1 / 53

DoQup Training Seminar Alicante, 24-26 April 2013

DoQup Training Seminar Alicante, 24-26 April 2013. Organisation for the Quality Assurance of Institutions and Study Programmes Guillermo Bernabeu, University of Alicante. The context Spain: QA for HE A shared view on QA. The Context. From Berlin Communique

tekli
Télécharger la présentation

DoQup Training Seminar Alicante, 24-26 April 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DoQupTraining SeminarAlicante, 24-26 April 2013 Organisation for the Quality Assurance of Institutions and Study Programmes Guillermo Bernabeu, University of Alicante

  2. The context • Spain: QA for HE • A shared view on QA

  3. The Context

  4. From Berlin Communique We adopt the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area as proposed by ENQA. We commit ourselves to introducing the proposed model for peer review of quality assurance agencies on a national basis, while respecting the commonly accepted guidelines and criteria. We underline the importance of cooperation between nationally recognized agencies with a view to enhancing the mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance decisions.

  5. Spain: QA for HE

  6. THE SPANISH AGENDA The Spanish Context: Timing Initial steps in 2003 with a position paper from the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (six different ministers ...). ECTS credits and Diploma Supplement introduced very early (2003). QA for Spanish HE (or ANECA) defined in 2002. A modification of the Spanish Universities Law introduced in 2007. (Too) long discussion about the BMD structure: Catalogue versus Register, 3 or 4 years for Bachelors, ... . Different Royal Decrees regulating the BMD structure … were … published in 2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011. Degree Structure and Study Programmes “kick-off” ended in 2010.

  7. THE SPANISH AGENDA The Spanish Context: Space Public universities funding in Spain is regional based while HE regulation is a competence of the national authorities. University autonomy is in the Spanish Constitution. 78 universities (50+28), 17 autonomous regions, 1.500.000 students at Spanish Universities, ... ANECA, 4 QA regional agencies in ENQA&EQAR, 6 QA regional agencies, … .

  8. Higher Education Spanish System • EVALUATION EX-ANTE: VERIFICATION • FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURE • Public information • Outcomes • indicators • ACCREDITATION (after 4 or 6 years) • Fulfillment

  9. A ACREDITA Quality Assurance RUCT SIIU

  10. Accreditation System in Spain Ex-ante accreditation STAGE 1 Verificación • To verify that the design of the study programme includes the criteria established by the Ministry whose interpretation and application is made by ANECA. • A public report is delivered by ANECA.

  11. Higher Education Spanish System

  12. Accreditation Process in Spain EX-ANTE ACCRED. 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEGREE 2. JUSTIFICATION BM 3. LEARNING OUTCOMES 4. STUDENT ENTRY AND ADMISSION RD 1393/8 (Modif. 861/2010) sets out how the report shlod be requested for the verification of Official Degrees 5. PROGRAMME PLANNING 6. ACADEMIC STAFF 7. RESOURCES AND SERVICES 8. ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES 9. INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM 10. IMPLEMENTATION AGENDA

  13. Evaluation Criteria • 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEGREE • Each degree design must include a description that is adequate and consistent with the level and/or academic validity so there is no confusion concerning its content or, where applicable, qualification for professional purposes. • 2. JUSTIFICATION • Each degree design must be relevant in terms of the corresponding learning and/or research experience, be appropriate to the academic field that it refers to and/or comply with other similar existing studies. • In the case of the Master’s, external equivalents with studies in other countries may be provided. • In the case of the Master’s, justification must be provided for the research, academic or professional orientation of the programme. • In the case of a Master’s with a professional or research orientation, the design must refer to the situation of R+D and innovation in the professional sector.

  14. Evaluation Criteria • 3. COMPETENCES • The competences to be acquired by students must be consistent with those required in order for the degree to be awarded and the qualifications stablished in the EHEA. Consequently, these competences must be assessable and consistent with the corresponding level of the Bachelor or Master’s degree. • 4. STUDENT ENTRY AND ADMISSION. • The degree programme must have accessible systems that regulate and provide clear information on the different means of entry, admission and new student orientation. • In the case of Master’s degrees, in addition to the envisaged entrance exams, state the body that is responsible for admissions, together with the applicable procedures and requirements.

  15. Evaluation Criteria • 5. PROGRAMME PLANNING. • The programme of studies must constitute a proposal for study that has been designed in a coordinated way and takes into consideration the student’s dedication within a given period of time and the competences to be acquired in the degree proposal. • In the case of a Master’s degree with a professional orientation, the approach given to adequate professional practice will be of special importance, as well as collaboration agreements with private enterprise and other institutions for this practice. • 6. ACADEMIC STAFF. • Teaching staff and other support human resources in each degree must be adequate in order for the general aims and competences envisaged in the degree design to be achieved. • 7. MATERIAL RESOURCES AND SERVICES. • Material resources and services that are necessary for the development of the envisaged activities must be adequate for the envisaged aims and competences in the programme of studies to be achieved.

  16. Evaluation Criteria • 8. EXPECTED RESULTS • The degree design must include the anticipated outcomes in connection with the degree's efficiency and the general mechanisms for assessing the learning outcomes of the students.

  17. Evaluation Criteria GRADUATION RATE: the percentage of students who complete the course in the time envisaged in the programme of study (d) or take one year longer (d+1) in relation to their entrant cohort. This gives a measure of overall academic performance. DROP OUT RATE: the percentage relation between the total number of students in a new entry cohort who should have obtained the degree the year before who neither registered this year nor the year before. In the case of one year Master’s programmes, the following definition shall be applied: percentage relationship between the total number of students in a new entry cohort that should have obtained their degree the previous academic year and that did not enrol in either that academic year or the subsequent one. EFFICIENCY RATE: the percentage relation between the total number of credits in the programme of study and the total number of credits in which the group of graduated students in a particular academic year had to enrol in throughout their studies.

  18. Evaluation Criteria • 9. QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM • The degree design must include an internal quality assurance system that ensures the control, review and continuous enhancement of the programme. • Specify the body or unit in charge of the quality assurance system for the programme of study (structure and composition), together with the internal rules of procedure. Details must be provided in this section on how participation in this body by teaching staff, students, academic managers, support staff and external stakeholders is organized. • Establish how the development of the programme of study is to be reviewed (aims, competences, planning, etc.) through the application of adequate mechanisms and procedures applied periodically for gathering and analysing information on: • The quality of the programme and the teaching staff. • The quality of placement/work experience and mobility programmes. • Graduate employment and degree satisfaction. • The satisfaction of the different groups involved (students, academic staff and administration and services staff, etc.) and the attention paid to suggestions and complaints. AUDIT

  19. Evaluation Criteria • QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM • Have adequate and systematic mechanisms and procedures for decision- making that ensure the enhancement of the programme of study. These should include: • The quality of the programme and the teaching staff. • The quality of placement/work experience and mobility programmes. • These mechanisms and procedures must at least provide for who is in charge, the way that decisions are made and follow-up of decisions that are made. • Define the criteria that establish the limits whereby the degree is finally suspended. A procedure needs to be established beforehand that describes the system set up to define these criteria in the institution/university, together with its review, approval and periodic updating. • Establish mechanisms to publish the information on the programme of study, its development and outcomes, and for this to be sent to all those involved and/or interested (students, teaching staff, support staff, prospective students, external stakeholders, etc.).

  20. Evaluation Criteria • 10. SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE DEGREE • The process of introducing new degree programmes must be planned in terms of a schedule, and there will need to be a mechanism, where applicable, to help students from existing courses to adapt to the new programme of study.

  21. Evaluation Procedures • Evaluation ex-ante (verification) • Evaluations Commissions for Bachelor/Master/Doctorate and for the five tematic areas: Arts and Humanities, Sciences, Health, Social Sciences and Law and Engineering and Architecture. • Global Commissions for Bachelor/Master/Doctorate • Cooperation with regional agencies (those in ENQA)

  22. Evaluation Procedures • Evaluation ex-ante (verification) • Evaluations Commissions for Bachelor/Master/Doctorate and for the five tematic areas: Arts and Humanities, Sciences, Health, Social Sciences and Law and Engineering and Architecture. • Global Commissions for Bachelor/Master/Doctorate • Cooperation with regional agencies (those in ENQA)

  23. Accreditation System in Spain Follow-up procedure STAGE 2 Seguimiento • To check, by non-intrusive means, that the institution is implementing the study programme according to the approved design.

  24. Legal Framework RD 1393/2007 (modif. RD 861/2010), art. 27.2 dice: "Once initiated the implementation of programmes related to the official degrees of the University Register, and RUCT degrees, ANECA or assessment bodies that the autonomous communities determine, the project monitoring will be carried out by the University Council. " "To this end, the ANECA and corresponding assessment bodies, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and the corresponding Autonomous Communities jointly develop a protocol that will include defining minimum common core criteria and indicators for monitoring procedure curricula. "

  25. Legal Framework • AVAP which implements the university quality assessment in the Valencian Community, is in charge of performing the functions described in Article 27.2 of Royal Decree 861/2010 cited above, to develop a protocol that will include defining a minimum common core criteria and indicators for the monitoring procedure curriculum. • Resolution of December 15th 2010, the president of the AVAP, by adopting the Track Protocol for official degrees in the Valencian Community. • Completed by Document Development Monitoring Protocol

  26. Sistema de Garantía Interna de Calidad A general view Verification Tracking AVAP PROTOCOL Curriculum Development Implantation DEGREES Acreditation Quality Assurance System continuous improvement

  27. Understand the importance of tracking the official titles of the University • Analyze the aspects involved in monitoring • Understand the importance of having unified all the information involved in the Monitoring

  28. 2008, one center participated in the AUDIT program, ANECA (Faculty of Philosophy and Letters) • ANECA Certificate 16/09/2009 • Implanted in the Centre during the year 2009/2010 • 2010, participe with the rest of the UA Centres • ANECA Certificates 14/01/2011 • Implanted in the Centre during the year 2011/2012 • Prepare reports to be sent to verify all degrees and masters of the UA • Including in the corresponding paragraph 9 of the AUDITprogram procedures

  29. AVAP presents its protocol for monitoring the qualifications (year 2010/11) • Experimentally participated with two masters of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters • 2011/2012 we participated with 5 and 2 Masters Degrees and the internal track of 2 Masters that participated the previous year

  30. Set the framework for quality of the centers, whose composition and functions are set out in Chapter 3 of SGIC: Center Management Team Faculty or School Board Quality Commission Quality Coordinator Improvement Groups Qualification Commission (Document support for application verification degrees (Masters) in UA)

  31. AUDIT Review What is AUDIT? A support tool for universities main mission is that universities incorporate continuous improvement strategies, develop and control their actions, revised and redefined to achieve some purposes consistent with the requirements of quality that marks the European Higher Education Area AIM: to support and enhance development and implementation of Internal Quality Assurance Systems in all faculties and universities in Spain.

  32. AUDIT

  33. AUDIT Review • OBJETIVES: • Facilitate the development and implementation of quality systems • Implement a procedure leading to the recognition of such systems • Contribute to the improvement of the quality of academic programs • Give a step towards the construction of a European Quality Space

  34. AUDIT Review tells us what to do tells us how to do it Quality Manual Procedures Manual Other documents (DOCENTIA, POI, PEUA, etc.) Records

  35. AUDIT Review CONTENTS OF A QUALITY MANUAL STRATEGIC PROCESSES: PE

  36. What is AUDIT? KEY PROCESSES : PC SUPPORT PROCESSES : PA MEASUREMENT PROCESSES : PM

  37. AVAP Monitoring • December 2010, publication of the resolution establishing what will follow in the universities of the Valencian Community

  38. AVAP Monitoring • OBJETIVES: • Ensure effective implementation of the teaching following the curriculum title. • Ensure public availability of information to different stakeholders. • Identify any weaknesses in the development of lessons and analyze the actions taken for correction. • Provide recommendations for improvement in the implementation of the curriculum. • Demonstrate progress in the development of the title for the Internal Quality Assurance System (SIGC) as regards both the review of the implementation of the curriculum and the proposed actions to improve its design and implementation. • Identify best practices for dissemination in the university system

  39. AVAP Monitoring STRUCTURE OF PROCEDURE: Universities elaborate an annual report tracking each new title implanted. AVAP constitutes evaluation committees (integrated by renowned academics, EHEA experts and university students) to analyze the reports and other public information. AVAP issues individual reports (biennial) to be sent to the universities. Universities, if necessary, claim for interim reports. AVAP issues final reports tracking each title to be sent to the universities, Ministry and University Council. AVAP will publish a global report of the total qualifications tracking and universities of the Valencian Community

  40. AVAP Monitoring CRITERIA FOR MONITORING: Information for the society and future students Information on the development and operation of title Upgrades / modifications of the curriculum Recommendations made in the external evaluation reports Assessing the implementation of the Internal Quality Assurance System (SIGC) Evaluation of indicators

  41. AVAP Monitoring Information for the society and future students Aspects to evaluate Criterion 1 • Description of the title, general and specific skills e. • Training schedule. • If present, specify the profession of the degree (only in the case of a degree linked to a regulated profession) • Regulations for permanency. • Rules of recognition and credit transfer. • Admission Profile (access and admission requirements for the degree, special entrance tests) • Pre-registration information (documents to be submitted, deadlines, etc.) • ANECA verification report and AVAP report and recommendations. Criterion 2 Criterion 3 F03-PC05 F04-PC05 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6

  42. AVAP Monitoring Information on the development and operation of title Aspects to evaluate Criterion 1 • Availability and adequacy of the guidelines • Scheduling of teaching including the structure of the curriculum, schedules, classrooms. • List of staff teaching subjects / courses indicating the teaching category. • Form in which takes place the end of the old plan and the implementation of adaptive courses. • External information practices and the end of work studies • Student mobility (mobility organization by title, centers, exchange programs) • Commitments to obtain title competence (qualification procedure in order to assess the progress and results of student learning). Criterion 2 Criterion 3 F03-PC05 F04-PC05 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6

  43. AVAP Monitoring Criterion 1 Upgrades / modifications of the curriculum Criterion 2 Aspects to evaluate • The amendments are based on objective and previously analyzed information by the management bodies of the title. • The substantial changes that have occurred have been reported to the University Council for assessment. • The information that changes as a result of the amendments to the title has been implemented in the corresponding website. Criterion 3 F03-PC05 F04-PC05 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6

  44. AVAP Monitoring Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 F03-PC05 F04-PC05 Recommendations made in the external evaluation reports Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Aspects to evaluate • Actions that have been developed with the recommendations proposed in the Verification Report and where issued, if the AVAP. • Actions that follow the recommendations of the monitoring reports of AVAP. Criterion 6

  45. AVAP Monitoring Internal Rating System of Quality Assurance Aspects to evaluate Criterion 1 • SIGC Development, in relation to the qualification monitored and report submitted to the program • Development of the mechanisms used to: • improving the quality of teaching and teachers. • internships and mobility programs. • measuring the labor market and the satisfaction of graduates. • measure the satisfaction of the various stakeholders involved in the title • attention to suggestions and complaints. • Compliance with the criteria for termination of title. • Improvement actions developed from the analysis of the results. • Making decisions on curriculum development based on SGIC. Criterion 2 Criterion 3 F03-PC05 F04-PC05 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6

  46. AVAP Monitoring Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Indicator evaluation Criterion 3 F03-PC05 F04-PC05 Aspects to evaluate Criterion 4 • Rate of Return of Title (CURSA) • Title Dropout rate (CURSA) • Efficiency rate of graduates (CURSA) • Graduation rate title (CURSA) • Enrollment ratio (AVAP) • Rate of supply and demand (AVAP) • PDI rate with a doctoral degree (AVAP) • Full time PDI Rate (AVAP) Criterion 5 Criterion 6

  47. Degree verification memory Claims / recommendations AVAP Performance reports Satisfaction reports Service satisfaction reports SGIC Interest groups satisfaction reports F01-PM01 F02-PM01 Indicators evaluation F01-PC05 F02-PC05 Recommendations External evaluations reports AVAP Monitoring Criterion 1: Information for the society and future students Criterion 2: Information on the development and operation of title Criterion 3: Upgrades/ modifications of the curriculum F03-PC05 F04-PC05 Criterion 4: Recommendations made in the external evaluation reports Criterion 5: Internal Rating System of Quality Assurance Criterion 6:Indicator evaluation

  48. Monitoring PC05 modification • Modify the PC05. Monitoring and improving qualifications • OBJETIVE • Establish the process by which the Centers of the UA held the annual monitoring of official titles, according to memory and verified with respect to the monitoring requirements for proper accreditation according to RD 1393/2007, RD 861/2010 and Resolution of 15 December 2010 of the AVAP, to prepare the annual monitoring report for each of their titles.

  49. Monitoring Workflow • Set different tasks involved in tracking and qualifications in the review and improvement of the system of internal quality assurance • Qualification Coordinator • Quality Center Coordinator • UTC • Vice President with responsibility for Quality • Governing Council • AVAP (established by monitoring protocol)

More Related