A.ΔΙ.Π.
ΑΡΧΗ ΔΙΑΣΦΑΛΙΣΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΙΣΤΟΠΟΙΗΣΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ
ΣΤΗΝ ΑΝΩΤΑΤΗ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ / HELLENIC REPUBLIC
H.Q.A.
HELLENIC QUALITY ASSURANCE
AND ACCREDITATION AGENCY
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTION INTERNAL REPORT
(SPECIAL TEMPLATE FOR THE HOU)
May 2014
ΛΕΩΦΟΡΟΣ ΣΥΓΓΡΟΥ 44117 42 ΑΘΗΝΑ / 44 SYGROU AVENUE
11742 ATHENS, GREECE
CONTENTS
PROLOGUE
I. COMPENDIUM OF THE INSTITUTION BEING EVALUATED
II. INTERNAL QUALITY EVALUATION SYSTEM
III. DATA AND INDICES ON THE
OPERATION OF THE HEI’S CENTRAL SERVICES
IV. COMPOSITE TABLES OF COLLECTED DATA OF THE HEI’S ACADEMIC UNITS
V. STRUCTURE, PROCEDURES, PUBLICATIONS AND HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM
PROLOGUE
The procedures for the evaluation and accreditation of HEIs must serve the basic principles of quality assurance, which have been codified by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)[1] and which have been accepted throughout the European Higher Education Area.These principles are analysed in detail in the first part of the ENQA’s guidelines, entitled European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education(ESG).[2] For the needs of the proposed evaluation of the HEIs, these standards have been specialised and analysed by the HQA in its publication Institutional Evaluation and accreditation of the Internal System of Quality Assurance in Education - Foreword, which takes into consideration the 2014 review of the ESG.
The proposed template for the Institutional Evaluation Report is based on the aforementioned analysis. It was created to help the writers of the Institution’s Internal Evaluation Report prepare the data that would enable the independent experts evaluate the role and prospects of the Institution as well as the regulations of the Quality Assurance System that was developed and is applied in the Institution being evaluated, with the responsibility and on the initiative of its QAU.
It should be recalled that the preparation of an Institution’s Internal Evaluation Report to a great degree presupposes the completion of the Internal Evaluation of the Academic Units. It is expected that the comments, observations and recommendations of the external evaluators contained in the reports will become reference points for initiatives and activities that the QAU has undertaken or proposes to undertake as part of its mission for the assurance and improvement of quality throughout the Institution.
The Internal Report is comprised of the following 5 Units:
- Compendium of the Evaluated Institution.
- Internal Quality Assurance System.
- Data and Indices on the operations of the HEI’s central services.
- Composite tables of collected data on the HEI’s Departments and Schools.
- Structure, Procedures, Publications and Handbook of the Internal Quality Assurance System.
In units I and II, in addition to numerical data, qualitative facts about the Institution are also sought in the form of questions. The answers to these questions must be brief, comprehensive and relate directly to the corresponding question. Accreditation of the internal quality assurance system (when it happens) will be based on the entirety of the HEI’s Internal Evaluation Report and will be quantified for the final report, according to the contents of Unit II, for which a space limit has been set in accordance with the size of the HEI, which we request that you keep to. The Institution’s QAU is also asked to ensure the correct completion of the corresponding model of the Internal Evaluation Report in English. The Tables in Chapter III may be adapted to the structure of the services of the Institution’s central administration.
I. COMPENDIUM OF THE INSTITUTION BEING EVALUATED
(Unit Ι gives general information and a general description of the programmes of study offered by the Institution)
HEI: ……………………………………………………………………………
CAMPUS: …………………………………………………………………………..
Number of Schools:
Total number of Departments:
Total number of postgraduate programmes:
Number of students:
Iα. GENERAL TABLEAcademic year / Current year (C)* / C-1 / C-2 / C-3 / C-4
- Total number of teaching and research staff
- Total number of other teaching staff in equivalent full-time employment
- Total number of administrative staff
- Total number of undergraduate students in regular years of study (ν x 2)
- Places offered by the Institution (total number)
- Total number of new students in the Institution (all categories)
- Total number of undergraduate entrants
- Total number of graduates of the Institution
- Number of places on postgraduate programmes offered by the Institution (total number)
- Total number of applications for postgraduate programmes
- Total number of doctoral students
- Total budget (€)
- Total Public Investment Programme budget (€)
- Total Special Account for Research Funds (€)
- Total Research and Development funds
- Minimum number of Departments per School
*The current year is the most recent completed academic year (two continuous academic semesters).
Ib. GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE INSTITUTION
A. The internal evaluation procedureThis Unit includes a brief description, analysis and critical evaluation of the internal evaluation procedure implemented by the Institution as well as any suggestions for its improvement.
A.1. Description and analysis of the Institution’s internal evaluation procedure.
- What was the composition of the QAU?
- With whom and how has the QAU collaborated for the preparation of the report?
- Which sources and procedures were used for collecting information?
- How and to what extent was the report discussed in the Institution’s bodies?
A.2. Analysis of the positive data and difficulties presented during the internal evaluation procedure.
A.3. Proposals by the Institution for improving the procedure.
B. Presentation of the Institution
This Unit provides a comprehensive presentation of the institution and the main parameters of its operations.
B.1. Geographical location of the Institution (give all the locations with the corresponding facilities and academic units of the Institution).
B.2. History of the Institution’s development
B.2.1. Recruitment of the Institution’s teaching, administrative and laboratory staff over the past five years. Comment.
B.2.2. Number and distribution of students according to level of studies (undergraduate, postgraduate, doctoral) over the past five years. Comment, with particular reference to students who abandon their studies and those who do not progressfor a long period of time ( > ν+2).
B.3. Mission and goals of the Institution
B.3.1. What are the mission and goals of the Institution?
B.3.2. How are the Institution’s strategic goals analysed in terms of the individual goals of its academic units (Schools and Departments)?
B.3.3. How does the institution aim to achieve its goals even when conditions deter or inhibit this effort? Note these factors.
B.3.4. Are the Institution’s goals achieved? How does the Institution monitor this?
B.3.5. Assess the Institution’s ability to adapt within a constantly changing environment, as regards its continuous improvement.
B.4. Academic sizes of the Institution over the past five years
B.4.1 Member of the teaching and research staff per Department (analysis #1, General Table)
B.4.2 Other teaching staff per Department (analysis #2, General Table)
B.4.3 Students per Department: Undergraduates, Postgraduates, Doctoral (analysis #8, General Table)
B.4.4 Ration of students (#8) per member of faculty (#1) and per teacher (#1+#2) per Department
C. Administration of the Institution and Development Strategy
C.1.Organisational development strategy
(i) Administrative bodies of the Institution (foreseen or not by the legislation, such as support/ counselling, which have been established). For each body give its composition, as well as the expected and actual participation of students in it.
(ii) Organisations and regulations of the Institution. Describe the level of uniformity in the Institution, mention the main responsibilities that have been transferred to Schools/Departments.
(iii) Specific goals and timetables
C.2. Academic development strategy
(i) Undergraduate studies. Organisation of the Institution into Schools and Departments. Does this organisation respond to today’s concept of the Institution and its mission?
(ii) Postgraduate studies
(iii) Specific goals and timetables
(iv) Measures for implementing these goals
C.3. Research strategy
(i) Main axes of research development
(ii) Specific goals and timetables
(iii) Measures for implementing these goals
(iv) How are any difficulties that arise from the limits to laboratory infrastructure dealt with
C. 4. Financial planning
(i) General principles of managing national funds
(ii) Codification of the operational expenses of the regular budget
(iii) Codification of public investment programme
(iv) Payroll data
(v) Company managing the Institution’s assets
C.5. Describe how the natural size and breadth of the arrangement of the HEI into Schools and Departments responds to its development needs. Comment on divergences from a typical model, e.g. minimum number of 3 Schools per HEI and 3 Departments per School.
C.6.How do you aim to strengthen the position of your Institution in the future (collaborations with other HEIs, interaction between Schools, etc.). What activities have already been undertaken in this direction?
C.7.Do you believe that the time teaching staff spend in the physical presence of the students is sufficient? Is there a procedure for modifying this time if necessary?
C.8. Analyse the total number of weeks per year (52) according to weeks of main educational processes, examinations of all kinds, other activities, vacations.
D. Programmes of Study
In this unit the Institution is invited to critically analyse and evaluate the quality of its programmes of study (undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral), taking into account the External Evaluation Report/accreditation for each programme and the Institution’s special research units.
For each programme the following points must be responded to and commented on:
(a) What, in the opinion of the institution, are the main positive and negative points of the programmes? Comprehensive mention the main obligations of students.
(b) Which opportunities for capitalising upon the positive points and which potential dangers from the negative points has the Institution identified?
(c) How does the Institution’s administration deal with any observations and recommendations made by the external experts in the External Evaluation Report/Accreditation of the Institution’s individual academic units? Give a timetable for responding to any weaknesses.
(d) Date of the last major review of the programmes of study.
D.1. Undergraduate Programmes
School A –
D.2. Postgraduate Programmes
School A –
D.3. Doctoral Programmes
School A –
D.4. For each programme of study, provide evidence that it corresponds to the academic level and degree title awarded.
D.5. How do you assess the communication between students and faculty? Note any problems.
II. INTERNAL QUALITY EVALUATION SYSTEM
(Unit II is comprised of 10 criteria, each of which is divided into specific questions. Please give brief, comprehensive answers that relate directly to the question. References should also be given to the corresponding procedures, publications, etc. In Chapter V. The completed text of Chapter II should not exceed 30-40 pages, according to the size of the HEI.)
- Quality Assurance policy and strategy (QA)
1.1 What is the Institution’s policy for quality assurance and improvement and which objective goals arise from this policy?
1.2 Where can an official publicised statement regarding this policy be found, along with an analytical description of the procedures and means by which it is implemented and monitored?
1.3 Has the Institution developed a specific QA system?
1.4 How is the Institution’s internal QA system organised?
1.5 How is the Institution’s strategy for QA and the high level of studies and titles awarded determined?
1.6 How are the axes of development and improvements in the quality of education defined?
1.7 Where can the stated policy on issues of academic freedom, academic ethics (including plagiarism) and similar procedures be found?
1.8 Where can a regulatory framework (jurisdiction of the disciplinary and administrative bodies of the Institution) for the investigation of disciplinary and academic misconduct (including procedures and rules for appeals against decisions) be found?
1.9 How are the Institution’s students and staff protected against bias and discrimination?
1.10 The Institution’s QA policy and system:
- have been officially approved? By which authorities?
- have been made known to all the teaching staff in the Institution?
1.12 How are responsibilities regarding QA divided among the individual bodies (School, Departments, other organisational or administrative units) and units?
1.13 What is the role of students in QA?
1.14 Do other stakeholders participate in the QA, aside from the academic community?
1.15 How does the Institution evaluate the effectiveness of the QA system in achieving its goals?
1.16 How is the Institution’s QA policy monitored and reviewed with the goal of the continuous improvement of the quality of education offered?
- Design, ratification, monitoring and periodic review of the programmes of study and awarded titles.
2.1 Do all the programmes of study have clearly stated and publicised learning outcomes? How does the Institution ensure this?
2.2 How are learning outcomes achieved?
2.3 Is there a published Handbook on the organisation of the programmes of study? What exactly does it contain?
2.4 What is the official procedure for approving a programme of study? Is there effective participation of all the bodies in this procedure, which operate outside of the framework of the academic unit to which the programme belongs?
2.5 How is the design of the programmes of study and content of the courses controlled and monitored? Is the ECTS system taken into account and applied?
2.6 Do central procedures for the monitoring and checking of student progress and achievement exist and are they applied?
2.7 Is the regular, periodic evaluation of the programmes of study with predetermined procedures and criteria foreseen, so as to ensure their continuous association and relevance? Do the evaluation committees contain external members?
2.8 Is regular feedback foreseen from employers, labour market representatives and other similar organisations associated with the professional employment of graduates?
2.9 Do students participate in the QA procedures for programmes of study?
2.10 How does the Institution’s administration deal with the observations and recommendations made by the external experts in the External Evaluation Reports of the Institution’s individual academic unitsin relation to the programme of studies?
2.11 How does the Institution ensure that all programmes of study correspond to the level of the programme and the title awarded?
2.12 How does the programme of study correspond with similar ones abroad?
2.13 How is the need to retain the programme of study in question assessed?
- Education, teaching and evaluation of students
3.1 Where is a clearly stated code of the rights and obligations of students published?
3.2 Are diverse yet coherent learning paths, depending on student needs, foreseen in the academic units of your Institution? Describe them.
3.3 What is the role of the academic units in relation to the above two obligations of students?
3.4 Are different ways of communicating/teaching used when needed in the academic units of your Institution? Describe them.
3.5 In what way are students offered suitable guidance and support from the teaching staff in the academic units of your Institution?
3.6 How are the procedures and methods for evaluating students in the academic units of your Institution selected?
3.7 How is the consistency of evaluation, equal application to all students and the strict maintenance of predetermined procedures ensured in the academic units of your Institution?
3.8 Are students informed clearly and in detail of the evaluation strategy implemented for their programme of study, to which exams and other methods of assessment they will be subjected, what is expected from them and which criteria will be implemented in order to assess their performance? How is publication of this information monitored?
3.9 Are there clear rules for the monitoring and weighing of absences, illnesses and other special conditions in the academic units of your Institution?
3.10 Is, as far as possible, the evaluation by more than one evaluator an aim of the academic units at your Institution?
3.11 Is there an official procedure for processing the complaints and opposition of students in the academic units of your Institution? Has the position of Student Ombudsman been established, as foreseen in the legislation?
3.12 How is the analysis of the results of the evaluation in relation to the expected results of the academic units in your Institution done? Are students offered feedback and, if needed, guidance?
3.13 Are the criteria, methods and procedures of evaluation in the academic units of your Institution updated?
3.14 Through which procedures are the minimum number of obligations by students achieved as regards the preparation of a diploma project?
3.15 Is there an allocation of supervisors for the preparation of diploma projects? Give the minimum number of meetings between the student and supervisor.
3.16 Is there a procedure for checking and limiting the possibilities for copying diploma and other projects?
3.17 How is effective distance communication between teaching staff and students ensured?
- Student entry, progress and recognition of degrees
4.1 Are entrance criteria implemented consistently and transparently?