1. 10 July 2008 Rafael Llavori Head of the Institutional and International Relations Unit Self-assessment of agencies and self- assessment report. An agency perspective ENQA Seminar First external evaluations of quality assurance agencies – lessons learned 10-11 July 2008, Paris

2. Understanding the ESG ANECA. Internal review of a QA Agency Table of contents

3. 1. Understanding the ESG´s

4. Main steps: Analysing the ESG: rethinking at the Spanish setting Adaptation of ANECA´s processes to the ESG Elaborating a self-evaluation guide for ANECA´s staff (traslate the ESG into ANECA´s vocabulary): to be sure that everyone speaks the same language Understanding the ESG´s

5. Part 1 European standards and guidelines for internal quality assurance within higher education institutions European standards and guidelines for the external quality assurance of higher education European standards for external quality assurance agencies Understanding the ESG´s

6. External quality assurance agencies Understanding the ESG´s

7. European standards and guidelines for the external quality assurance of higher education Understanding the ESG´s

8. European standards and guidelines for internal quality assurance within higher education institutions Part 1 Understanding the ESG´s

9. ANECAs external evaluation programmes /Standards for quality assurance in the EHEA (part 1) Institutional assessment Programme Quality Label Ph.D. Programme Evaluation programme - Recognised postgraduate programmes Evaluation programme - Services Evaluation programme - Teaching staff / Support programme for teaching activity assessment (DOCENTIA) Standards numbered according to the corresponding ANECA programme 1.1 Policy and procedures for quality assurance 285** 1.2 Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 1, 4, 7 and 8 1, 2, 3 and 5 1.3 Assessment of students 1 and 512 1.4 Quality assurance of teaching staff 3 and 62 and 35All standards 1.5 Learning resources and student support 3, 4 and 54 and 5 All standards 1.6 Information systems 2 and 64 and 55 1.7. Public information 1 and 25 Correlation between the criteria of the different programmes carried out by ANECA and the standards established in part 1 Understanding the ESG´s

10. 2. ANECA. An internal review of a QA Agency

11. B uilding up a structure to work Staff Involvement Leadership (person incharge of the self-evaluation report and 2 assistants) Self-evaluation committe (12 people) Time investment to achieve the goals ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency

12. ESG The evaluation agenda: the deadline Director´s implication Board of directors and staff of ANECA Advisory Board T ools ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency

13. M ethodology of the work Evaluation as a strategic objective of the Agency as a whole Self-evaluation guide Fixed schedule Periodical meetings of the S-E C On-going information and training process ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency

14. M ain purpose Participative process Information Dissemination ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency

15. D evelopment of the work ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency The Team work was the reference point: Strict with the time and work Defined the agenda of the meetings Elaborate the self-evaluation guide Analysed the information of the documents used by the Self-evalution Committe

16. ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency The Team work was the reference point: Collected the evidence and organised them Traslated the documentation into English Writing the self-evaluation report Prepared the site visit

17. D evelopment of the work ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency The Self-evaluation Committee worked with the designed guide and: Analysed the information of the guide and possible evidence to be provided in each section Attended the different meetings Set up and circulated the information on time

18. D evelopment of the work ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency The Self-evaluation Committee worked with the designed guide and: Collaborate in the spreading of the information to the rest of the staff Studied the first draft of the self-evaltuation report

19. D evelopment of the work ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency The Board of Director and Self-evaluation Committe: Studied the draft of the self-evaltuation report Breakfast at ENQAs

20. Board of Trustees Advisory Board Board of Directors Technical Committee Evaluation Committees ANECA staff Self-evaluation Committee Working group P rocedure followed during ANECA´s self-evaluation Preparation of the self-evaluation guide Setting upof the self-evaluation committee Analysis of criteria and search for information First draft of the self-evaluation report drawn-up Summary of the information provided First draft of the report is reviewed Suggestions incorporated Report endorsed Review of the report proposal Approval of final report Second draft of the report reviewed Suggestions incorporated Suggestions analysed Third draf of the report reviewed Suggestions incorporated Dates Sep. 06 Oct. 06 Nov. & Dec. 06 Jan. 07 Mar. 07 Third draft of the report reviewed

21. R ules to play for ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency Information Meeting General presentation Internal newsletter The truth Weaknesses and strengthes are useful for the organization Precision and clarity It was very important to be short and clear 20 words for an explanation better that 100 words

22. Structure of the report ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency Introduction Background Aim of the external evaluation Spanish university system ANECA Self-evaluation of ANECA Background Self-evaluation process Analysis of the Standards and guidelines Overall assessments Overall assessment Oportunities for improvement Annexes Glossary List of evidence Organization chart

23. C onclusions ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency The self-evaluation process was important: To learn about our own organization To create a new methodology for internal work To be aware of the weaknessess of ANECA To be aware of the strengths of ANECA

24. C onclusions ANECA. An internal review of a QA agency We could not do it before Maturity of both organisation and staff Completion of the natonal legal framework We should not do it later Just before the implementation of the accreditation process Need for an internatonal support and recognition

25. www.aneca.es Thanks for your attention