Presentation on theme: "Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 ESTABLISHING EXTERNAL QA SYSTEM IN SLOVENIA Franci Čuš Marinka Drobnič Košorok."— Presentation transcript:
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 ESTABLISHING EXTERNAL QA SYSTEM IN SLOVENIA Franci Čuš Marinka Drobnič Košorok
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 THE BEGINNINGS: QACS The Quality Assessment Commission of Slovenia was founded in 1996 by the Rectors’ Conference of Slovenia, in 2000 it was reorganised. The commission is recognized as a national evaluation body for the institutions of higher education by the Law of higher education (HE Law 1997) The commission is made up of 26 members: 20 university professors, 2 professors of free-standing higher education institutions and 4 students.
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 QACS The Commission reports once a year about the state of quality in higher education in Republic of Slovenia to: The Council for higher education of Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of higher education, science and technology and the Committee on Higher Education, Science and Technological Development of the National Assembly; The report is public available;
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 QACS - The aims and goals of the Commission: The Commission attends and evaluates the quality and effectiveness of the educational, research, artistic and professional activities; The Commission works according to the regulations which have to be determined in collaboration with the senates of the high school institutions; The Commission has to obtain the opinion of the students; Higher education institutions in Slovenia: 4 universities and 17 free-standing higher education institutions.
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 QACS - The Commission’s basic tasks are: Coordinates QA activities of higher education institutions; collects and publishes SER (since 2000) Performs the institutional external evaluations of the higher education institutions in Republic of Slovenia (since 2006)in accordance with the Criteria for monitoring, assessment and assurance of quality in the higher education institutions, study programs, science and research, and in artistic and professional work Develops the evaluation methodology Criteria for monitoring, assessment and assurance of quality in the higher education institutions, study programs, science and research, and in artistic and professional work (2004);
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 QACS - The Commission’s basic tasks are: Enhances awareness of the importance of the quality assurance importance among faculties and the management of higher education institutions (deans, heads of institutes and chairs); Influences the mission of universities and free- standing higher education institutions in accordance with the development trends of the universities in European Union (European Policy Statement, Bologna declaration, Lisbon declaration); Collects knowledge and disseminates it to the wider higher education area (organizes seminars lectured by domestic and internal experts); Promotes the idea of the Bologna declaration.
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 COUNCIL RS for HE, SENATE FOR EVALUATION (Law HE 2006) Council RS for Higher education Senate for evaluation Senate for accreditation Senate for habilitation
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 PLANNING THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION Criteria Experts Call for application Training of experts Questionnaire for schools Self report structure Report structure Planning the visit Timetable of the visit Writing the report Reporting to the management Final report
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 CRITERIA – institutional, program, research Adopted by QACS in 2004 Strategy, management Education process Research activities QA of teaching staff QA of supporting staff Students (evaluation, access to information, mobility, participation in all processes) Financing system Social dimension
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 EXPERTS Higher education Students Stakeholders Quality managers
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 CALL FOR APPLICATION The institutions were asked 6-12 month in advance to apply for the external evaluation QACS selected 4 institutions on the basis of program and regional distributions The selected institutions got the instructions and documentations to complement their proposal They were supposed to submit all the documents one month before the evaluation
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 TRAINING OF EXPERTS Experts were selected on the basis of their CV, and experiences in QA Two one-day trainings were organised for them, to refresh the requirements determined by the standard (Criteria…) and to gain skills in managing the external evaluation (“playing roles”) Post-evaluation meeting enabled them to share the experiences and to contribute in improvement of the evaluation methodology
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 QESTIONNAIRE FOR SCHOOLS Questionnaire for school was prepared as a check-list document, to remember the school to prepare the requested appendices For the evaluation team the questionnaire serves as a “fille rouge” in evaluation of the documentation
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 SELF REPORT STRUCTURE – REPORT STRUCTURE Primarily the structure of the SER was not consistent with Criteria or report structure On the last meeting of the experts it was suggested, that both documents should follow the structure given by Criteria, to make comparison and evaluation easier and more transparent
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 PLANNING THE VISIT Visit should be planned in agreement with the institution at least one month ahead We estimate that two-day visit is sufficient The liaison officer should be appointed by the institution Timetable should be prepared very carefully, taking into account meetings with different members of the institution (management, senior staff, younger staff, students, administrative staff, QA committee.) The “roles” should be carefully distributed (Who? Where? What?)
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 TIMETABLE OF THE VISIT 13. 12. 2006 8.30-9.00 Meeting of the evaluation team (all) 9.00-9.45 Management (all) 10.00-10.45 Quality assurance committee (Žargi,Drobnič) Student council (Bohanec, Štrukelj, Kamšek) 11.00-11.45 Senior teachers (Štrukelj,Bohanec, Drobnič) Administrative staff (Kamšek,Žargi) 12.00-13.00 Meeting of the evaluation team (all) 13.00-14.00 LUNCH (team only) 14.00-16.00 Sight seeing of the school (all) 16.00-16.45 Dean( Drobnič Štrukelj, Žargi) 17.00-18.00 Meeting of the tea (all) 20.00 DINNER (with staff members)
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 TIMETABLE OF THE VISIT 14. 12. 2006 9.00-9.45 Random students (Kamšek, Drobnič) Younger staff (Štrukelj, Bohanec, Žargi) 10.00-10.45 Mentors (Drobnič,Žargi) 11.00-12.30 Preparation of draft report (team) 12.30-13.00 Oral report to the management (team) 13.00-13.30 Oral report to employees 14.00 Lunch
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 WRITING THE REPORT - Pre-defined structure of the report Distribution of chapters among experts Preparation of draft report immediately after interviews Preparation of oral report at the end of visit to the institution Draft report (in two weeks, reviewed by all experts) Comments to the report by visited institution (correction of factual data) Final report
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 FINAL REPORTS The final report was sent to QACS (Senate) QACS analysed all reports, report to Ministry QACS published the report on its web page QACS prepare recommendations for enhancement
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 CONCLUSIONS –THE LESSON LEARNED Time planning one year ahead Training for experts Call for application six month ahead Selection of evaluation team three month ahead At least two month for preparation of the tea Timetable two weeks before the visit Visit two days Final report in one to two months
Rogaška Slatina 30. november- 1. december 2007 QUESTIONS Who should publish the report? (QACS, institution?) To whom the report should be sent? (institution, university, ministry, Council for HE, parliament) Is the follow up procedure necessary? Who should pay for the evaluation?