Assuring and fostering quality at the University of Leuven

Prof. Dr. Jan ElenDUO/ICTO (Educational Support Office)

QUASYS, Split, October 4, 2002

Warning

• Broad topic

• Focus on quality assurance system

• Equally important (hardly covered here)– professional development

– educational innovation projects (incl. the introduction of e-learning or blended learning)

– curriculum development

– recruitment of personnel and students

– optimizing decision-making processes

– attention for ‘small quality’

– ….

Overview

• A bit of context : the University of Leuven

• Phase 1 : A systematic approach

– Contextual elements

– Basic principles

• Phase 2 : A systematic and grounded approach

– Guided independent learning

– New principles

• Phase 3 : A systematic, grounded and systemic approach

– Support and accountability in balance

Phase 1 : A systematic approach• Before 1993

– Regular activities of programme committee

– Ad hoc curriculum evaluations

– Ad hoc controls of study time

– Possibility for ad hoc discipline based evaluations (EVADOC)

• Decree of 1991– External quality assurance: collaboration between universities

(the Netherlands) / visitation system

– Internal quality assurance: universities

– Meta-evaluation: government

Quality assurance

• Since 1993

– extension of duties of programme committees (incl. curriculumdevelopment)

– ad hoc evaluations

– systematic procedure quality assurance / quality fostering

– role of students : pro-active reaction of university

Internal quality assurance: principles

• Quality assurance procedure aims at quality improvement• Responsibility for internal quality assurance belongs to the

departments.• Internal quality assurance rests on an explicit concept of ‘good

education’.• Internal quality assurance happens separatedly for each

curriculum and is initiated and implemented by a specific commission.

• Internal quality assurance pertains to the programme and each of the courses.

• External quality assurance requires additional data-gathering.

Internal quality assurance: commission

• Members: chair, 2 professors, 2 teaching assistants, 2 students

• Appointed for a two year period. • Autonomous from programme committee• Responsibilities : [elaboration of educational

vision], select questions, develop instruments, gather and interprete data, follow-up

Internal quality assurance : approach

1. Educational vision

2. Instruments (programme, courses)

3. Data gathering, processing and interpretation

4. Communication of data and interpretation

5. Discussion of results with those concerned

6. Agreement between commission and those concerned about improvement plan

7. Follow-up

8. Conclusions and report delivery

Internal quality assurance : SWOT

Strengths Weaknesses

* absence of ‘sanctions’ and lack of information about quality of instruction (policy level)

* no continuity over evaluation commisssions

* all concerned represented in commisssion

* aims at quality improvement

* evaluation rests on educational vision (goals and quality criteria)

Internal quality assurance: SWOT

Strengths Weaknesses

* time consuming* No direct involvement of professors, reduced acceptancy

* periodicity too high for fundamental changes

* periodicity allows for regular feedback

* balanced approach with a lot of attention for follow-up

* adapted to local culture and traditions

* No external visibility of results and effects

Internal quality assurance: SWOT

Strengths Weaknesses* combined approach for programme and separate courses

* gradually different systems for course-evaluation appear

Phase 2 : A systematic and grounded approach

• Changing context– Guided independent learning– Fostering role of programme director– Increased stress on accountability– Impactful evaluations of professors– Variety of systems

Guided independent learning: reconciling teaching and research

• Autonomous thinking as the goal

• Responsibilities of students

• Responsibilities of university teachers

• Participation in research activities as instructional approach

Evaluation of programmes from 2002-2003 on

• Every 8 year

• Subcommission of programme committee

• Follow-up fostered

• Tuned to external quality assurance system

Evaluation of programmes from 2002-2003 on

Principles

* every 8 year

* coordination by subcommission or programme committee

* current procedure

* midterm report discussed by Educational Council

* final report discussed by Academic Council

Evaluation of courses from 2002-2003 on

Principles

* instrument (partly) standardized

3 identification questions

10 standard questions

maximum 8 programme- or coursespecific questions

* at the end of each course / educational activity

Evaluation of courses from 2002-2003 on

Principles

* standardized evaluation criteria

* coördination and implementation by subcommission of programme committee chaired by programme director

* results completely and immediatedly available for carreer-related commissions

* results interpreted first by professor / teacher

Evaluation of courses from 2002-2003 on

Procedure

* complete questionnaire

* data gathering and processing

* interpretation by course responsible

* ‘problems’ analysed and handled by subcommission considering previous results

* delivery of results

Phase 3 : A systematic, grounded and systemic approach

• Integration of accountability and support

• Integration evaluation and professional development (OPTIKWEST-project)

• Integration of professional development and phd-preparation

• Integration of student recruitment and data gathering

Conclusion

• There is no simple right solution.• Different concerns, different procedures• Problem is lack of stability as a consequence of

rapidly changing context (e.g., bachelor-master / technological features) that results in new priorities, new concerns, new quality criteria

• An explicit, agreed upon concept about ‘good education’ might be a stable starting point