Quality Assurance at the University St' Kliment Ohridski Elizabeta Bahtovska National Bologna promot

1
Quality Assurance at the University St. Kliment
OhridskiElizabeta Bahtovska National Bologna
promoter
TEMPUS SCM C-032B06 West Balkan Bologna Promoters
Network SEMINAR Dures, 13-14 June 2008
2
Content

• Self Evaluation
• Basic for conducting self evaluation
• Main segments for self evaluation
• Quality assessment of the faculty members
• Commission for self-evaluation
• Self-evaluation procedure
• Report for self evaluation

3
Self-evaluation

• Institutional self-evaluation
• Assesses the quality of higher education and
  scientific activity of the higher education
  institution by means of numerous explicit
  procedures for quality assessment of the
  institution and academic staff
• Self-evaluation of study program
• Identifies whether the program meets the
  accepted standards of the European Association
  for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)
  and is in compliance with international practice.
  It assesses whether the structure of the study
  programme enables integration of UKLO students
  and graduates in the educational systems of other
  countries from the EHEA

4
Goals of Self-evaluation at UKLO

• To produce a brief and meaningful overview of the
  teaching and learning process of the institution
  and study programs
• To analyze the connection between the teaching
  and learning process and the scientific research
  activity of the institution
• To analyze the structure, quality and improvement
  of the academic staff
• To analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the
  higher education institution
• To lay down the basis that will be used for
  external evaluation

5
Basis for conducting self evaluation

• What is the higher education institution trying
  to do -where does the institution see itself in
  the future
• How is the higher education institution trying to
  do it strategic plan what kind of education,
  research, services it provide to what extend are
  these activities related to the mission
• How does the higher education institution know it
  works indicates that the self-evaluation pays
  attention to the feedback mechanisms
  applied-quality assurance mechanisms in education
  and research
• How should the higher education institution
  change in order to improve - conclusions and
  judgments about what is not working well and what
  can, or must be improved

6
Main self-evaluation segments at UKLO

• Mission and goals of the HEI
• Strategic management and planning for achieving
  the mission
• Description of the HEI (organiz.structure,
  internal units and management)
• Self evaluation of study programmes and syllabi
• Teaching staff, teaching and learning processes
• Students-facilities and material resources,
  logistics
• IT systems for support the institutional
  activities
• External cooperation- national, international and
  public relations
• Research and art activity
• Financing and management of financial resources

7
Teaching and learning processes-example
8
Research and art activity-example
9
Quality assessment of the academic staff

• Criteria for selection and quality assurance of
  the academic staff
• - Competence/qualifications of the academic
  staff in accordance with the general acts for
  academic staff
• - Haw are the adopted criteria for election
  implemented in practice
• - Is the number of academic staff sufficient to
  cover all areas
• - Balance between education and research
• - Students opinion about the portfolio of the
  academic staff surveys
• - Motivational mechanisms, awards by the
  dean/rectors office and students
• Measures for quality improvement
• The Teaching Council of the higher education
  institution proposes and performs measures for
  quality improvement on the basis of the quality
  evaluation of the academic staff

10
Evaluation Commission

• Number of Evaluation Commission members
  determined by statute and elected anonymously at
  the meeting of the teaching council
• Rights and obligations of the President of the
  Self-evaluation commission plans, organizes and
  coordinates the work of the commission ensures
  broad discussions about the self evaluation,
  conducts official communications with the bodies
  of the institution, with the university, and with
  the body for evaluation of HE in RM, conducts
  other duties related to the performance of self
  evaluation
• Rights and obligations of the members of the
  Self-evaluation commission have the right to
  actively participate in the work of the
  commission, to establish contacts as wide as
  possible, and to present the opinion of the
  academic community
• Working bodies of the commission the commission
  may establish its own working groups and assign
  specific duties to them evaluation of particular
  study programmes, management, staff training and
  development, student services, external
  cooperation
• Training Evaluation Commission members obliged
  to participate at training organized at
  University level, as well to organize
  self-evaluation training for other participants
  in SE Process

11
Self-Evaluation Procedure

• Time for conducting evaluation between 3 and 6
  months
• Self-evaluation process starts with
  conversations with the management to clarify the
  following questions
• - how is autonomy sustained selection of
  teaching staff, selection of students in
  management bodies, financial management
• - problems that management faces in
  accomplishing its mission
• - changes-quality improvements to be implemented
• - academic priorities of HEI
• - relationship between the institution and its
  financiers
• - relationships of the institution with the
  society, external partners, state institutions,
  HEIs in the region, EHEA and in the world
• - level of centralization and decentralization
• - policy to international cooperation
• Methodology of the Self-Evaluation process
• based on SWOT analysis, by foreseeing the
  strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
  for implementation of specific aspects in the
  functions of HEI

12
Self-Evaluation Report

• Content of the self-evaluation report
  introduction, list of members of the commission
  and the working groups, list of bodies, subjects
  and institutions cooperated in the course of SE,
  review of positive side and difficulties
  identified in the course of SEProcess, part for
  students (data, ideas commentaries suggestions
  made by students)
• Conclusion of the report should be as much as
  possible objective, sincere and open to compare
  it with the previously SE and to analyze the
  progress strengths and weaknesses must be
  explicitly illustrated improvement plans shall
  be offered in the form of corrective measures
• Size of the report - The SEReport should consists
  of 15-25 pages, excluding the annexes
• Signing of the report - President and all members
  of the commission
• Access to SEReport for participants in the
  evaluation -submitted to the dean, the University
  SE commission and the body for evaluation of
  Higher education in RM available to all
  participants in the evaluation during the visits
  of the University evaluation Commission and the
  Body for evaluation of the HE in RM to the
  institution

13
Conclusion

• According to the principles for institutional
  autonomy, the HE Institution has the primary
  responsibility to provide the quality in the HE
  and this should be a basis for realistic
  accountability of the academic system within the
  national framework of providing quality in
  education

14

• Thank you for your attention