Annex A. Stakeholder engagement

As part of the project, the OECD team organised several stakeholder engagement activities to ensure that the views of key higher education stakeholder organisations and institutions in Hungary were taken into account for the development of the analysis, recommendations and policy options included in this report. An overview of the different stakeholder engagement activities organised as part of the project is presented in Table A.1. The research tools and stakeholders to be engaged in each activity were developed in close consultation with the Hungarian Ministry of Culture and Innovation (KIM) and the Hungarian Accreditation Committee (MAB). They are presented in the remainder of this Annex.

In February 2022, the OECD review team carried out interviews with a sample of higher education institutions and stakeholder organisations to gain an in-depth understanding of the key challenges and potential approaches to monitoring and improving the quality of the digital education offered by higher education institutions (HEIs) in Hungary. Stakeholders were also invited to share their views on how they think the existing QA standards, practices and supports could or should be adapted in order to be “fit for purpose” for digital teaching and learning in higher education. They were also invited to share examples of institutional best practice for the QA of digital higher education which they might be familiar with in Hungary.

Table A.2 provides an overview of the higher education stakeholder organisations and institutions interviewed by the OECD review team in February 2022. The list of stakeholder organisations interviewed is based on advice provided by KIM and MAB. In total, the OECD review team interviewed 19 stakeholders across all these organisations.

The interviews were structured along the following four main areas of inquiry:

  • Key challenges and priorities facing higher education training and digital provision in Hungary today

  • Policies and practices carried out by stakeholder organisations interviewed

  • Stakeholder views on the quality assurance standards and procedures currently used by MAB and HEIs for the QA of digital study programmes

  • Recommendation which the OECD might usefully develop to help improve the quality of digital higher education in Hungary

A. Key challenges and priorities for enhancing the quality of digital higher education in Hungary

  1. 1. What do you think are the key challenges facing higher education training and digital provision in Hungary today?

    1. a. Please highlight challenges related to the higher education system in general, as well as the higher education training and digital provision system more specifically, elaborating on any contextual factors and/or factors that may help explain these challenges.

    2. b. Please highlight challenges related to the quality of teaching and learning more specifically, both in in-person and in online/hybrid courses and programmes. Reflect in particular on the digital readiness of institutions, instructors and students, and the supports and incentives that are currently available to them in order to ensure high-quality teaching and learning.

    3. c. Which of these do you see as being the most urgent priority areas to be addressed?

  2. 2. What do you think is the role or potential of digitalisation in overcoming (some of) these challenges and, more specifically, in improving the quality of their teaching and learning currently offered by HEIs in Hungary?

    1. a. What do you think might be some of the key benefits of digitalisation for tackling systemic challenges and improving the quality of higher education in Hungary?

    2. b. What do you think might be some of the main risks of digitalisation for the future development of Hungary’s higher education system and the quality of teaching and learning?

    3. c. What do you think is the role or importance of quality assurance in overcoming (some of) these challenges, and more specifically, in improving the quality of the teaching and learning currently offered by HEIs in Hungary?

    4. d. Key challenges and priorities for enhancing the quality of digital higher education in Hungary

    5. e. Policies and practices for supporting the quality of digital higher education

    6. f. Standards and practices for the quality assurance of digital higher education

    7. g. Recommendations

      1. i. The role of external quality assurance (as carried out by MAB) to ensure quality digital higher education

      2. ii. The role of HEIs for monitoring and supporting the quality of their digital provision

      3. iii. The role played by the higher education policy field and other actors in the system to support institutions to improve the quality of their digital provision

B. Policies and practices for supporting the quality of digital higher education

  1. a. Please consider the following areas when describing your organisation’s activities

  1. 1. Please describe relevant policies, practices, or actions of other organisations which you are aware of (e.g., international, European, national, institutional) that you think have been important or could be helpful to improve the quality of digital higher education in Hungary going forward.

    1. a. Please consider the following areas when describing the organisation’s activities

  1. 2. What do you think are missing actions, policies or initiatives that could be implemented, supported, or strengthened to improve the quality of digital higher education in Hungary?

    1. a. What areas are currently not being addressed and you think are important?

    2. b. How do you think your organisation could contribute to addressing these gaps?

    3. c. How do you think other organisations (e.g., government, Hungarian Accreditation Committee, sector organisations, representative bodies such as Hungarian Rectors’ Conference, the National Union of Students in Hungary, the Association of Hungarian PhD, and DLA Students HEIs themselves, etc.) could contribute to addressing these gaps?

C. Standards and practices for the quality assurance of digital higher education

  1. 1. How do you think the standards and procedures used by MAB could be revised in order to make them “fit for purpose” to monitor and evaluate the quality of digital higher education?

    1. a. What do you think would be helpful (minimum) standards or criteria for MAB to adopt to monitor the quality of HEIs’ digital provision? How relevant/useful are the current standards?

    2. b. What do you think would be relevant or helpful procedures to monitor/evaluate these minimum standards? What data would be needed? How relevant/useful are MAB’s current procedures?

    3. c. What are the main challenges experienced by MAB for carrying out assessments of the quality of digital higher education? What additional resources or supports (e.g., funding, human resources, expertise, etc.) do you think they need to effectively carry out quality assessments?

  2. 2. How do you think the standards and procedures used by HEIs could be revised in order to make them “fit for purpose” to monitor and evaluate the quality of their digital provision?

    1. a. What do you think are key areas for HEIs to monitor/evaluate to ensure minimum standards of quality are being met? (e.g. quality of teachers, student satisfaction, graduate outcomes, …?)

    2. b. What do you think would be useful procedures for HEIs to monitor/evaluate the quality of their courses, programmes, or teachers? (e.g. surveys, administrative data, self-assessments, …?)

    3. c. What are the main challenges experienced by HEIs for carrying out assessments of the quality of their online provision? What additional resources or supports do you think they would need in order to put in place effective quality assessments and enhancement practices?

  3. 3. Going beyond external and internal quality assurance, what other supports and incentives do you feel are important to put in place to support HEIs to improve the quality of digital higher education?

  4. 4. How do you think the higher education policy field (Ministry) can support the common framework for quality assurance in Hungarian higher education?

  5. 5. How can the current external and internal QA policies be improved, what measures are missing in your view?

D. Recommendations

  1. 1. What do you think would be helpful lines of recommendation for the OECD to develop as part of this project to help improve the quality of digital higher education in Hungary?

  2. 2. Are there any other questions or initiatives which have not been covered in the interview which you would like to draw the OECD’s attention to?

In March 2022, the OECD review team carried out virtual site visits to six HEIs in Hungary, as part of which a sample of instructors, students and administrators was interviewed in each institution. The purpose of these visits was the following:

  • Understand in greater depth the views and experiences of HEIs regarding: (1) the quality of digital provision in its online and hybrid forms as it is currently being offered by HEIs in Hungary; (2) key challenges or barriers experienced by current government regulation, external quality assurance standards and procedures for effectively managing the quality of their digital provision; and (3) supports or incentives at institutional, sectoral or national level deemed relevant to support HEIs to more effectively manage and continuously improve the quality of their digital provision;

  • Collect feedback on the key questions emerging from the analysis to date;

  • Identify examples of best practice and gaps across institutions in Hungary on how the quality of digital provision can be effectively monitored and supported;

  • Identify gaps across institutions in Hungary in terms of how they are currently monitoring and/or supporting the quality of their digital provision (in order to fill these gaps with relevant and targeted examples of international practice); and

  • Promote practice sharing and peer learning among HEI administrators, students, and instructors on the quality of their digital provision, and how it can or should be further improved.

Table A.3 presents an overview of the six HEIs that participated in the virtual site visit programme organised by the OECD review team in March 2022. The selected sample of HEIs is based on advice provided by KIM and MAB. Table A.4 presents the total number of higher education stakeholders interviewed by the OECD review team as part of the virtual site visits.

Table A.5 presents a template with sessions which HEIs were asked to prepare for the OECD review team’s virtual visit to their institution. In function of each HEI’s individual context, policies, and practices, some of the sessions proposed below were removed or replaced by other sessions or focus on areas deemed to be most relevant by the institution and OECD team.

Between 11 and 25 November 2022, the OECD review team invited a carefully selected number of higher education stakeholders (both international experts and experts from Hungary) to anonymously review and comment on an internal Consultation Document “Policy Options for Hungary to Assure the Quality of Digital Higher Education”, developed by the OECD review team. The feedback received from stakeholders on this document has been used to refine the findings and recommendations included in this report. The instructions shared with the stakeholders are presented in Box A.1 below.

On 18 November 2022, the OECD review team supported KIM to organise an online webinar to conclude the project “Supporting the Digital Transformation of Higher Education in Hungary”, which took place between July 2020 and October 2021, and introduce the new project “Ensuring quality digital higher education in Hungary”. The event aimed to:

  • Share the findings and recommendations of the digital transformation project;

  • Outline the objectives and methods of the quality assurance for digital higher education project;

  • Present the perspectives and current efforts of higher education stakeholders to support the digitalisation of Hungarian higher education.

Table A.6 presents the agenda for the event, which was organised via Zoom videoconference.

On 31 May 2022, the OECD team supported KIM to organise a public roundtable event on “Best Practices and New Policies for Digital Higher Education in Hungary”. The purpose of this event was to provide HEIs and key stakeholder organisations in Hungary with an opportunity to share and discuss:

  • best practices of higher education institutions with respect to managing and supporting quality digital higher education; and

  • how public policies and external quality assurance can support the offer of quality digital higher education by Hungarian higher education institutions.

Table A.7 presents the agenda for the national roundtable event, which was organised via Zoom videoconference and attended by 48 stakeholders from 21 different organisations.

On 14 June 2022, the OECD team organised an online conference on “International Quality Assurance Standards, Practices and Supports for Digital Higher Education”. The event was aimed at:

  • sharing international examples of best practice for the quality assurance of digital higher education with higher education stakeholders in Hungary; and

  • providing an opportunity to delegates from the OECD’s Group of National Experts for Higher Education (GNE-HE) to attend as observers and learn more about the quality assurance of digital higher education.

Table A.8 provides presents the agenda for the international event, which was organised via Zoom videoconference.

On 4 October 2022, the OECD supported the Hungarian Deputy State Secretariat for Higher Education at the Ministry of Culture and Innovation (KIM) and the Hungarian Accreditation Committee (MAB) in organising a one-day national roundtable. The roundtable event was hosted by Hungarian University of Sports Science. The purpose of this event was to:

  • present an initial diagnosis and discuss preliminary recommendations with key stakeholders from the higher education sector in Hungary about revisions to external QA standards, institutional quality management practices, and supports.

  • provide Hungarian HEIs and other stakeholders the opportunity to test, debate, validate or contest the OECD review team’s initial findings and diagnosis, and to provide expert feedback on the preliminary recommendations.

Table A.9 presents the agenda for the national roundtable event, which was organised in person in Budapest, Hungary and was attended by 51 stakeholders from 27 different organisations.

On 29 March 2023, the OECD team organised a final project conference in Györ (Hungary), hosted by Széchenyi István University (SZE), and organised in cooperation with KIM and MAB. The purpose of the conference was to:

  • share the findings and recommendations of the project with the higher education sector in Hungary;

  • discuss concrete steps on how to implement the project recommendations in Hungary.

Table A.10 presents the agenda for the final conference, as agreed between KIM and MAB in February 2023.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2023

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.