Lessons from Bologna

Here are some more things we can learn from the Bologna Process:

We have to think in terms of student load, not faculty load. One of the key items in the Bologna Process is the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS), defined as “the workload students need in order to achieve expected learning outcomes. Learning outcomes describe what a learner is expected to know, understand and be able to do after successful completion of a process of learning. They relate to level descriptors in national and European qualifications frameworks.”

For example, if a student, per week, takes 3 hours to listen to a teacher in a classroom, another 3 hours to read an assigned text in a library, and another 3 hours to write a term paper at home, the student should get 9 hours credits for the subject, not 3 units as in our current system. The 3 units that students get in our system are computed not according to the student’s time, but according to the teacher’s time. In other words, our administrative system is teacher-centered rather than student-centered.

Of course, there is a problem. A bright student could take only 1 hour to read an assigned text and only 1 hour to work on a paper, while a dumb student could take 5 hours to read and 5 hours to write. Clearly, it is impossible to figure out what the workload is for an average or typical student. This is one reason ECTS has not really been implemented very much nor very well in Europe.

Nevertheless, we really should start thinking in terms of students rather than teachers. This will be a major paradigm shift for many administrators, who usually spend more time with faculty rather than students. We should start thinking of assigning different credits for subjects that are not equivalent to each other in terms of workloads. For example, “hard” or “major” subjects require more time on the part of students than “easy” or “minor” subjects. Perhaps teachers of major subjects should be paid more than teachers of minor subjects. (I can hear the howls of protest, not from teachers of major subjects, but from teachers of General Education or GE subjects.)

We have to find a way out of the rigid grid of one-hour three-times-a-week courses. The three-hours per week allotment for most subjects is one of the most change-resistant of education practices. Teachers that demand more time or need less time for their subjects often get dirty looks from administrators, who have to think in terms of pay per hour. How, for example, do you pay a teacher who teaches one hour one week, two hours the next week, five hours the third week, and so on, depending on the complexity of the lesson? If there is only one teacher, we can always go on a case-by-case basis (in Philippine English, case-to-case), but if all teachers demand flexible times, no administrator can administrate.

We have to have three years worth of major subjects. This is the most dramatic of changes required of us by the Bologna Process. Except for those taking professional courses such as engineering and accounting, our college students get only two years of specialized or major courses. The first two years of a four-year college course are taken up mostly by GE subjects. Once basic education is extended by two years, however, most if not all these GE subjects will be taken up in high school, thus freeing the college years for more major subjects. Clearly, CHED’s technical panels have their work cut out for them. It takes at least two years to have a new curriculum conceptualized and accepted by all stakeholders (particularly since we should now include graduates and employers in the curriculum development process). The time to start is right now (in Philippine English, now na).

We have to give students a Diploma Supplement in addition to a Diploma and a Transcript of Records. Bologna requires all universities to specify what a student has actually learned to do, not just to indicate the student’s grades or degrees. The idea is for employers to know, just from reading a Supplement, what the graduate is qualified to do.

We have to have a discipline-specific Qualifications Framework statement. We have to list the qualifications (competencies or skills) that every subject in every major course guarantees about a student. For example, can a student who passes English 3 already become a call center agent without further training? If not, which subject can promise this qualification? If no subject or course in college guarantees this, why are graduates encouraged to apply to call centers?

We have to identify the jobs that a student with the degree is qualified to do. The hardest thing for many departments to do will be to identify the specific jobs their graduates are qualified for. Engineers obviously can be engineers and nurses can be nurses, but what is the job that a business or humanities major is particularly prepared for that nobody else can do?

We have to match degrees with industry needs. The bottom line is removing the gap between education and industry. Our famous mismatch – but definitely not all our education problems – will be solved once we take the Bologna Process seriously.