Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Internal Quality Assurance from a HEI Perspective
– Uppsala University
2nd Conference on Internal quality assurance at higher education institutions,
1 Dec. 2006, Bern
1 Background of the quality system at UU and the national demands
2 Main features of the quality system at UU
3 Some examples, outcomes and benefits of the system at UU
4 Some conclusions
Main University Building
Uppsala University – some facts
Oldest university in the Nordic countries - founded in 1477
6 000 employees - including 4, 000 teachers/researchers
Education and research across nine faculties
Three disciplinary domains: Arts and Social Sciences Science and Technology Medicine and Pharmacy
Tradition-drenched student activities
Interdisciplinary campus areas
Education
40,000 undergraduate studentsMore than 40 programs of
study 1,800 single-subject courses2,500 graduate studentsStudent exchange programs
with 400 universities in 40 countries
Organisation
From 2001 A new quality and evaluation unit3d central quality group
From 2002 The actual quality enhancement policy
Background of the actual quality system at UU
1995 National Agency for Higher Education established
1993-98 1st central quality group at UU
1996 1st quality audit at UU
1999-2000 2nd central quality group & 2nd quality audit at UU1999-2001 SAUNA – an internal quality evaluation2001-2006 The National Agency policy changes
from quality audit to quality assessment
of all subjects and programs
1. Quality audits at all institutions between 1995 and 2002
2. Quality assessments of all subjects & programs between 2001 and 2006 – ”The six year plan”
3. Evaluations with focus on specific aspects, e.g.- students´ influence, internationalization
4. Both quality audits and quality assessmentsbetween 2007 and 2013A new ”six year plan” will be decided later this yearPerhaps including the possibility to apply for ”honour for an excellent educational environment”
Some demands from the National Agency
Our view of the National Agency´s six year plan between 2001 and
2006Positive effects and conclusions:
UU has been successful
The NA has focused on important national problems,e.g. the situation for small subjects, lack of resources
Negative effects and conclusions:
Sometimes (often?) a heavy burden for departments
Lack of clarity of the aims and focus
The usefulness for departments and programs?
the self evaluation
the site visit
To discuss………..
What are your own experiences of quality audits and/or quality assessment concerning the effects on quality, quality assurance and quality enhancement?
Are your experiences the same as the experiences at Uppsala university?
Or are your experiences quite different?If YES: In what ways?
The concept of quality”You know it when you see it”
Quality is a concept with different potential meanings…1. The standard of something when it is
compared to other things like it; how good or bad something is
2. High standard
3. a thing that is a part om a person´s character, especially something good
4. a feature of something, especially one that makes it different from something else
Oxford Advanced Learner´s Dictionary
Quality …
depends ”on the eye of the beholder”
develops and changes over time
cannot be described in a subtle way using quantitative data
can focus different aspects:prerequisites, processes, results and effects
is a relative concept - fitness for purpose- value for money
will have different concrete meaning depending upon what you focus, e.g. students´view of a certain course or the development of a new vocational program
The actual quality assessment system at Uppsala university
* The nine faculties are responsible for their quality and quality assurance in education and research
* Decisions in the University Board concerning infrastructural matters and resources
* A long term policy for quality enhancement in education and research
* An action plan for central quality enhancement has been decided each year
* Central unit for quality and evaluation and a quality committée
* 2006: - evaluation of research at UU - work on a new quality enhancement policy - quality assurance will be more integrated with the operational planning & annual reporting
Quality is created and shaped in faculties and departments … by teachers and students
The central strategies and actions must reinforce a culture of quality enhancement
The Vice Chancellor´s engagement is essential for a well-functioning quality system
An active student union enhances work with quality issues
Some external demands are good for enhancing the internal quality work
Some values and conditions ofquality assessment at UU
Internal resources and quality work
Central level A quality committée Units for quality & evaluation, for teaching & interactive learning, for management training etc.
Policies, e.g. Quality Enhancement Program Educational policy
Projects, e.g. Teaching portfolios Training, e.g. teacher training
ACTION ORIENTED EVALUATIONS
Faculty level Different activities on quality issues,
e.g. analyses of resource allocations,
quality enhancement etc.Departmental Different projects level Program- & subject- course evaluations
Aims and objectives for the unit for quality and evaluation
Policy work together with the quality committé, e.g. this year work on Bologna issues
Implementation of the actual action plan; among others action oriented evaluations, e.g. this year reporting on an PhD-alumni evaluation
Support and consultative work to faculties, departments and programs, e.g. this year - the faculty of social science – webbased course evaluations - the faculty of pharmacy – a webbased evaluation of the students views of each semester in programs - together with the Student Union: how to prevent dropouts
Covering the national and international discussion
Auditof UU
The National Agency´s Quality Assurance of The National Agency´s Quality Assurance of
Subjects Subjects andand Programmes every year 2001–2006 Programmes every year 2001–2006
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Unit forUnit for - Alumni evaluations of all subjects & - Alumni evaluations of all subjects &
programsprograms
Quality & Quality &
Evaluation Evaluation evaluation of PhD-studiesevaluation of PhD-studies
PhD-alumni evaluationPhD-alumni evaluation
- Consultations & ACTION ORIENTED - Consultations & ACTION ORIENTED
evaluationsevaluations
Auditof UU
The National Agency´s Quality Audit & Quality The National Agency´s Quality Audit & Quality
AssessmentsAssessments
2007-20132007-2013
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Faculty Faculty Responsible for the quality Responsible for the quality
level level Demands for quality enhancement in the Demands for quality enhancement in the operational operational planplan for all faculties a certain year for all faculties a certain year
Reporting on quality enhancement in the Reporting on quality enhancement in the annual annual reportreport
Unit forUnit for - Continued Alumni evaluations - Continued Alumni evaluations
Quality &Quality & and probably a second set of PhD-evaluations and probably a second set of PhD-evaluations
Evaluation Evaluation Action oriented evaluationsAction oriented evaluations
Undergraduate alumni evaluations
1. Selection of approx. 6000 students who havegraduated at least two years earlierin subjects or programmes assessed by the National agency a certain year, e.g. 2006:nursing, pharmacy, law, history of art am.others
2. Questionnaires are sent by mail
3. Separat – more than 80 – reports to all departments of the specific subject/program
4. A final report on the results of the different faculties
Background questions- Sex, age, degree
Position in the labour market- How long time until employment? Working position, tasks, salary etc.
Evaluation of the education- Attainment of goals set for higher education in the the Higher Education Act and goals set by the Faculty Board- Attainment of skills, e.g. communication skills- What the students were especially satisfied and dissatisfied with
The demands of the present employment- To what extent do the respondents use certain skills?- The usefulness of the education
Undergraduate alumni evaluations: the Questionnaire
Forms of teaching, learning and study work
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Problembased learning
Laboratory work
Groupdiscussions
Study visits etc.
Seminars
Oral presentations
Group work
Lectures
Written individual PMs
Independent workMore of
Satisfactoryextent
Less of
No experience
Part of working time in the relevant educational field
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Languages
Arts
Social sciences
Science & technology
Civil engineer
Engineer
Theology
Law
Pharmacy
Nursing/medicine
Total All the time
More than halfthe time
Less than halfthe time
Not at all
Some more examples of the results:
nine out of of ten students would have chosen UU again
many students satisfied with teaching & learning in problemsolving & written work
about six out of ten students dissatisfied with the training in oral communication
Undergraduate alumni evaluations cont.
Some outcomes and benefits:
faculties, departments, programs and teachers get more interested and find evaluations useful
quality enhancement in different areas
The value of the alumni evaluations?
an interview study with responsible professors/lecturers at twelve different departments and programs
the most interesting parts of the reports, e.g. the most interesting results, are- the employment situation for the alumni- how the alumni value the outcomes and their teaching and learning experiences- the appendixes in which the answers from every alumni on all open ended questions are described, e.g. current employment especially valuable in the education what was missing in the education
The value of the alumni evaluations? – cont.
The usefulness of the report:
very useful when - doing the self assessment- working with the Bologna process
the report actualizes both new and old questions on the agenda for further discussion
gives arguments for changes
gives suggestions for concrete action
confirmation that the quality enhancement and/orcourse/program planning is working well
gives much information to use in study counselling
To discuss…
The alumni evaluations we have implemented are ACTION ORIENTED:
Which are your own experiences of the value of alumni evaluations?
Can you see clear advantages and disadvantages with these centrally implemented alumni evaluations?
Evaluation of PhD-studies
1. Questionnaires to all PhD-students* importance of and satisfaction with working &
research conditions
* importance of and satisfaction with supervision &
dissertation work
* courses
* pedagogical experience & training
2. Separate reports of the results to each
department
Evaluation of PhD-studies cont.
3. Departments:
self-assessment
4. Analysis of results and summary report for all faculties at institutional level
5. Faculties: analysis and suggestions for enhancement in each faculty
Support of the supervisor (percent)
0 20 40 60 80
Unimportant resp. very dissatisf ied (1)
2
3
4
Very important resp. very satisf ied (5)Importance
Satisfaction
Some outcomes and benefits:
Department management and teachers are interested and find the report useful
Quality enhancement in departments and faculties
Evaluation of PhD-studies:some outcomes and benefits
Some results:
big differences between departments
most PhD-students satisfied with physical aspects of their working environment
some students dissatisfied with some aspects of supervision & support of their own lecturing
Evaluation of PhD-alumni
1. Questionnaires to all PhD-alumni
who graduated between 1997 to 2001* Current relation to Uppsala university
* Labour market placement
* Main working assignments
* To which extent is research included in the assignment?
* Usefulness of the PhD-education
* Satisfaction and demands with the PhD-education
in different aspects,
e.g. critical scientific thinking, working in a project
group (a total of 18 aspects)
2. Separate reports of the results to each faculty
Satisfied
12345
Working in project groups
Giving arguments
Oral presentations
Written presentations
Demands
1 2 3 4 5
Working in project groups
Giving arguments
Oral presentations
Written presentations
Evaluation of PhD-alumni cont. Demands and satisfaction: generic
skills(Faculty of Medicine)
Some conclusions
Necessary with some external demands, especially in the initial work of building an internal quality system
Important that as many teachers and students as possible are involved in some elements of the quality system (incl. pedagogical training) and find it useful
The University management & University Board must be involved both in discussions and decisionsand find this work useful
It is important to make the quality work visible
Quality enhancement should be ”evidence based” (Action oriented evaluations)
The quality system must be well known and it is very important to have quality in the quality workto strengthen the legitimacy of the system
