The Federal Ministry of Education and Research is driving forward reforms to degree programmes, teaching and further education. Anke Hanft and Annika Maschwitz, experts from Oldenburg, are providing academic support for this multi-billion-euro project. An interview.
QUESTION: There seems to be quite a lot wrong with the German higher education landscape if the Federal Ministry of Education and Research is spending more than two billion euros on a reform...
HANFT: Indeed, there is room for improvement. The two programmes, in which a total of almost 200 higher education institutions are involved, pursue two different objectives. The federal-state competition ‘Advancement through Education: Open Universities’ aims, amongst other things, to make it easier for working people to take up a degree programme – people who have so far been unable to reconcile their studies with their everyday working lives. In future, universities are to develop more flexible teaching concepts that can be better integrated into students’ daily lives. The second programme, the ‘Quality Pact for Teaching’, is designed to improve teaching on Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes. These were introduced in Germany within a very short space of time, which meant that they were not always implemented optimally at universities.
QUESTION: What are the problems?
HANFT: The Bologna Process, which led to the introduction of Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes in Germany, is intended to promote the mobility of students, graduates and employees within the European Higher Education Area. To make this possible, a flexible study system is essential. A modular study system, as envisaged by the reform, enables students to transfer easily between universities in Germany and even to other countries. Furthermore, modularisation allows for the individual tailoring of study programmes. In many countries, including Germany, however, the opportunities offered by modularisation for reforming degree programmes have not been properly utilised; instead, old content and teaching formats have simply been repackaged into new structures.
MASCHWITZ: The system could be flexible, but across the board it is not. At the moment, for example, the recognition of credits obtained at another university is still difficult and often depends on the assessment of a professor or the examiner.
QUESTION: What went wrong with the modularisation of degree programmes?
MASCHWITZ: Modularisation exists only on paper. Essentially, what was there before has now simply been grouped into blocks. The problem is this: a module should form a self-contained unit in which the skills acquired are assessed through the examination. At present, however, traditional teaching methods – such as lectures, seminars and tutorials – are scarcely interlinked in terms of content and are merely grouped together for organisational purposes. Many examiners only test the knowledge covered in their own course and do not take the other module content into account. Students then tend to prepare for that one exam and may neglect other aspects of the module. To change this, lecturers would need to cooperate more closely. The ‘Quality Pact for Teaching’ and the federal-state competition ‘Advancement through Education: Open Universities’ can play a part here in improving the implementation of modularisation in degree programmes, teaching and further education.
HANFT: Funding from the ‘Quality Pact for Teaching’ also offers an opportunity for further reforms. Universities must adapt to an increasingly diverse student body. In an education system where more than half of a given age cohort enrols in higher education, the level of competence among first-year students varies greatly. Many universities are responding to this with reforms in the introductory phase of their degree programmes.
QUESTION: How can accompanying research contribute to these changes?
HANFT: Above all, by ensuring that good solutions and successful reforms from one university are shared with others. A network of universities has now been established under the ‘Advancement through Education’ initiative, which passes on the knowledge gained by individual universities to others. Within the ‘Quality Pact for Teaching’, the University of Duisburg-Essen is regarded as a good example of how universities with a high proportion of students from migrant backgrounds can succeed in turning this apparent weakness into a strength. The university has introduced a diversity management programme that supports students throughout their studies with a range of advisory and support services. Many other higher education institutions are also investing in bridging courses to support students who have gaps in their knowledge in certain areas. The experiences of these higher education institutions are brought to light through accompanying research, allowing us to see what works. Not every higher education institution needs to reinvent the wheel. Proven bridging courses, for example, could be made available online to other higher education institutions.
QUESTION: So the projects are also about fostering co-operation between higher education institutions so that good ideas can catch on. What does your role in the accompanying research involve?
HANFT: We also see our role as ensuring transparency regarding the knowledge gained and making it accessible to higher education institutions. When we have contact with universities, this often leads to a consultative process. Through a supported bottom-up process, the exemplary models created at individual universities can be established on a permanent basis. To prevent many good ideas from being lost once the project period ends, we aim to support sustainable change in line with the BMBF’s objectives. Through our support, we aim to help ensure that changes are implemented and that a genuine reform process gets under way.
QUESTION: At the University of Oldenburg, you have already demonstrated what modular study structures can look like?
MASCHWITZ: That’s correct. At the Centre for Lifelong Learning (C3L), master’s degree programmes are being developed that are aimed at working professionals. One example is the ‘Business Administration for Elite Athletes’ degree programme, which was also attended by national football player Jonas Hector. A few years ago, we found that, depending on the sport, up to 70 per cent of elite athletes have completed their A-levels. However, it is virtually impossible to study alongside elite sport. Our degree programme is designed to be highly flexible to meet the athletes’ needs. This enables them to complete the degree programme alongside their sporting commitments. It is not uncommon for athletes, whilst preparing for major competitions, to be unable to submit their course certificates within the standard module period. Normally, students would then have to retake the module. We have therefore designed the programme to be so flexible that students only need to take the number of modules they can manage given their schedule.
QUESTION: What else contributes to this flexibility?
MASCHWITZ: We know, for example, that we cannot schedule face-to-face sessions on Saturdays for competitive athletes, as that is when tournaments take place. We take students’ requirements and their time constraints into account when designing the further education degree programmes.
HANFT: Ultimately, we need to tailor the programme more closely to students’ needs and must not treat everyone the same. This by no means means that the programme becomes easier; rather, it becomes more flexible to study.
MASCHWITZ: At C3L, for example, the C3LLO learning management system was developed, which allows students to work through the material independently of their lecturers. There are face-to-face sessions and project work supervised by mentors. Other content is delivered via online modules.
HANFT: The consistent modularisation of our degree programmes for working professionals is an advantage not only for students but also for lecturers. Under the old system, responsibility for study and teaching lay entirely with the lecturers. Now, their expertise is integrated into the overall system in such a way that students work much more independently and interactively – including with one another and online – whilst receiving support. This shift from teaching to learning is a truly major structural reform. However, it also represents a cultural shift that needs to take root in the minds of the lecturers. Well-designed modules are created when lecturers sit down together and discuss the content. As the development and delivery of modules are structured as a collaborative process, this can also ease the workload on lecturers. Such an advantage is needed to convince colleagues of the merits of a structural reform.
MASCHWITZ: I also see an important link here between the federal and state programmes ‘Advancement through Education: Open Universities’ and the ‘Quality Pact for Teaching’. The modules developed for degree programmes aimed at working professionals can serve as examples of good practice for Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes. This is because they achieve precisely what is essential for modularisation: the modules form a didactic unit.
Interview: Tim Schröder
