1 / 25

Quality Assurance

This article explores the internal quality management procedures at Ghent University, including student evaluation, structures, and objectives. It also discusses the methods and evolution of student evaluation at the university.

ktravis
Download Presentation

Quality Assurance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality Assurance • Procedures and Activities at • Ghent University Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  2. Joke Claeys • Ghent University • Department of Educational Affairs • Division of Quality Management Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  3. Internal Quality Management • Procedures: since 1993-94 • Student evaluation • - Structures: since about 1998 • . Central division for quality • management • . Each faculty has a quality cell Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  4. Student evaluation • The evaluation of education is • considered as an essential part of • the quality system. • The users of the education, namely • the students, are ideally placed to • judge it. Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  5. Student evaluation: what about ? (1) • An impression of the satisfaction of • students with the services offered • by the university • Specific: the perception of several • aspects of the teaching and learning • activities, namely: Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  6. Student evaluation: what about ? (2) • The teaching process itself • The examinations • Supporting services: study • guidance, library, electronic learning • environment • Infrastructure: audiences, laboratories, • buildings,… Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  7. Objectives of student evaluation (1) • Gives feedback upon a teacher/ • course/ program in order to change • or improve it • Supports decisions about • nomination and promotion Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  8. Objectives of student evaluation (2) • Is required in the external assessment • Is a means for students to • systematically mention problems • and complaints • The information can be used for • comparative analyses inside the • institution Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  9. When does student evaluation take place ? • At the start of a new semester • /academic year: • . All activities (also examination) • have finished • . Possible time gap between the • experiences and the report • . Possible influence of the examination Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  10. Methods of student evaluation • Fase 1: Questioning the students • Questionnaires: prestructured answers • or open ended questions • anonymous • Interviews • Focus groups: panels of students • talking about the course, the teacher,… Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  11. Fase 2: Composing action plans for change and improvement • Fase 3: Evaluation of the realisation of the action plans Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  12. Role of the students • For long term cooperation, it’s important that they are aware of the 2nd and 3rd phase of the cycle. • No awareness of any follow up has a negative impact on cooperation Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  13. Student evaluation: initial characteristics • Startup in 1993-94 • . One uniform questionnaire with • prestructured and open ended • questions is set up for the entire • institution • . Processing of the results was done • centrally Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  14. Student evaluation: initial characteristics • . Results were sent to the respective • professors and the deans of the • faculties concerned • . Each faculty had an evaluation • commission, composed of the dean, 3 • professors and 2 students, which had an • obligation of discreteness Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  15. Student evaluation: initial characteristics • . Tasks of this commission: • - take note of the results of the Qs • - make evaluation files • - make a synthetic report of each course, • containing recommendations and • corrections of the educational practice • - in a next round, follow the evolution of • the results and the adaptations made Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  16. The main points of the initial questionnaire • Teaching • Course content • Practical training, laboratory work • Teaching and learning material • Examination • Coaching Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  17. Evolution • 1. Since 1994, frames of reference are • made: cumulations of the results of • all the courses in a one year program • The result of a course is compared • to the whole of the study year Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  18. 2. Divergence in method and questioning • From 1996 faculties have asked to • change and add to the questionnaire for • several reasons • . Adding specific questions for specific • courses/programs • . Wanting a more detailed feedback upon • all the facets of teaching • . Wanting more information about the functioning • of the teacher in the totality of the study year,… Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  19. Consequences: • A variety of questionnaires has • emerged, from the very detailed to • the very general -> comparability • -> validity • - Acceptance is improved Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  20. 3. Establishment of the Quality Cells • in the faculties(11 in total), 1998 • - Goal: support in all areas of • quality management • - Composition: one director of • education (prof), at least one • staff member, representants of • professors and students • - They take over the role of the • evaluation commission Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  21. 4. Method of questioning • - Originally: pen & paper, during a • populous course (1 hour) • - From 1999: electronic version; the • answering of the questions is an • individual affair, computer needed • - Now: 6 faculties pen & paper, 5 • electronic Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  22. 5. Rate of participation • - Participation has never been obliged. • - This remains a problem in some study programs • - The electronic form has a negative impact on • participation rates • - For 2003-04, the mean participation • rate for the whole institution was • about 50 %. Some programs score worse, some • better. Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  23. 6. Frequency of the evaluation per • course/teacher • - Initially all courses were evaluated • every 2 years • - Now, every teacher has to be • evaluated at least once in 3 years Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  24. 7. Use of the results • Since 1998 it’s practically an obligation to use the results of the 3 phases in the nomination/promotion files of professors. Use is made with great care. Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

  25. Examples of questions • Recently a summary of all the • questions for over 10 years has been • made. • Some examples can be seen in • another presentation. Tempus Workshop Ghent, 19/10/05

More Related