recommendations for providing “soft skills”development to stu-
dents, because the dominant tendency is to develop and assess knowledge and
specialised skills at the expense of the so-called transversal or soft skills (some
examples are mentioned in the reports, for example public speaking, presentation
skills, writing academic papers, team work and others).
In the ECTS system, the formulation of learning outcomes is meant to be the
basis for how the workload is estimated and hence for credit allocation. When those
responsible for designing educational programmes establish the qualification profile
and the expected learning outcomes of the programme and its components, it is
intended that ECTS credits help them to be realistic about the necessary workload
and to choose learning, teaching and assessment strategies wisely (European
Commision 2009). The ECTS system is implemented in Romania and the Law of
Education provides the following definition for this type of credits: “the amount of
directed and independent intellectual work required for the student’s individual
completion of a course unit within an academic study programme, complemented
by validation of learning outcomes”(Article 148). Looking at the law, one can see
114 L. Matei et al.
that the amount of intellectual work equivalent to an ECTS credit point is not
quantified. However, a set of regulations is imposed by the Education Law
regarding the number of ECTS in a more general framework:
(2) The individual intellectual work of a student cannot be lower than that
corresponding to an annual number of 60 transferable study credits.
(3) The minimum number of credits needed to pass the academic year is
established by the university senate.
(4) The duration of the Bachelor and Master academic study programmes, by
areas of specialization, shall be proposed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport and approved through Government decision.
(5) The total cumulated duration of the Bachelor and Master academic cycles of
studies corresponds to obtaining at least 300 transferable study credits.
(6) The number of transferable study credits for the doctoral cycle of studies is
determined by each university, depending on scientific or artistic field.
In accordance with the Education Law, art. 148, the ECTS system should be
implemented by taking into account the amount of work that the student must
perform in order to receive the credits and reach the learning outcomes quantified
by the credits earned. The ECTS credits should help both to quantify the acquired
knowledge, competencies and abilities, and to facilitate mobility. In another words,
credits should have both a transfer and an accumulation function. The number of
gained credits represents a criterion for promotion from one cycle to another and
from one academic year to another. There are additional academic filters for tran-
sition from one cycle to another, according to the decisions of universities.
No studies have been identified to confirm the efficiency and comparability of
the ECTS in Romanian universities. There seem to be no published studies that look
at the relationship between the allocation of ECTS credits, learning outcomes, and
student workload either. The IEP reports do not tackle in particular the subject of
ECTS implementation in Romania, but some references have been found regarding
this subject in six university reports. The main conclusion is that, even if univer-
sities have been implementing the ECTS for more than 10 years, this process was
mostly superficial and formalistic, rather than representing a real reform, which
would have encompassed linking ECTS credits with student workload and learning
outcomes. Inconsistencies were found between ECTS and professions governed by
Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC in one university. One recom-
mendation with clear reference to the ECTS system was to “review students’
workloads and ECTS to ensure that workloads are manageable”.
2.3 Looking at the SCL in the Context of Teaching
Quality of Teaching
ARACIS is the independent institution responsible for quality assurance in higher
education at national level. The standards upon which ARACIS assesses each
institution and study programme have a great impact on institutional policies, as
Student Centred Learning …115
well as on their strategic behaviour. We have analysed the ARACIS methodology
to see whether national quality assurance policies promote SCL and, if this is the
case, they follow the Bologna Process commitments regarding SCL.
The ARACIS methodology includes an indicator named “student-centred
learning methods.”In this case, the minimum required standard (mandatory for
each institution) is detailed to include the following:
•“The main responsibility of the academic staff is to design student-centred
learning methods and environments, with less emphasis on the traditional
responsibility of solely transmitting information;
•The relationship between student and academic staff is one of partnership;
•Learning outcomes are explained and discussed with students in terms of their
relevance to their development;
•Academic staff members use new technology resources and auxiliary materials,
from the blackboard to flipchart and video projector;”(ARACIS, 2006)
The other standards represent guidelines for universities and are not mandatory:
•“Academic staff members are specially trained in teaching and/or they meet up
in discussion groups to discuss teaching methodology; The trainings also
include: teaching skills, experience in counselling, monitoring and facilitating
the learning process;
•There is an on-going activity of identification, development, testing, imple-
mentation and evaluation of effective learning techniques;
•Study programmes are integrated with trainings, placement and internship and
with the involvement of the students in research projects;
•The teaching methods includes asking questions in the classroom, short pre-
sentations, demonstration experiments;
•The teaching strategy also takes into account the needs of disabled students.
•The institution creates learning environments and experiences that lead students
to discover and create knowledge themselves.”(ARACIS, 2006)
It is evident from the quotes above that the national quality assurance method-
ology explicitly includes SCL and that its provisions are in line with the Bologna
Process promoted policies. On the other hand, it is difficult to assess the real impact
of these provisions in the ARACIS methodology.
References to quality assurance procedures related to teaching were identified in
the IEP evaluation reports. In eight out of 27 universities no quality assurance
procedures for teaching were found or no significant effort was identified in this
direction. Systematic efforts to secure and develop quality teaching were identified
in only two universities. The main recommendation in this field was that Quality
Assurance Departments should play a more central role in the reporting loop on the
quality of teaching and learning.
116 L. Matei et al.
2.3.1 Innovative Teaching Methods or Learning Centred Teaching
Distinctions are drawn in the specialised literature among different kinds of
learning, such as ‘understanding’,‘factual knowledge’and ‘skills’, but also among
different kinds of learners, such as ‘holist’and ‘serialist’learners, ‘visualizers’,
‘verbalizers’and’doers’, so that teaching methods can be matched to them.
Learning-centred teaching involves adopting different teaching methods, where
they are appropriate, adapting them to the needs of each student instead of fol-
lowing a one-size-fit-all instrument (Sparkes 1999).
In the context of SCL, the role of teachers becomes as important as it can get,
given that teachers have to identify how they can help students to acquire the
intended learning outcomes and benefit to the fullest from a specific learning
experience (Alexander and Murphy 1998). The main function of teaching is often
understood in terms of enhancing effective learning and empowering the student to
become responsible for her/his learning process. Good teaching involves, among
others, matching teaching methods to students’chosen learning goals, while also
catering for students’different preferred learning styles. ‘Learning-centred teach-
ing’is an organized way of teaching and learning, which embraces student-centred
learning, active and problem-based learning and the use of IT, as well as instruction
and demonstration by a teacher, wherever they are appropriate (Sparkes 1999). It
identifies where ‘the sage on the stage’is a valid teaching technique and where ‘the
guide on the side’may be more appropriate. It is generally believed that student-
centred teaching allows students to take on more responsibility for deciding what
and how to learn so that they can play an active role in their education, thereby
achieving higher-level learning outcomes, such as knowledge application and
creation. Siding with the student-centred camp, constructivist teaching is an alter-
native to the conventional teacher-centred teaching method (Yuen and Hau 2006).
For the purpose of the present study we have analysed the implementation in
Romania of the particular commitment within the Bologna Process also for the
specific areas of development of and focus on innovative teaching methods. When
talking about “innovative teaching methods”we mainly consider the references
from the Bologna Process which include: involving students as active participants
in their own learning process, creating a supportive and inspiring working and
learning environment, empowering students to develop intellectual independence,
personal self-assurance alongside disciplinary knowledge and skills, ability to
assess situations and critical thinking.
To be able to implement innovative teaching methods, well-prepared and
motivated teaching staff is needed, and an adequate number of academic staff
members is necessary. According to the data provided by the National Institute of
Statistics (NIS), at the beginning of the academic year 2010–2011 the total number
of students and the number of academic staff members in Romanian higher edu-
cation were as follows (Table 1):
At the beginning of the academic year 2011/2012, the average ratio of academic
staff members to students was about 1/33 (public universities and private univer-
sities). There are significant difference between public universities and private
Student Centred Learning …117
Table 1 Number of students and number of academic staff members in public and private universities, NIS 2012
Public Private
Academic members 4,118 Bachelor 399,464 Academic members 453 Bachelor 140,388
Associate Academic members 4,592 Master 110,299 Associate Academic members 727 Master 20,780
Assistant Academic members/Lecturers 7,547 Doctorate 23,311 Assistant Academic members/Lecturers 1,676 Doctorate 229
Research Academic members 6,630 Total 533,074 Research Academic members 958 Total 161,397
Adjuncts 1,142 Adjuncts 173
Consultants 226 Consultants 6
Warrant officers 117 Warrant Officers
Total 24,372 Total 3,993
118 L. Matei et al.
universities. At the beginning of the academic year 2011/2012, the average ratio of
academic members to students was:
•1/22 in state universities;
•1/40 in private universities.
The analysis based on the IEP evaluation reports indicates that the main issue
regarding the teaching staff identified in 18 universities is the lack of incentives and
instruments for both developing teaching competences, and motivating and fos-
tering innovation in teaching. The existent universities structures (e.g. the depart-
ments for training of teaching staff) do not possess the necessary expertise and
resources for teacher training, especially in innovative methods, or for imple-
menting Bologna desiderata in teaching and learning more generally, such as
learning outcomes-based teaching and assessment, and student-centred learning.
For 12 universities the main recommendation was that teacher training should be
made available to the teaching staff and that mechanisms for sharing good practice
in teaching should be put in place. Also, the IEP evaluation reports noted that there
is an imbalance between the multiple rewards given for excellence research, on one
side, and the lack of rewards for innovation and excellence in teaching, on the other.
This situation is reflected, among others, in the processes of hiring staff and pro-
motion of teachers. A recommendation made for eight universities by the IEP
review panels was to develop instruments and methods of rewarding teaching
performance. They could include: using initiatives like “the best teacher of the
year”, setting up a University Learning and Teaching Enhancement Forum,
establishing a Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL), developing a system of
awards and rewards both for individuals (teachers, researchers and students) and
academic units that demonstrate excellence in teaching.
At a more general level, an important conclusion emerging from the analysis of
the institutional reports is that a certain level of conflict can be seen between
research and teaching in the Romanian universities, with two distinct aspects. On
one hand there is a situation in which many teachers concentrate more, or mainly,
on research (especially young teachers), while neglecting the teaching dimension of
their activity. On the other hand, in some cases the teaching workload is so heavy
that it leaves little room for research activity.
Other issues related to teaching staff mentioned in the reports are: significant
constraints on universities resulting from national regulations, especially regarding
the recruitment and promotion of academic staff; salary incentives can be awarded
to recognise excellent performance in research, but no teaching excellence or
innovation in teaching. The current follow-up of the performance evaluation of the
academic staff is mainly based on person-to-person discussions and is not backed
by any resources that would recognize and stimulate performance in teaching. The
current method of funding for teachers, based on contact hours, has a dispropor-
tionate influence on curriculum design and may be a disincentive to curriculum
reform.
What is also important in order to provide a supportive learning environment is
that classrooms are properly equipped. From this perspective, analysing the data
Student Centred Learning …119
obtained in the classification of universities, it is noteworthy that 33 % of university
classrooms in Romania are equipped with a video projector, 70 % have at least one
PC and 53 % have wireless internet access.
Out of 27 reports IEP reports, 12 include clear mentions regarding teaching
methods. In this regard, in ten universities the main conclusion was that the
teaching methods remain mainly traditional. In only two universities an innovative
approach to teaching was identified.
The main issues identified in the institutions with a traditional teaching methods
were: some members of academic staff appear to have outdated approaches to
learning, teaching and assessment; often professors are self-centred in the sense that
their teaching is based on the need to justify teacher contact time rather than on the
learning needs of students; the presence of one-way lecturing, involving the lack of
interactivity in classes and making student feel that courses are irrelevant and
outdated. In these cases the main recommendation was to move away from tradi-
tional approaches and to adopt more learner-centred pedagogies across all disci-
plines, together with developing innovative learning methods, like case studies,
case competitions, simulation exercises, business games, criterion-referenced
assessment techniques, use of technology or greater prominence to pedagogical
innovativeness and effectiveness.
One example of good practice regarding the use of technology as a means to
promote innovative teaching was identified: the development and use of e-platforms
for teaching. Although there are many universities using this tool in their day-to-day
activities, in many cases it appears to be an instrument used rather for adminis-
trative reasons or, at most, as channels of information and communication, rather
than for learning properly. One university was identified which has succeeded in
implementing a platform that includes direct access to academic and research
related material pertinent to the students’specific activities and specialities, student
evaluations, and efficient teacher-student communication instruments.
2.4 Stakeholders Perception Regarding SCL Implementation
According to the National Alliance of Student Organizations in Romania (ANOSR)
study concerning students’views on the implementation of the Bologna Process
(2009), involving 23 universities, “in only 15 % of universities the student or-
ganisations consider that the academic staff have adapted to the needs of students.”
With regard to the evaluation of the academic staff by students, the same study
concluded: “In over 61 % of universities, students’feedback is not taken into
consideration, and no measures are taken as a follow-up to the results. Only in 22 %
of universities the feedback is taken into account in the educational activity”.
Overall, according to the same study, the perception of student organizations
regarding the implementation of SCL in Romanian universities is that: “Even
though at the national level there is a tendency to adapt teaching methods to
120 L. Matei et al.
students’needs, this phenomenon is in its infancy, therefore we shall categorize the
concept of student-centred learning as being poorly implemented.”(ANOSR 2009).
The “Quality Barometer”(ARACIS 2010), a study released periodically by
ARACIS, concluded in its 2010 issue that: “We have a rather self-centred university
preoccupied by its own financial survival, students are the utmost important from a
quantitative perspective, as carriers of financial resources”. This study further
details that:
•Romanian higher education is student-centred at a formal level, through the
university mission statements and charters, but this formal claim is not
supported by adequate learning outcomes of students and graduates;
•There is a difference between the students’expectations regarding the outcomes
of higher education and what universities can offer in terms of skills’
development.
In order to promote student-centred education in universities and to help shape
an SCL culture at the national level, ANOSR organizes the annual “Gala of the
Bologna Professor,”a project in which students evaluate and acknowledge
academic staff members that are promoters of student-centred education. The
methodology for assessment is based on indicators resulting from the opera-
tionalization of the student-centred learning concept from a student perspective,
and includes:
•Learner-focused teaching methods (including the active participation of
students),
•The outcomes of the course are focused on gaining specific competences, not on
unidirectional information transmission,
•The use of technology within teaching and learning methods (via emails, group
discussions, open electronic resources, webinars etc.),
•A collaborative teacher-student relationship.
This initiative represents a rare incentive for Romanian teachers to enhance their
pedagogical methods and be more innovative and responsive to the profile of
current learners. In the 2007–2012 timeframe, 400 teachers from all over the
country have been awarded the ‘Bologna Teacher’label and in this way a “com-
munity of practice”started to be formed.
3 Conclusions
Romania signed the Bologna Declaration 15 years ago and is implementing the
Bologna principles and action lines ever since. Nevertheless, it appears that a
limited awareness or partial understanding of the Bologna principles by the aca-
demic communities is found in the majority of universities. This appears to be the
case with all core commitments within the Bologna Process, including the imple-
mentation of the ECTS system or of learning outcomes. SCL was only recently
Student Centred Learning …121
introduced in the Bologna vocabulary and mentioned in the Bologna Process
communiqués (the first attempt being made only in 2009). SCL is used as an
umbrella concept at the national and institutional levels, under which various
unrelated domestic interests are being gathered.
Even though the SCL concept is not operationalized in the national law on
education, the national procedures for quality assurance do provide clear guidelines
for SCL implementation. Yet, when analysing institutional behaviour, we found
that there is no common understanding of the concept, and no consistent imple-
mentation. The main policy rationales for SCL do not appear to be internalized at
institutional level.
The understanding of the SCL concept is diverse within and across different
categories of stakeholders. At institutional level, this understanding includes certain
aspects that are indeed consistent with the model promoted by the Bologna Process
documents and reflecting “Bologna commitments”(for example aspects regarding
new teaching methods or new approaches to quality of teaching). At the same time,
under the label of “Bologna reforms”, this understanding also includes aspects that
are exterior or only collateral to the Bologna promoted model (such as the
involvement of students in research activities or employing students in the uni-
versity). The inclusion within the SCL legitimation frame of issues and aspects that
are clearly unrelated or lack a significant relationship with SCL indicate the lack of
basic common understanding of what SCL means in the Romanian context.
SCL policy setting and implementation in Romanian universities are still at the
beginning. Some universities are more advanced than others. We have identified
universities with no declared approach to SCL, universities with some elements of
SCL, and universities with real commitments and doing real work towards SCL.
The fact that only 41 % from the institutions (considered for the purpose of this
study) do not have a formal institutional approach to SCL suggests that there is a
need for further policy development in this area, as well as for public debates on
what is understood and assumed by the concept, and on what would be useful to do
in practice in this area, beyond the formal commitments as part of the Bologna
Process. In fact, the Bologna Process commitments with regard to SCL should
represent a good opportunity for a serious deliberation at national and institutional
level about the virtues, and perhaps limitations as well, of SCL.
Looking at the implementation of a learning outcomes approach as an essential
part of SCL, we can conclude that due to national regulations (included in the
National Qualification Framework and the quality assurance procedures), learning
outcomes started to be used in the description of study programmes. This use
appears to be rather formal for the time being. Learning outcomes are not inter-
nalized as core elements along the entire teaching and learning process, including
initiation, design, operation, student assessment, and quality assurance of study
programmes. Significant further development appears necessary, in particular, in
the area of learning outcomes assessment.
The present study confirmed two other important problematic aspects, already
acknowledged by other researchers, policy makers, university leaders and student
representatives: the lack of focus on soft skills development and assessment, and on
122 L. Matei et al.
students practice. The tendency to develop and assess subject-specific knowledge,
at the expense of transversal or soft skills or the insufficient opportunities for
internships represent issues that require a coherent national and institutional stra-
tegic approach for identifying policy solutions.
Regarding the ECTS system, after several years of implementation in Romanian
universities, there is still no data available regarding the correlation of ECTS with
student workloads or learning outcomes.
Looking at the matter of innovative teaching methods, and more generally at the
matter of developing supportive and inspiring learning environments for students,
we conclude that there is a lack of incentives and instruments for teacher training,
mainly due to the lack of university expertise and resources in this area.
A certain level of conflict appears to be in place between teaching and research.
This is due to several factors, including high teaching workloads, but also due to the
insufficient number of teaching staff (at national level the ratio of teachers to
students appears to be 1/33 in state universities and 1/40 in private universities).
The lack of recognition for good teaching and, more generally, the absence of
incentives for good teaching is also a factor.
As a final conclusion, based on the analysis of the IEP reports, of the strategic
documents of universities and of national perception studies, it appears that
approximately 40 % of Romanian universities express no formal commitment to
introduce a student centred learning approach. Academic communities do not
appear to be convinced of the usefulness or appropriateness of moving towards
SCL in the Romanian context. In addition, even though 60 % of universities did
choose to include SCL in their strategic approach, at least at formal level, many
universities “uploaded”into the concept diverse unrelated domestic objectives,
while excluding essential components, such as focusing on learning outcomes,
pedagogies reforms or embedding indicators referring to the teaching process
within quality assurance procedures.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
References
Adelman, C. (2009). The Bologna Process for U.S. Eyes: re-learning higher education in the age of
convergence. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Alexander, P., & Murphy, P. (1998). The research base for APA’s learner-centered psychological
principles. In N. Lambert & B. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 25–60). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
ANOSR. (2009). Implementarea Procesului Bologna în România:Perspectiva studenţilor.
Bucuresti: Alianta Nationala a Organizatiilor Studentesti din Romania.
ARACIS. (2010). Barometrul Calităţii: Starea calităţii înînvăţământul superior din România.
Bucuresti: Agenţia Românăde Asigurare a Calităţii înÎnvăţământul Superior.
Student Centred Learning …123
Communiquéof the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education. (2012).
Making the Most of Our Potential:Consolidating the European Higher Education Area.
Bucharest.
Communiquéof the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education. (2009). The
Bologna Process 2020 -The European Higher Education Area in the new decade. Leuven and
Louvain-la-Neuv.
Corbett, A. (2006). Higher Education as a Form of European Integration: how novel is the
Bologna Process? ARENA working paper series, 15. Centre for European Studies, University
of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Corbett, A. (2003). Ideas, institutions and policy entrepreneurs: towards a new history of higher
education in the European Community. European Journal of Education, 38(3), 315–330.
Corbett, A. (2005). Universities and the Europe of knowledge: ideas, institutions and policy
entrepreneurship in European Community higher education policy. London: Palgrave
Macmillan .
Ecclestone, K. (1995). Learning outcomes. Sheffield: Centre for Further and Higher Education.
ESU. (2010). Student-Centred Learning Toolkit for students, staff and higher education
institutions. Brussels: European Students’Union.
European Commision. (2009). ECTS users’guide. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities.
Haskel, B. (2009). Weak process, strong results: Cooperation in European Higher Education. (T. I.
A., Ed.) Innovative Governance, pp. 273–287.
Lea, S. S. (2003). Higher education students’attitudes student-centred learning: Beyond
educational Bulimia. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321–334.
Reinalda, B. (2008). The ongoing bologna process and political science. European Political
Science 7(3), 382–393.
Sparkes, J. J. (1999). Learning-centred teaching. European Journal of Engineering Education,24
(2), 183–188.
Trondal, J. (2002). Europeanisation of Research and Higher Education Policies: some reflections.
European Integration Online Papers,6(2).
UEFISCDI. (2013). Reflectarea angajamentelor Romaniei in cadrul Spatiului European al
Invatamantului Superior (EHEA) in context national. Bucuresti: Unitatea Executiva pentru
Finantarea Invatamantului Superior a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si Inovarii.
Van Damme, D. (2009). The search for transparency: Convergence and diversity in the Bologna
process. In F. van Vught (Ed.), Mapping the higher education landscape. Towards a European
classification on higher education (pp. 39–55). Houten: Springer.
Veiga, A. (2005). Europeanization of higher education area: towards a framework of analysis.
Watson, P. (2002). The role and integration of learning outcomes into the educational process.
Active Learning in Higher Education,3(3), 205–219.
Yuen, K.-M., & Hau, K.-T. (2006). Constructivist teaching and teacher-centred teaching: a
comparison of students’learning in a university course. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International,43(3), 279–290.
Data Used
Data from the National Institute for Statistics (NIS), “TEMPO online”data base, extracted on
September 2013, the “Statistical annual reports on higher education”and NIS communication
from the official website.
Data from the data collection process conducted in 2011 in order to assess and classify universities
and study programs http://uefiscdi.gov.ro/articole/2535/Clasificare-universitati-si-ierarhizare-
programe-de-studii.html.
124 L. Matei et al.
Legal Documents
National Education Law no. 1/2011.
ARACIS. (2006). External evaluation methodology, standards, reference standards and perfor-
mance indicators.
Online Resources
“Higher Education Evidence Based Policy Making: a necessary premise for progress in Romania”
project implemented by the Executive Agency for Higher Education, Innovation and
Development Funding (UEFISCDI) - http://www.politici-edu.ro/?lang=en.
Student Centred Learning …125
