OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen

1. 1 EUROPOS SĄJUNGA Europos socialinis fondas MYKOLO ROMERIO UNIVERSITETAS Quality Assurance in Education at TUT: from Curriculum Design to Student Feedback OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

2. 2 Basis of Quality Assurance in University Education in Finland QA in Education in Europe 1. Quality Audit approach 2. Accreditation approach 3. ”Third” approach (combination of the previous two or something different) Finnish line of action: Complementing ”number 3” (Universities and Degree Programmes governed by legislation) with ”number 1” (compulsory audit of University’s quality assurance system by Finnish Higher Education Council) Division of responsibilities over quality of education: 1. Publicly funded higher education instutitions are steered by the Ministry of Education. 2. The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) is responsible for evaluating the quality of education and other activities in higher education institutions. 3. The higher education institutions bear the main responsibility for the quality of their activies. OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

3. 3 FINHEEC Quality Assurance System Audit (I) Audit procedure, which  evaluates how the HEI's quality assurance system works as a quality management and improvement tool  evaluates the quality assurance system with regard to the audit criteria, to highlight strengths and best practices, to give development recommendations for improving quality assurance  decides whether the HEI passes the audit or whether the quality assurance system requires a re-audit at a later date Evaluation based on 1. documentation for auditing purposes (mainly existing documentation and materials concerning the institutional aims, procedures, division of work in quality assurance: Evidence & Examples) 2. two or three-day site-visit by the audit group (individual and group interviews, observations, demonstrations) OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

4. 4 FINHEEC Quality Assurance System Audit (II) Auditing targets: 1. Objectives, overall structure and internal coherence of the QAS 2. Documentation and the definition of procedures, actors and responsibilities 3. Comprehensiveness of quality assurance: • Degree education • Research/R&D • Interaction with and impact on society, and contribution toregional development • Support and other services (such as library and information services, career and recruitment services, and international services) • Staff development 4. Participation of staff, students and external stakeholders in QA 5. Interface between the QAS and management/steering 6. Relevance of, and access to, QA information within the HEI 7. Relevance of, and access to, QA information for external stakeholders 8. Efficiency of QA procedures and structures and their effect on the development of activities 9. Use of information produced by the QAS as a tool for quality management and enhancement in education and other activities 10.Monitoring, evaluation and continuous development of the QAS OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

5. 5 Tampere University of Technology •Established in 1965 •The second largest university of technology in Finland •12,400 students (2006) • 10 500 undergraduates • 1 900 postgraduates •14 Degree Programmes • 13 in engineering • 1 in architecture •7 international Master’s Programmes OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

6. 6 Quality Assurance in Tampere University of Technology (1) Present Future Quality Assurance System: -Knowledge about present state and ideal state -Tools, information systems, processes, instructions and other systems supporting quality management Activity Optimal activity Planning Management OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

7. 7 Quality Assurance in Tampere University of Technology (2) • No standardised quality assurance system but ”our way to operate” • Long tradition in using information technology in education and operation • Student intranet HAAVI and staff intranet TUTKA • Oinfo (electronic tools for course and exam enrollment) • HOPS (information system for constructing a personal study plan) • KAIKU (electronic tool for collecting feedback about courses) • OPSU (information system for constructing the curricula on degree, study module and course levels) • Learning platforms A&O and Moodle • In the follow up processes the emphasis is shifting gradually from quantitative to also qualitative direction • Self-assessment practices for departments (self-assessment matrix, internal audit) • Development discussions and performance evaluations for staff   TUT passed the FINHEEC Quality Assurance System Audit in 2006 OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

8. 8 Quality Assurance in Education at Tampere University of Technology vs. ENQA-guidelines ENQA guideline QA at TUT 1.1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance Quality policies for education, research, societal interaction and support functions 1.2. Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards Yearly approval process of degree programmes, study modules and courses with the help of OPSU system. 1.3. Assessment of students Published assessment criteria of thesis work exists to some respect, many teachers publish their marking criteria to students. Systematic complaint procedures. 1.4. Quality assurance of teaching staff Pedagogical training and educational support for teachers. Using of portfolios in teacher recruitment. 1.5. Learning resources and student support Faculties have study advisors and academic study-coordinators. University has a study psychologist and three general study advisors. 1.6. Information systems A collective report tool for collecting and presenting statistical ”on-line” information on educational matters in use since 2006. Information system for collecting student feedback. The collection of tools from student viewpoint (”personally tailored student portal”) coming up soon 1.7. Public information Information about the programmes and awards is published yearly in study quides, internet and yearly reports. OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

9. 9 Quality Assurance in TUT Education Responsibilities: •Students •Teachers •Departments •Faculties •Education council •University board Documents: •Intranets •Internet •Study guides •Information systems •Development plans & strategies Education ACT PLAN Degree programme Study Course module Tools: •Information systems •Instructions •Meetings and working groups •Assessment tools Framework: •Legislation •Contracts •Student wellbeing CHECK DO OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

10. 10 PDCA-tools in Education: course level PLAN DO CHECK ACT •OPSU (IS for curriculum design) •”Departments’ handbook” •Learning platforms •Student intranet •Courses’ webpages •KAIKU (Course feedback system) •Development plans and projects •”Counter- feedback” Information systems, documents, tools •Using of OPSU •Delays in grading exams •Using of KAIKU •”general grade” from students Measuring possibilities •Teacher responsible for a course •Teacher responsible for a course •”KAIKU- responsibe” •Teacher responsible for a course •Course’s teaching staff Responsible actors •Course’s teaching staff OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

11. 11 PDCA-tools in Education: module level PLAN DO CHECK ACT •OPSU (IS for curriculum design) •Department’s teaching philosophy •Thesis supervision process •Guide for thesis writing •KAIKU (institutional summary) •Self assessment matrix Information systems, documents, tools •Department’s development plans and projects •Using of OPSU •Existence of the Department’s teaching philosophy (I/O) •Self assessment (I/O) •Summary of course feedback Measuring possibilities •Head of Department •Thesis supervisors •Academic study coordinators •Head of Department •Department’s quality group •Head of Department •Department’s quality group Responsible actors OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

12. 12 PDCA-tools in Education: degree level PLAN DO CHECK ACT •OPSU (IS for curriculum design) •Study guidance •Personal study plan - process •Working life feedback •Enquiry for graduates Information systems, documents, tools •Faculty’s or degree programme’s development plans and projects •Using of OPSU •(Duration of studies) •Graduate satisfaction Measuring possibilities •Dean •Faculty council •Academic study coordinators •Study advisors •Dean •Head of degree programme Responsible actors OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

13. 13 PDCA-tools in Education: university level PLAN DO CHECK ACT •Curriculum design process •OPSU (IS for curriculum design) •Recruitment processes •Study psychology •Career councelling •Student mobility services •Study progress follow-up project •Working life feedback •Statistic repository Information systems, documents, tools •University’s development plans and projects •Pedagogical training for teachers •Student satisfaction •Study progress follow-up •Participation in pedagogical training Measuring possibilities •University board •Education council •Student services •Student services •Study psychologist •Quality group in education •Quality group in education •Education council •Student services •Education council Responsible actors OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

14. 14 PDCA-tools in Education: students’ view PLAN DO CHECK ACT •Personal study plan system •Student intranet •Guide for thesis writing •”Study-skills” information •Study Guides •Courses’ homepages •Assessment and evaluation from teacher and peers •Personal study plan system •Grades and feedback •Personal study plan system •Study guidance •Career councelling •Study psychology Information systems, documents, tools •University board •Education council •Student services •Student services •Study advisors •Teaching staff •Academic study coordinators •Study advisors •Teaching staff •Academic study coordinators •Study advisors •Teaching staff •Study psychologist Help and guidance available OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

15. 15 Lessons learned regarding Quality Assurance University is the primary customer of University’s QAS • The QAS has to be put up, developed and maintained so that it benefits the students and staff • People are genuinely interested in enhancing quality if they are given the means ”Check” has to be followed by an ”Act” • There’s no use for gathering information if it is not used for improvement • Making excuses is easy, making changes is much harder Let’s stop doing things in ”passive format” • Every task has to have a person in charge • Responsibilities have to be accompanied with enthusiasm, envolvement and influence   even distribution of responsibilities and active envolvement of everybody OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020

16. 16 Questions and comments? Thank you for your attention! Questions and comments are very welcome also afterwards: johanna.naukkarinen@tut.fi OPAL/Johanna Naukkarinen 6.1.2020