stenden university of applied sciences

[Certified translation from Dutch into English]

Advisory Report

Stenden University

of Applied Sciences

Institutional Audit

12 February 2014

[Logo]

Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders

NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/2


Advisory Report

Stenden University

of Applied Sciences

Institutional Audit

12 February 2014


Contents


Contents

1 Summary advice 10

2 Explanation 10

2.1 Composition of the Audit Panen 11 2.2 Working method of the Panel 11 2.3 Structure of the Advisory Report and layout of the sections 12

3 Description of the institution 15

3.1 General information 15

3.2 Profile of the institution 15

3.3 Key figures as at 1-9-2012 15

4 Assessment per standard 16

4.1 Standard 1: Vision of the quality of education 17

4.2 Standard 2: Policy 18

4.3 Standard 3: Results 22

4.4 Standard 4: Improvement policy 23

4.5 Standard 5: Organisational and decision-making structure 24

5 Recommendations for improvement 28

Annex 1: Composition of the panel 32

Annex 2: Programmes of the visits to the locations 34

Annex 3: List of studied documents 40

Annex 4: List of abbreviations 44


Section 1

Summary

Advice


Standard 1 Vision

Stenden University has firmly formulated its vision of the quality of education. The vision is relevant to the context

and forms a connecting guideline for the development of education and for what one understands to be good

education. The vision is elaborated upon in three profile pillars: Problem-Based Learning (PBL),

Internationalisation and Research. The panel concludes that these pillars are clearly connected in the elaboration

and are widely supported within the institution by the Executive Board and staff.

The panel does, however, consider the objectives of these pillars rather robustly formulated, especially in the

pillar internationalisation. It sees that a robust ambition in the context of Stenden has a positive effect on making

people enthusiastic, but the institution should continue to pay attention to balance. At the same time, the

institution is faced with challenging circumstances, such as a recent merger and external requirements. These

sometimes require more externally driven, operational setting of priorities within Schools. Within frameworks, the

institution gives the Schools the opportunity to do so. According to the panel, this results in practice in a multi-

track approach. The panel considers it a matter of course that, in certain aspects, priority is given at present to

challenges at hand, but advises creating more clarity regarding the different tracks.

The panel has found a strong quality culture and has observed an obvious and operationalised awareness of

quality at the different levels of the institution. All things considered, the panel is of the opinion that Stenden

University has a widely supported vision of the quality of the institution’s education and satisfies Standard 1.

Standard 2 Policy

Stenden’s vision is worked out in an adequate manner in central policy. Decentralised, the frameworks are

worked out in year plans containing qualitative and quantitative targets that form the basis for degree programme

plans. The profile pillars in these plans are translated to programme level and functionally used to achieve the

educational targets. The decentralised contents of policy lead to differences in accents and approaches among

Schools and programmes.

PBL is the central policy line in working out the educational vision. Research is clearly embedded in the education

and is also used to raise the level. The contribution of Professors of Applied Sciences is lucid and logical. The

panel considers it credible that each student is substantially confronted with both PBL and research.

The programmes give shape to Internationalisation policy in different ways and implement it at different paces.

The Executive Board aims to provide the opportunity to do so and accepts that different subjects are temporarily

given more priority, within the frameworks of the year plans. According to the panel, however, it will require a

convergent policy impulse to achieve the internationalisation ambition in the longer term as well. The Executive

Board is sufficiently aware of the need for further policy efforts in this area. The panel is therefore of the opinion

that the ambition in this pillar is also within reach.

The panel does not see the ambitious policy agenda structurally supported by a clear and unambiguous staffing

plan. The focus of the staff plan is on professionalisation and academisation. The targets are indeed specific, but

are not set out systematically in policy memoranda. During the trails the panel was, however, able to establish

that the practice in this aspect is ahead of the policy set out in memoranda. The professionalisation agenda is so

strongly embedded in the organisation that it has been put in place even without memoranda and is being

implemented. The panel advises formalising the staffing plan and setting it out more clearly. Moreover, the panel

advises further development of the staff policy in relation to internationalisation.

The procedures relating to accessibility and feasibility for students with a disability are properly in place. But

suggestions for improvement from students with a disability are not adequately reaching the institution at present.

The panel advises asking students with a disability structurally about their experiences and integrating the results

into the regular quality cycle. All things considered, the panel is of the opinion that the institution’s quality

assurance system satisfies Standard 2, Policy

Standard 3 Results

The institution systematically and frequently measures the quality of programmes at its stakeholders. In addition,

it expressly uses informal channels for finding the truth and measures progress on targets by way of trial reviews,

midterm audits and theme audits. The institution gives students a prominent role in the quality assurance process.

According to the panel, the institution has been able to strike a good balance between formal and informal

sources to collect information on quality.


Schools report their progress on the targets every four months to the Executive Board. These reports contain,

among other things, a scorecard with indicators for education, research and business operations. The panel

advises adding more quantitative indicators for internationalisation to the scorecard so that progress on this can

be monitored.

Schools report their progress on the targets every four months to the Executive Board. These reports contain,

among other things, a scorecard with indicators for education, research and business operations. The panel

advises adding more quantitative indicators for internationalisation to the scorecard so that progress on this can

be monitored.

Schools have reflection on information structurally on their agendas. Results are reported to the Executive Board

on a regular basis. The panel is of the opinion that the Executive Board has an adequate picture of progress on

the policy objectives. The panel is of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 3, Results.

Standard 4 Improvement Policy

The institution is working very systematically on improvements that directly benefit the quality of education.

Different movements can be observed in Stenden’s improvement policy. The most structured is the centrally

determined improvement policy, whereby the Executive Board steers improvement priorities by way of

management letters. Decentralised, staff are actively stimulated to think along about quality improvement and an

attempt is made to involve all ranks. This also gives rise to a feeling of urgency. In addition, the panel has

observed horizontal improvement initiatives among Schools. There is strong leadership, which guarantees

coordination and gearing of the various initiatives and movements.

The panel has found much and coherent improvement policy in the vertical trails in the subjects education,

research and exit level. The results of improvement actions are still visible to a limited extent at present in the

results. Discussion partners on all levels are nevertheless convinced that an improvement of results cannot be

avoided, given the path taken and improvements made. The Executive Board has a clear view of progress and

improvements and holds discussions with Heads of Schools on results achieved, both firmly and constructively.

The panel is of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 4, Improvement Policy.

Standard 5 Organisational and decision-making structure

The panel is of the opinion that Stenden has a clear decision-making structure that is sufficient to identify and

tackle possible problems. The organisation is clearly structured as education driven. Responsibilities for the

quality of education are set out in their entirety in the Schools. The services (Clusters) have only a supporting role

in this. Positions within the Schools distinguish themselves sufficiently for a clear division of roles and

responsibilities are clearly set out. Examination committees are sometimes rather close to the management, but

there is adequate internal reflection on this. Various consultations and bodies have been formed for participation

in decision-making that function formally. Participation by students is strong and forms impulses for improvement.

The panel is of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 5, Organisational and decision-making

structure.

Advice of the panel

Based on the foregoing, the panel is of the opinion that Stenden University is in control. The institution’s quality

assurance system satisfies the five standards. The panel therefore advises the NVAO to issue a positive

assessment of the application for the institutional audit of quality assurance of Stenden University.

The Hague, 12 February 2014

On behalf of the panel for the assessment of Stenden University of Applied Sciences,

Prof Dr Harry Martens

(Chairman)

drs. Suzanne den Tuinder

(Secretary)


Section 2

Explanation


2.1/ Composition of the Audit Panel

The Audit Panel is composed as follows:

Prof Dr Harry Martens, Chairman;

Prof Dr Maurits van Rooijen, member;

Drs. Bart van Bergen, member;

Els Verhoef (MCM), member;

Joren Selleslaghs, student member;

The panel was supported by:

Drs. Suzanne den Tuinder, Secretary;

Dr Thomas de Bruijn, NVAO Process Coordinator.

The CVs of the panel members are included In Annex 1.

2.2/ Working method of the Panel

During the preparation of the institutional audit, the NVAO and the institution agreed that this assessment applies

only to the education that Stenden University provides in the Netherlands. This includes the non-degree courses

offered. Regarding the foreign campuses of Stenden, it was agreed that only the institution’s efforts to monitor the

quality of the education would be examined and not the organisation of quality assurance on these campuses.

This limitation of the assignment was communicated to the panel in the “Instructions to the panel on the use of

international education and non-degree courses in the institutional audit (ITK) of Stenden University”.

The chairman of the panel and the process coordinator of the NVAO met on 5 September 2013 for exploratory

consultations. They discussed critical self-reflection, as well as the programme of the first audit. They also

determined which additional documentation would be requested from the institution. The proposals to that effect

were sent to the entire panel and later sent to the institution. Because the time between the first and second audit

was limited, a proposal had already been worked out for a trail to the policy relating to internationalisation in the

programmes of Stenden. This proposal was also communicated to the institution.

The panel paid two visits to the institution for five days in total. The first, exploratory visit took place on 17 and 18

October 2013 and started with a preparatory meeting of the panel. At that meeting, the panel had the Critical Self-

reflection of Stenden University at its disposal. During the preliminary consultations, the panel discussed these

documents and exchanged their initial impressions. Immediately following the preliminary consultations, an open

consultation hour was on the agenda, for which one could apply to the panel secretary in advance. Finally, on this

first day the panel spoke to representatives of the Supervisory Board. During the second day of the exploratory

visit, the panel held discussions with the Executive Board, the Heads of Schools, several Academic Deans, team

leaders, staff officers, Professors of Applied Sciences, lecturers and students.

The panel paid a second, more in-depth, visit to the institution on 11, 12 and 13 November 2013. During this visit,

the panel conducted two vertical audit trails and two horizontal trails.

The vertical trails concerned the programmes:

Education in Primary Schools Programme provided in the School of Education

Marketing Programme provided in the School of Commerce

In these vertical trails, the central question was how the PDCA cycle in the programme works with respect to

increasing the exit qualifications obtained by students.

The horizontal trails concerned:

Studying with a disability. In this trail, the focus was on what the institution’s policy is on this matter, how it

is implemented, what the opinion of the Examination Committee is and how formal complaints are

handled.

Internal use of profiling on internationalisation. This trail focused on the way in which the institution gives

internal shape to internationalisation as a profile-determining element in all its programmes. The trail

examined programmes in the School of Media & Entertainment Management and Technology and the

School of Business.


Prior to the second visit, Stenden University delivered additional documentation to the panel. A list of documents

delivered is included in Annex 3.

After the end of the discussions of the more in-depth visit, the panel formulated its grounds and assessments.

Afterwards, the chairman gave feedback on behalf of the panel to discussion partners, including the Executive

Board.

Based on the findings and grounds of the panel, the secretary drew up a draft report and presented it to the panel

members for comments. The secretary incorporated the comments of the members. The final report made in this

way was made available to the NVAO on 10 January 2014. The NVAO presented this report to the institution on

20 January 2014 for verification of factual details. The institution responded to this on 7 February 2014. As a

result of this, the secretary adjusted parts of the report and presented it once again to the members of the panel.

The final report was drafted on 12 February 2014.

2.3/ Structure of the Advisory Report and layout of the sections

Section 3 contains general information about Stenden University plus a number of key figures. Subsequently, in

Section 4, the panel gives its assessment of the institution’s quality assurance per standard of the assessment

framework. The findings are listed for each standard and subsequently the grounds of the panel are given. In this

context, the findings resulting from the audit trails serve as casuistic evidence of the way in which the quality

assurance system as a whole functions within Stenden University. The point is therefore not an assessment of the

degree programmes or curricula involved in the audit trails, but certain aspects of them on the basis of which the

panel has been able to check whether the institution is in control. Recommendations to improve the quality

assurance system are included in Section 5. The report concludes with a table in which the assessments of the

institution’s quality assurance are summarised.

The report also contains four annexes with: (1) information on the composition of the panel, (2) the programme of

the visits to the location, (3) an overview of the studied documents and (4) a list of abbreviations.

Section 3 contains general information about Stenden University plus a number of key figures. Subsequently, in

Section 4, the panel gives its assessment of the institution’s quality assurance per standard of the assessment

framework. The findings are listed for each standard and subsequently the grounds of the panel are given. In this

context, the findings resulting from the audit trails serve as casuistic evidence of the way in which the quality

assurance system as a whole functions within Stenden University. The point is therefore not an assessment of the

degree programmes or curricula involved in the audit trails, but certain aspects of them on the basis of which the

panel has been able to check whether the institution is in control. Recommendations to improve the quality

assurance system are included in Section 5. The report concludes with a table in which the assessments of the

institution’s quality assurance are summarised.

The report also contains four annexes with:

1. information on the composition of the panel

2. the programme of the visits to the location

3. an overview of the studied documents and

4. a list of abbreviations.


Section 3

Description of the

Institution


3.1/ General Information

________________________________________________________________________________________

Country the Netherlands

Institution Stenden University of Applied Sciences

Locations Leeuwarden, Emmen, Groningen, Meppel, Assen

Status of the institution government-funded

Programmes 20 bachelor’s degree programmes, 5 master’s degree programmes and 6 associate

degree programmes

________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2/ Profile of the institution Stenden University is a government-funded institution under the competent authority of the Board of the Stichting

Stenden Hogeschool in Leeuwarden. Stenden was created in its present form after the organisational merger in

2008 between the Christelijke Hogeschool Nederland (CHN) and the Hogeschool Drenthe (HD). Stenden sees it

as its mission to appeal to the curiosity of students and bring out the best in them. Not only for the benefit of the

students themselves, but mainly for the benefit of society. The development of personal and lasting leadership is

first and foremost, so that students learn to connect ‘people, profit, planet and passion’. The teaching is provided

in seven Schools:

School of Business

School of Commerce

School of Education

Stenden Hotel Management School

School of Leisure and Tourism Management

School of Media & Entertainment Management and Technology

School of Social Work and Arts Therapies

Stenden University has campuses in Leeuwarden, Meppel, Assen and Emmen. In addition, it provides

programmes at the foreign sites Bali (Badung), Thailand (Bangkok), Qatar (Doha) and South Africa (Port Alfred).

Students can take part of their programme there (the Grand Tour). After taking part of their programmes in the

Netherlands, foreign students at these sites can also obtain a degree from Stenden. Furthermore, the university

provides several post-graduate programmes and non-degree courses for foreign students.

3.3/ Key figures as at 1-9-2012

The information below was taken from the critical self-reflection and the annual report 2012 of the institution and

indicates the state of affairs as at 1 September 2012.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Numbers of

students

Total number of students (2012)

BA students (2012)

MA students (2012)

Of which international

students (2012)

10728

10660

68

2299

Programmes Total number of programmes

Bach. Degree programmes (2012)

In English only

Master’s Degree programmes (2012)

In English only

24

19

4

5

2

Degrees awarded BA (2011)

MA (2011)

AD (2011)

BA (2012)

MA (2012

1761

55

75

1732

65


________________________________________________________________________

AD (2012) 106

Staff Total (2012)

Professors of Applied Sciences (2012)

701 FTE

17

Finances Total budget (2012)

86,361 k€


Section 4

Assessment per

Standard


4.1/ Standard 1: Vision of the quality of education

The institution has a widely supported vision of the quality of its education and of the development of a quality

culture.

A. Findings

During its audit on the basis of this standard, the panel particularly examined Stenden University’s vision of the

quality of education and the quality culture in line with it.

Vision of the quality of education

Stenden University has set out its vision in the institutional plan “Stenden Wereldwijs, Onderwijs en Onderzoek,

de koers van Stenden 2013-2017” [‘Stenden World-wise, Education and Research, Stenden’s compass for 2013-

2017’]. In it, it summarises its vision of education as “serving to make a better world”. It has defined its mission as

“unleashing potential in our students, staff and surrounding communities”. Central to the profile is the conviction

that the graduates who are curious, have problem-solving ability, can think internationally and have an inquisitive

attitude towards their work can make a difference and are able to adjust to constantly changing circumstances. In

the institutional plan it elaborates on this profile in three pillars: Problem-based Learning (PBL),

Internationalisation and Research.

The university aims to use PBL to put its social-constructivist vision into practice. In the institutional plan,

internationalisation is elaborated upon in three main elements: ‘internationalisation@home’, ‘internationalisation

mobility’ and ‘internationalisation abroad’. In relation to research it chooses the integration of (applied) research

and education, whereby research must be meaningful to students, staff, the field of work and society. The panel

concludes that the pillars in the elaboration are clearly connected.

The panel exchanged thoughts on this vision with various groups of stakeholders and concludes that the broad

consultations have been held at the institution on the foundations for this. The three trial pillars have been

endorsed within the whole organisation. The institution clearly pursues an increasingly intensive policy to involve

everyone in the objectives.

The panel asked the Executive Board the question whether the objectives of the trial pillars were perhaps defined

very ambitiously, in view of, among other things, the recent merger and the problems of relatively low pass rates

and disappointing NSE scores that are facing the institution. The Board is of the opinion that the objectives are

realistic and that they function simultaneously as a “dot on the horizon”. The Board recognises the difference in

pace among Schools and expressly wants to give them the opportunity for this, in order to keep everyone

involved. According to the Board, this means that several Schools will indeed initially give priority to matters such

as pass rates and final projects. According to the Board, progressive insight will have to show whether there is a

need to adjust the ambitions institution-wide in the course of time; for the time being, priority is given to fixed

policy.

During the vertical audit trails the panel concluded that the priorities do indeed differ per School. The School of

Education focuses primarily on developing a new curriculum and increasing pass rates. At the School of

Commerce there is a discussion of final projects and the focus is on optimising the graduation process. The panel

concluded during these trails that although the trial pillars are not given the highest priority everywhere, they are

clearly on the policy agenda everywhere.

Vision of the development of a quality culture

The panel concludes that a clear awareness of quality is present among the different discussion partners and that

this is also put into operation. Lecturers speak of inspiration, involvement and increasing quality. During these

trails the culture is summarised as a culture in which everyone looks critically at his or her own work and dares to

look at that of someone else and dares to discuss this with each other. Lecturers look along? with one another.

Thesis assessments are discussed amongst them.

Stakeholders experience the Executive Board as easily approachable. The panel spoke to very motivated people

who are convinced of the need for and effectiveness of the course taken. At process level, they hold one another

accountable for agreements, but the small-scale of the context results in this not always being set out explicitly in

memoranda.


B. Grounds

The panel concludes that Stenden University has set out a robust and ambitious vision. In the context of the wish

to keep merger partners together, to go further on the path taken earlier and to be in line with the wishes of the

surroundings, the panel considers the vision relevant. According to it, this is well in line with the conditions this

context sets. The vision forms a connecting guideline for the development of education and for what one

understands to be good education. The pillars under the vision are clear and have a clear mutual connection. The

panel is of the opinion that these pillars are meaningful to the objectives that Stenden pursues as an institution.

The panel appreciates the institution’s high ambition and sees this as a powerful way to get the institution moving

and make people enthusiastic. The development of a common, ambitious vision is an effective way of giving the

quality culture an impetus. At the same time, the institution is faced with the reality of a recent merger and

challenges at hand sometimes require a more operational setting of priorities. With that, according to the panel,

the institution has not made things easy for itself.

According to the panel, the tension between the different objectives has led to a multi-track approach in practice.

The panel distinguishes on the one hand the vision for which more ideologically orientated and identity-forming

targets are set in the longer term. This is the vision presented to the panel in the documentation, the “dot on the

horizon”. In addition, there is a more operational track aimed at the shorter cycle of quality management, in which

meeting (external) requirements takes a central place. These two tracks lie next to each other, regarding which

the panel has determined in the vertical trails that the short cycles in which the priorities are mainly on pass rates

and graduation projects have priority at present at the audited Schools.

At the same time, the panel finds that the different discussion partners are indeed very aware of the profile pillars

from the vision. They all attempt to implement them in their own activities. The panel considers it a matter of

course that in certain aspects the institution gives priority at present to the challenges at hand, but advises

providing more clarity about the different tracks. Moreover, it advises keeping a close eye on the tension between

the ambitions and feasibility of the objectives in the medium term, both internally and towards the outside world.

The panel appreciates that the institution is aware that in spite of all systems it is nevertheless difficult to get to

the heart of the quality. The panel considers this awareness, which is expressed for example in the critical content

of the self-reflection, a positive element of the culture of the management. The panel has found a strong quality

culture in all levels of the organisation. The institution could take this strong culture as a starting point in the

further development of the quality structure. The quality culture can feed the quality structure from a decentralised

perspective.

C. Assessment

According to the panel, the vision is defined very ambitiously. It sees, however, that in the context in which

Stenden operates, this can give a positive impetus to the quality culture and quality of education. It has become

clear to the panel that the Executive Board is aware of balance and that the Board pays attention to this. The

panel assesses the quality culture as strong. The panel is therefore of the opinion that Stenden University

satisfies Standard 1, Vision of the quality of education.

4.2/ Standard 2: Policy

The institution has adequate policy at its disposal to achieve the vision of the quality of its education. This

includes in any case: policy in the areas of education, staff, facilities, accessibility and feasibility for students with

a disability, embedment of research in the education, as well as the interrelatedness of education and the

(international) professional field and field of study.

A. Findings

Stenden’s current vision of education is worked out centrally in frameworks that form the substantive, educational

profile of the institution. The Executive Board gives content and guidance to the achievement of the vision by way

of annual management letters. Schools give decentralised shape to this by way of year plans containing

qualitative and quantitative policy objectives. Programmes then translate this into a teaching plan, the ’course

document’, in which the teaching and assessment policy of the programme is described. The panel finds that the

institution attempts to use the profile pillars functionally in order to achieve the educational objectives.


In the discussions, the panel did not notice the reluctance to take action that is referred to in the critical self-

reflection in relation to giving centralised versus decentralised shape to policy. The panel concludes, however,

that giving decentralised shape to policy leads to differences in accents and approaches among Schools and

programmes.

Problem-based Learning

The panel finds that Problem-based Learning (PBL) is clearly the central policy line in working out the vision of

education in frameworks. PBL has a modular structure and forms a thematic multidisciplinary whole. It uses the

12-12 starting point for each programme: 12 students per PBL group and at least 12 contact hours per week.

During the various rounds of discussions, it was confirmed that this is achieved in practice. Various students told

the panel that they had chosen Stenden partly because of PBL, as according to them this implies a small-scale

approach.

The panel concludes that the importance of the embedment of research in education is acknowledged at all levels

in the organisation. Professors of Applied Sciences are intensively involved in the teaching and curriculum and

regularly teach courses themselves. . Research has its place in the curriculum of every student. It became clear in

the discussions that within the Schools and programmes, one is very deliberately occupied with research and

intertwining it in the curriculum. There is limited experience with research available among the present lecturers,

but the institution is well aware of this. One strives to give lecturers an active role in studies by the Professorships

of Applied Sciences in order to enhance the qualification level of the lecturers.

Internationalisation

Stenden is developing internationalisation in the programmes via three main elements:

‘internationalisation@home’, ‘internationalisation mobility’ and ‘internationalisation abroad’.

‘Internationalisation@home’ concerns the creation of an international working and learning climate in the

Netherlands, with intercultural meetings and an international curriculum in an intercultural environment as its core.

The institution encourages ‘international mobility’ with the ‘Grand Tour’ concept, which offers students the

possibility to take modules or study abroad for one semester at one of the foreign sites of Stenden. For

‘internationalisation abroad’ Stenden provides education abroad at its branch sites. The panel concludes that in

addition, internationalisation policy is coloured locally and regionally, inspired by, inter alia, requests from the

professional field .

According to the panel, the internationalisation objective is achieved in different ways within the various

programmes. The motives and angles of approach vary. The Executive Board explained that Schools and

programmes place different accents in internationalisation policy based on different traditions. In setting policy

objectives, the starting point is the feasibility per School and this is diversified according to School, depending on

the situation and stage of development. The number of international students and participation in the Grand Tour

show rather a lot of differentiation at present according to programme.

The panel has noticed that there is a difference in pace among Schools in working out and implementing

internationalisation policy. According to the Board, there are indeed different speeds at which people join and it

wants to give them some opportunity to do so. It surprises the panel nevertheless that a module such as

“intercultural communications” is not yet included in every curriculum and that not every international student is

offered this course.

Nine programmes have recently started to implement MINT (Mapping Internationalisation), a program of Nuffic by

which self-evaluation, mutual comparison and benchmarking are mapped out in relation to internationalisation.

The panel concludes that this is not a subject of discussion amongst programmes.

The panel is of the opinion that the institution’s ambition to create possibilities for synergy among the main

elements of internationalisation is clearly worded. At the same time, its effect is still in an early stage. This is

spoken about in terms of results yet to be achieved and to be expected. Furthermore, the panel notices that policy

has been worked out for students who want to internationalise, but that specific policy is lacking for the students

who do not do so on their own initiative, whereas the institution does indeed consider this desirable or necessary.

Staff

The institution’s HRM policy is described in the strategic HRM memorandum “Met Talent naar de Top” [“With

Talent to the Top”] from December 2010. According to the Board, the Schools will translate this in the coming


period into year plans, in so far as this has not already been done. The panel is surprised that a strategic

memorandum from three years ago has not yet found its way into all year plans. The panel concludes that the

focus in HRM policy is on raising the level of lecturers. Academisation and professionalisation are vigorously

pursued. According to the HRM memorandum, Stenden is striving for 90% Master’s educated lecturers and at

least 10% with doctoral degrees in 2017.

Central to policy formation is the discussion cycle in which agreements are made on results, development and

preconditions. In that cycle, according to the critical self-reflection, attention is paid explicitly to educational level,

wishes for development, behaviour, core values, career advancement possibilities and results. The panel gathers

from the discussion rounds that these matters are recurrent subjects in this discussion cycle. In case of consistent

failure to achieve the agreed goals, financial and/or task-specific measures are taken.

Lecturers are given the possibility to equip themselves for internationalisation, inter alia through the wide

accessibility of Cambridge English courses. The institution offers PBL trainings for all its tutors. Several

Professors of Applied Sciences are actively facilitating the expertise of lecturers, for example by giving lessons in

research skills for lecturers. The panel notices that no policy has been found for the international recruitment of

staff.

Lecturers feel supported in their professionalisation and enhancement of expertise. The panel has found specific

policy on this subject, but has not seen this documented, or only in drafts that have not yet been finally adopted.

Facilities

The panel finds that the facilities are properly in place, and that they are functional in the light of Stenden’s vision

of education. Areas have been organised to facilitate PBL. During the guided tour, the panel observed that not

more than 12 students can be accommodated in PBL areas. In the accommodation plan, Stenden formulated the

mission for accommodation as follows: “Stenden provides a contemporary, functional, well-maintained and

hospitable learning and working environment based on a sustainable perspective.”

Accessibility and feasibility for students with a disability

During its trail to students with a disability, the panel concluded that this receives attention from Stenden. Each

student with a disability has a study coach assigned, after which they draw up a study contract together in which

agreements are made on necessary adjustments. The coach evaluates this study contract and feeds this back to

the student counselling service. If necessary, the student counsellor consults with the Examination Committee

about the agreements in the contract. One can, for example, be given additional time for exams or additional

contact hours. In the event of changes to the curriculum, the student counsellor and Examination Committee

consult with each other on how this can be resolved for the students in question. The panel concludes that these

procedures function properly.

Internationalisation is included in the scheme and industrial placement coordinators apply standards that have

been set for all programmes. Students may, for example work fewer hours, work only during the daytime or share

a shift.

In the design of the new website, account is taken of accessibility for students with a disability. Students say that

information on this is easy to find on the site. During the implementation of Blackboard the study + disability

Expertise Centre gave advice on the organisation.

Students with a disability told the panel that their problems are taken seriously. They do, however, encounter

matters regarding which they seem not to know very well where they can broach them. A student with dyslexia

said that he needed several possibilities for adjustments and said that only a separate examination room does not

suffice, but that the large amount of compulsory literature is also a problem. Several students told the panel that

they experienced it as awkward that lecturers are not aware of the study contracts and that students themselves

must take the initiative to mention this. The panel finds that these suggestions do not adequately reach the

institution. In relation to students with a disability, no internal, systematic questioning takes place of the students

concerned, nor is consultation amongst these students facilitated.

Interrelatedness of education and the (international) professional field and field of study

Stenden University has various skills labs where students learn according to the PBL concept on the basis of

tasks that reflect future professional practice. The most recognisable of these is the Stenden University Hotel.


Other connections with fields of work are made via industrial placement companies, knowledge centres and the

Professorships of Applied Sciences . All programmes have an Advisory Council that is regularly consulted and of

which the panel has inspected reports. The chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the Advisory Councils consult

annually with the Board, the Heads of School and support services.

B. Grounds

In its vision of the quality of education, Stenden has given a central place to the profile pillars PBL, research and

internationalisation. According to the panel, these pillars are clearly translated into policy at the level of Schools

and programmes. According to the panel, the institution has proved to be able to have the pillars PBL and

research penetrate the curriculum of each individual student. The panel considers it credible that each graduate

has been substantially confronted with research and PBL.

The panel is of the opinion that research is well integrated into the programmes. Research has a clear connection

with raising the level and the contribution of Professors of Applied Sciences to this is lucid and logical, according

to the panel. It appreciates the active involvement of Professors of Applied Sciences in developing curricula and

teaching.

In addition, the university expects a lot of internationalisation as a contribution to the quality of education. The

panel endorses the objective as far as the local and regional interpretation of internationalisation is concerned.

The panel considers it premature at present to assess the possible contribution of the worldwide interpretation

(the foreign sites) to the quality of education. The panel is of the opinion that at present the institution cannot

substantiate that internationalisation has a place in the professional and competency profiles of each student.

The panel finds that there is a difference in balance between the ambition of internationalisation set out in the

vision and the implementation thereof that is possible in practice, in the context of the Schools. The speed of the

developments in the field of internationalisation is therefore running behind the pace that would be expected on

the basis of the vision. The panel is convinced that the vision is within reach, but specific policy efforts are still

necessary to achieve this. The panel has intensively exchanged ideas with the Executive Board about this and is

convinced that the Board also realises this and will include it in the adjustment of the policy.

Staff policy

It is not completely clear to the panel how the ambitious policy agenda is supported by a strategic staffing plan.

The panel is of the opinion that the fact that not all Schools have translated the HR memorandum from 2010 into

year plans yet does not indicate very decisive progress in the staff policy. Objectives are specific where

professionalisation policy is concerned. The memoranda on staff policy are not as strong as the policy the panel

was able to determine in practice during the discussions. According to the panel, the professionalisation agenda

is so strongly interwoven in the organisation that it has indeed ended up in the organisation without policy

memoranda and is being implemented as well. The institution is, however, very dependent on lecturers to get the

policy off paper. It is faced with a variety of quality and motivation of lecturers in this area. Consequently, the

panel advises working out the staff policy better and formalising it.

Students with a disability

The panel concludes that the procedures concerning studying with a disability are properly in place. It surprises

the panel, however, that students are not structurally questioned. Because of this, the institution is less in line with

the practice of the students, which results in problems not always being identified, and the policy is not integrated

into the quality cycle.

C. Assessment

The decentralised policy room leads to differences in accents and approaches among Schools and programmes,

particularly in the profile pillar internationalisation. PBL and research are, however, well integrated into the

programmes and the main elements of central policy are represented in all policy agendas. The panel is therefore

of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 2, Policy.


4.3/ Standard 3: Results The institution has a view of the extent to which its vision of the quality of its education is being achieved, and

regularly measures and evaluates the quality of its programmes among students, staff, alumni and

representatives of the professional field.

A. Findings

The institution uses a set of measurement instruments with which it systematically monitors the quality of its

programmes. It measures the opinions and experiences of students, staff, relevant contacts (professional field ,

supplying schools and businesses), alumni, society and the government in a structured manner, by way of,

among other things, teaching evaluations, industrial placement surveys, surveys in the professional fields and

panel discussions with students. Besides these programme-specific evaluations the institution conducts various

surveys throughout the organisation, such as an entry and exit survey, and participates in the National Student

Survey (NSE), the higher education monitor and the connecting monitor Secondary Education-Higher Education

(VO-HBO).

The information that the programmes obtain from regular consultations with the programme panels, curriculum

panels, Advisory Councils and Student Councils is more qualitative in nature. In addition, the panel established

during the discussions that there is much informal consultation with students. They are asked for their opinions on

diverse matters and in different ways. Many lecturers are also study coaches and in that capacity hear about

matters that may not be brought up during a formal evaluation. This is discussed among lecturers. The panel is

impressed by the way in which the institution formally and informally includes the opinions of students in the

measurement process.

Also important In measuring progress on the objectives are trial reviews, midterm audits and theme audits. In trial

reviews, an external review is simulated. A midterm audit assesses whether processes and documents are

correct. Theme audits are conducted for all of Stenden, on the instructions of the Executive Board. To date, two

internal theme audits have been conducted, of the contents of student files and of thesis assessment. The Quality

Assurance (QA) staff department has put together an audit pool of employees who conduct the internal audits.

These internal auditors can be found at all levels of the organisation, from lecturer to Head of School. In addition,

an external audit was conducted twice of all teaching and examination regulations (TERs) and external assessors

are used occasionally to analyse problems, for example in relation to the quality of final projects.

Every four months, each School draws up a T-report. In it, a quantitative and qualitative state of affairs is

presented, with a scorecard for indicators in relation to teaching, research and business operations. Based on the

T-reports per School, a consolidated T-report is compiled that is discussed with the Supervisory Board. In this

consolidated T-report developments are closely followed and it is examined among other things per cohort which

objectives (for example pass rate) have already been achieved and what the maximum feasible result of this

cohort still is. The panel appreciates the fact that this gives a view of the results to be expected. Such

transparency is lacking, however in the policy area of internationalisation.

According to the institution, the formation of Schools several years ago has resulted in a more horizontally

structured organisation, with connections and flexibility among Schools, among Clusters (staff departments) and

between Schools and Clusters. It became clear in the discussions that the number of possibilities is being

increased at decentralised level to enter into discussion about achievements, for example by way of intervision

meetings. The panel has observed in the discussions that more exchanges take place in intervision-like situations

than appeared from the documentation.

B. Grounds

The panel concludes that stakeholders are questioned extensively and frequently. The institution makes use in a

good way of the possibilities offered by a relatively small-scale organisation by expressly using informal channels

as well. The panel assesses the relationship between finding the truth formally and informally and the way in

which the opinions of students are involved in the quality assurance process as positive. It sees the team of

auditors as meaningful and well organised.

In relation to internationalisation, however, the measurements are less relevant and the instruments are not

always transparent to the panel. The view is not always clear regarding the progress made in this area and the

causes of the lack of results on ambitions. If one wants to monitor achievement of the ambition of


internationalisation, albeit per School at its own pace, this will have to be well mapped out. The panel advises

adding several quantitative indicators for internationalisation and its subaspects, so that the progress of

internationalisation can be monitored.

Schools structurally have reflection on results on their agendas. Results are reported to the Executive Board on a

regular basis and the Executive Board conducts a dialogue about them with the Schools. The panel is of the

opinion that the Board has an adequate picture of the progress made within the Schools on the ambitions as

formulated in the mission. The management information is largely driven by the Board’s management agenda.

This, however, results in fewer cross-connections being made among Schools. The panel sees that the institution

is giving decentralised impetus to that effect, among other things by using intervision. It advises the Board to

stimulate this centrally as well and use the strongly developed quality culture in doing so, as described under

Standard 1.

C. Assessment

The panel is of the opinion that the formal and informal information systems relating to the quality of education

function properly. Information and instruments are well in line with the management agenda. The panel is

therefore of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 3, Results.

4.4/ Standard 4: Improvement policy

The institution can demonstrate that it systematically improves the quality of its programmes where necessary.

A. Findings

The institution reflects annually on the quality measurements and reports in the “Kwestie van Kwaliteit” [“Matter of

Quality”], a consolidated report in which attention is paid to quality assurance in relation to education and

research. Based on the conclusions from this “Matter”, the Executive Board identified points for attention and

improvement actions for all of Stenden University for the coming year, which it describes in a management letter.

At programme level, the management teams of the Schools reflect on this in an Annual Quality Report (AQR). In

this report, they state what the contribution of the School is to the improvement of the points for attention

formulated in the management letter. These improvements are included in the year plans of the Schools. The

panel concludes that these AQRs are descriptions of findings; no direct link is made to improvement processes or

progress on previously started processes.

The panel sees different movements in the improvement policy. The most structured of them is top-down

improvement policy by way of the above-mentioned formalised process. In addition, during the audit trails the

panel observed bottom-up movements. Staff are actively stimulated to think along about improving quality. In the

School of Education, for example, for the development of a new curriculum, small, fast, thematic teams were

formed. These teams were given the assignment to work out three scenarios in which different themes (including

industrial placement and assessment) were given a place in the new curriculum. The Academic Deans provided

for the substantive connections among the teams. According to the panel, this resulted in supported and

conscious choices being made.

At the School of Commerce, in the summer holiday, lecturers were asked the question what they themselves

could do to raise the NSE score. According to the discussion partners, the implementation of ideas arising from

this was facilitated where possible, within the framework of the year plans.

The panel also found horizontal connections in the improvement policy. External assessment of theses in the

School of Education was the direct reason to take various improvement measures in the School concerning the

final projects. At present, the Head of School is in discussion with other Schools to check whether these

measures can be rolled out there as well.

During the first exploratory visit, the panel had the impression that the discussion partners had a tendency to

suppress sensitivity to problems. Moreover, the urgency in tackling self-mentioned problems was not immediately

clear to the panel from the documents. During the trails the panel experienced the discussions as more candid

and it was able to conclude that there was indeed awareness of problems in the organisation.

It sees strong leadership in placing problems on the agenda and implementing improvements. During the audit

trails the panel concluded that the School of Education (SoE) is confronted by considerable challenges, but that

they are being tackled effectively. In 2011, according to the panel, a very sound master plan was drafted to place

the different branches under one School. Although this plan was not always systematically followed during


implementation, the panel observed much unanimity within the School on the approach to these matters. Good

improvement policy was observed on education, research and assessment policy in both Schools where a

vertical trail was conducted.

During the audit trails the panel spoke to various groups of students. They stated that their opinions are taken

seriously and they believe that enough action is taken on them, although this varies per lecturer. The small scale

of most programmes enables immediate action and students also see the results. Students, for instance, stated

that a certain test location was not suitable for the number of students. A different location has now been

arranged. It is stated at the beginning of several study guides what has been adjusted as a result of input from

students. The panel has heard some complaints by students about minor matters, such as the scheduling of tests,

course schedules and time limits for feedback. These seem to be more persistent, but students do not blame the

institution too much for them: “They are doing their best”.

During the various discussions, the panel asked the question how it could be that problems have been tackled

and improvements started, but that this cannot yet be seen in the results to date. The drop-out rate from the

whole Stenden University rose by 0.2% to 28.8% compared to the zero measurement from 2010, while the

ambition was a fall by 1.8%. NSE scores also remain behind the ambitions set. Discussion partners themselves

proved to be surprised by this. Concerning the pass rate, the Executive Board also stated that it had indeed taken

account of a dip, partly in view of the measures relating to the exit level. It expects the results to be positive from

next year. The lagging NSE results were thoroughly analysed and the opinion is that all the innovations have

caused students to take a more critical look at the institution and the programme and therefore give a more critical

opinion. This was determined in panel discussions with students. All discussion partners are nevertheless firmly

convinced that the right path has been taken. The opinion is that with the measures taken, an improvement of

“hard data” cannot be avoided.

B. Grounds

The panel is of the opinion that the institution is very systematically working on improvements that directly benefit

the quality of its education. In the vertical trails in the field of education, research and exit level, it found much,

coherent improvement policy. There is hands-on, strong leadership with room for decentralised initiatives.

The entire organisation is stimulated to think actively about quality improvement. The pressure that the Heads of

Schools feel from the Executive Board to achieve objectives is passed on to subordinate levels. An attempt is

made to involve the whole School in the debate and thereby bring about a feeling of urgency.

The Board uses management letters to steer the improvement process clearly. It is clear to all ranks where

central priorities lie. These are given decentralised shape in the year plans of the Schools and are supplemented

by School-specific improvement priorities. This gives Schools room for decentralised colouring, provided this is

done within the frameworks set in the year plans. During the process, the Board maintains a clear view of

progress on improvements by way of formal and informal channels. It holds discussions on results achieved, both

firmly and constructively.

C. Assessment

Improvement policy is initiated and implemented within the institution centrally, decentralised and horizontally. In

this, the panel sees a clear coordinating role of the Executive Board and of Heads of Schools. There is a feeling

of urgency to make improvements at all levels of the organisation. The panel is therefore of the opinion that

Stenden University satisfies Standard 4, Improvement policy.

4.5/ Standard 5: Organisation and decision-making structure

The institution has an effective organisational and decision-making structure in relation to the quality of its

programmes, in which the tasks, powers and responsibilities are clearly delineated and of which the participation

of students and staff forms a part.

A. Findings

Stenden is managed by a two-man Executive Board appointed by the Supervisory Board. Directly under it are

seven Schools, four Clusters of support services and a Staff Office. For the foreign sites, a Head of Sites has

been appointed, who is charged with the overall management of these sites and who has de facto control over the

internationalisation activities of Stenden.


The seven Schools are organisational units containing several programmes. These are not tied to one location

and are under the direction of a Head of School (HoS). The Head of School is totally responsible for education

and research within the School. Each Professorship of Applied Sciences is linked to a School. The Heads of

School are centrally supported by a Multidisciplinary Advisory Team (MDA), composed of an educational expert,

HRM adviser and controller from the clusters. They advise and support the Head of School in drafting the T-

reports for the Executive Board and have an assessor’s role in addition.

The Schools are largely organised in the same way, but some elements may be different. According to the critical

self-reflection, each School has one or two Academic Deans who are charged with the educational leadership of

the School and are also members of the Management Team of the School. A curriculum committee has been

formed for almost all programmes, of which an Academic Dean is a member or chair. This curriculum committee

advises the HoS regarding the Teaching and Examination Regulations and the structure of the curriculum. Each

School has an Examination Committee in addition, the members of which are appointed by the Executive Board,

and a Test Committee that advises the Examination Committee on the testing policy pursued and guaranteeing

the quality of tests. Each programme (or group of programmes) also has a Programme Committee and a Student

Council.

Formal consultations are the monthly Stenden Conference between the Executive Board, HoSs and cluster

directors, and Staff Consultations between the Executive Board and members of the staff office. In addition, there

are various informal forums, such as the HoS consultations among Heads of Schools, a Community of Practice of

Academic Deans among Academic Deans and an Examination Committees Platform.

According to the panel, the organisation is structured as clearly education-driven. The Schools are totally

responsible for the quality of education and the services have only a supporting role. The Executive Board

explained that the aim is to go from a performance-driven university of applied sciences to an institution more

driven by the quality of education. The Board expressly seeks a dialogue with the Heads of Schools. These

discussions are in the nature of consultations on what has and has not succeeded and how improvements can be

facilitated. It is evident from the discussions with HoSs that there are also matters, such as pass rates, on which

the Executive Board keeps a close eye. The panel feels a search for balance here between firmly conducting the

discussion and also wanting to accommodate in making improvements.

In the vertical trails, the panel has determined that the organisation in the Schools concerned is clear and that

responsibilities are clearly set out. The Head of Schools, Academic Deans and team leaders distinguish

themselves sufficiently for a clear division of tasks and fixed roles.

The Supervisory Board (RvT), in its own words, helps to keep a critical eye on the contents of education. It has

an education committee in which quality is a recurrent subject of discussion. The panel gathers from discussions

with representatives of the Supervisory Board that the Supervisory Board regularly takes a position on strategic

options, such as closing programmes or expanding foreign sites. The NSE and the staff satisfaction survey are

structural parts of the agenda, and Heads of Schools and Professors of Applied Sciences are regularly invited for

consultations. The chairman of the Supervisory Board has regular bilateral consultations with the president of the

Executive Board. The members of the Supervisory board (except for the new members) have taken a supervisor’s

course.

The panel finds that the Examination Committees are still seeking a balance to some extent between a

constructive, think-along attitude and a purely identifying and controlling function. They say that precisely in an

organisation that is so dynamic, it is tempting to think along, for example about the design of a new curriculum.

The discussion of this balance is conducted in a platform for Examination Committees where experiences are

exchanged. The members of the Examination Committees are clearly aware of this field of tension and view

occasionally thinking along as something temporary.

Various consultations and bodies have been set up for participation. The panel concludes that participation

functions formally. The small scale of the programmes results in relatively much involvement of students.

Students experience the access to lecturers as low-threshold and there are several channels, both formal and

informal, for broaching matters. The panel was pleasantly surprised at the involvement of students throughout the

organisation. This is partially due to the small scale. In various rounds of discussions, students said that the

atmosphere is very personal and open and that lecturers know everyone by name. They experience staff as

accessible and approachable.


B. Grounds

The panel is of the opinion that Stenden has a clear decision-making structure that is adequate to identify and

tackle possible and occurring problems. The panel found a clear division of tasks at all levels of the organisation

and concludes that there is acceptance of leadership.

The panel is of the opinion that the Supervisory Board takes a professional attitude and understands what

supervision entails. It has an interest in involvement in education and takes positions on strategic choices. The

panel concludes that this also means that on some matters, the Supervisory Board comes very close to

responsibilities that also concern the Executive Board.

The panel is convinced that the Examination Committees operate independently at present, but finds that they are

sometimes somewhat close to the management. Everyone wants to take a constructive attitude, but where

thinking along takes place, shared sense of responsibility can arise. It sees at the same time that the members

are aware of the risk and that this is discussible within the institution.

C. Assessment

The decision-making structure is clear and enables problems to be identified and tackled in a timely manner.

According to the panel, functions are well positioned and clear to everyone involved. The panel is therefore of the

opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 5, Organisational and decision-making structure.

General assessment

The panel is of the opinion that Stenden is in control of the quality of its programmes. This is supported by the

sound quality culture and a dynamic approach to improvement and innovation. The effect of the ambitious vision

is positive but also requires a persistent and convergent policy impulse in several areas to fulfil it. Furthermore,

the institution should adopt policy plans at the same pace as the practical approach. This, however, would in no

way undermine the degree to which the institution’s management steers and closely monitors the progress made

on implementing the policy. The institution has a good internal audit function and decisive leadership in the

Schools, which enables adequate identification and tackling of problems. In the eyes of the panel, the above

justifies a positive general conclusion of the assessment and positive advice to the Board of the NVAO regarding

the granting of the institutional audit certificate of quality assurance to Stenden University.


Section 5

Recommendations for improvement


Based on the findings during the audit, the panel advises Stenden University to make the following improvements:

1. Keep an eye on balance concerning ambitions set, particularly with respect to internationalisation. If

necessary, adjust ambitions in a timely manner so that no expectations arise, internally or externally, that cannot

be fulfilled.

2. Create more clarity regarding the different tracks the institution follows in respect of ambitions set. In

doing so, make a distinction between objectives ensuing from the vision and the profile pillars on the one hand,

and the more externally driven, operational objectives of the Schools on the other.

3. Use the strong quality culture to feed the quality culture from a decentralised perspective, such as the

structuring of initiatives for intervision and of possibilities to monitor decentralised initiatives for improvement.

4. Formalise the staff policy and set it out more clearly in memoranda. Develop staff policy in the field of

internationalisation.

5. Integrate studying with a disability into the regular quality cycle by structurally asking students about their

experiences.

6. Add quantitative indicators for internationalisation and subaspects thereof to the scorecard in the T-

reports, so that progress on this can be monitored.


Standard 6

Overview of Advice


The table below gives the panel’s assessment per standard from Section 4.

__________________________________________

Standard

__________________________________________

___________

Assessment

___________

Vision of the quality of education

Satisfactory

Policy

Satisfactory

Results

Satisfactory

Improvement policy

Satisfactory

Organisational and decision- making structure

Satisfactory

_________________________________________

General conclusion

_________________________________________

_________

Positive

_________


Annex 1

Composition of the Panel


The audit panel was composed as follows:

Prof Dr H. Martens, professor emeritus of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry, and former Rector of the

University of Hasselt, Chairman. Prof Dr M. van Rooijen, CEO and Rector of the London School of Business and Finance in London, previously

inter alia Rector of Nijenrode Business School, member. E.R.M. Verhoef (MCM), independent adviser, coach and interim manager in higher education, previously inter

alia member of the Executive Board the Hague University of Applied Sciences, member. Drs. B.J.A.M. van Bergen, formerly faculty director at HAN University of Applied Sciences, member. Joren Selleslaghs, student of the Master’s Degree programme EU International Relations and Diplomacy at the

Europacollege in Brugge, student member. The panel was supported by drs. S. den Tuinder, certified secretary. The process coordinator of the assessment was Dr T. de Bruijn, policy assistant of the NVAO. Harry Martens is professor emeritus of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Hasselt. Since

2010 he has been chairman of the Executive Board of the Flemish Institution for Technological Research. From 2004 to 2010 he was Director of the Institute for Material Research of the University of Hasselt. From 1988 to 2004 he was Rector of the Limburgs Universitair Centrum (LUC), later University of Hasselt (UH). He was also chairman of the Higher Education Council of the Flemish Education Council and is now general chairman of the overarching Flemish Education Council (VLOR). He was a member of the Cultural Convention Flanders-Netherlands Panel and is a member of the Advisory Council of the NVAO.

Maurits van Rooijen is an economic historian and obtained his doctoral degree at Utrecht University in the field

of Green Urbanisation. He has worked at different universities worldwide, such as Leiden University, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Victoria University in Melbourne. He is an expert in internationalisation in higher education. From 2009, Prof van Rooijen was Rector Magnificus and CEO of Nyenrode Business University and appointed there as Professor of Academic Entrepreneurship, Internationalisation and Innovation in Higher Education. Van Rooijen holds administrative posts at various international networks in higher education: the World Association for Cooperative Education, the Compostela Group of Universities, the European Access Network and the Euro-Mediterranean University in Slovenia. At present he is: CEO (academic) of Global University Systems, CEO and Rector of the London School of Business and Finance and Acting Rector of GISMA Germany. Els Verhoef has a social welfare background (obtained her university of applied sciences Bachelor’s Degree in

1976 at De Horst in Driebergen and a university of applied sciences Master’s Degree in 1980 at the IVABO in Amsterdam), later supplemented by a postdoctoral Master’s Degree in Organisational Science and Change Management (SIOO in 2001). She initially worked as a social worker in Utrecht (1976-1980), and subsequently started as a lecturer and supervisor at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (1980-2001). From 1988 she held various management posts at this university of applied sciences. In the last two years she worked as a project manager and organisational adviser in a university-wide educational innovation project. In 2001 she became General Director of the sectors Technology and Informatics of The Hague University of Applied Sciences. In 2004 she became a member of the Executive Board of this University of Applied Sciences, where she managed the education portfolio. She held this post until 2012. Since then she has been active in the field of consulting, coaching and interim management in the (higher) education domain.

Bart van Bergen was Faculty Director at HAN University of Applied Sciences until 2007. In the Higher Education

Council, he was chairman for more than 10 years of the Sectoral Advisory Board for Higher Education in Healthcare. Since 2007, via a Dutch NGO, he has been employed as a technical adviser at the Medical Universities of Vietnam and is Honorary Professor at Hanoi Medical University. He is a member of the validation committee for research quality assurance , formed by the Association of Universities of Applied Sciences, for the period 2009-2014. He is a member of the curriculum committees of the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).

Joren Selleslaghs is studying for the Master’s Degree in EU International Relations and Diplomacy at the

Europacollege in Brugge. He previously completed the Master’s Degree programme in European Studies at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and the Bachelor’s Degree programme in Political Science and International

Relations at the Free University of Brussels and the Université de Corse. He did a traineeship at The Hague

Centre for Strategic Studies, at the office of a Belgian member of the European Parliament and at the External Relations office of the Belgian Permanent Representation at the EU. He was Belgian Youth Ambassador at the UNO in 2011/2012, on behalf of the Flemish Youth Council. From 2007 to 2009, Mr Selleslaghs worked as (assistant) development worker in Tanzania and Central America (African Impact and UNICEF).

All panel members have filled in and signed a statement of independence.


Annex 2

Programme of the

visits to locations


Thursday, 17 October 2013

12.30-13.00 Reception of the panel and lunch

13.00 – 16.00 Preparatory consultation and study of documentation

16.00 – 16.45 Discussion with the Supervisory Board C. Bijl, LL.M. (Chairman) A. Bruggeman J.G. Beukers-Maatje

16.45-17.30 Relocation to hotel

17.30 – 20.00 Open consultation hours

20.00 – 22.00 Subsequent discussion and panel dinner

Friday, 18 October 2013

8.30 – 9.00 Executive Board L.J. (Leendert) Klaassen, LL.M. (President) Drs. K.W. (Klaas-Wybo) van der Hoek (Vice-President) A. (Andrine) van Weelden, LL.M. (Secretary)

9.00 – 9.15 Panel break

9.15 – 10.00 Discussion with Heads of Schools Ann Mannen, School of Business Hanny van Geffen, School of Commerce Ingrid Janssen, , School of Education Sjoerd van der Galiën, Stenden Hotel Management School Falco de Klerk Wolters, School of Leisure and Tourism Management Patrick Bemelmans, School of Media & Entertainment Management and Technology Alie Schokker, School of Social Work and Arts Therapies

10.00 - 10.15 Panel break

10.15 – 11.00 Discussion with lecturers from participation council/independent lecturers Central Participation Council (Cmr): Hans den Dulk, Chairman cmr, Stenden Hotel

Management School Cmr: Jane Klaarwater, School of Business Subcouncils: Volkert Mollema, School of Education Joost Dijkman, School of Commerce, Subcouncils: Sonja de Haan, School of Media & Entertainment Management and Technology Subcouncils: Joop Bos, School of Commerce Theo de Jong, Tourism Management Hanneke Beers, Social Educational Care

11.00 – 11.15 Panel break

11.15 – 12.00 Discussion with students CMR: Benny Rebergen (2010) CMR: Roberto de Andrade (2009) Subcouncils: Sietse Kamsma (2011) Subcouncils: Edwin Hoekstra (2010) Subcouncils: Madelène van Beuzekom (2011)


Subcouncils: Harmans Denning (2012) Student with disability: Anna Rumpt Student with disability: Ike Kalmeije

12.00 – 13.00 Panel lunch break

13.00 – 13.45 Discussion with Academic Deans and Team Leaders

Academic Deans Ralph Ferwerda, School of Commerce Herma Korfage, School of Education Martin Gorters, School of Leisure and Tourism Management Petra Krajenbrink, School of Education

Team Leaders

Willy Hooijenga, School of Business Harpinder Singh, Stenden Hotel Management School Mark van der Staaij, School of Media & Entertainment and Technology Hilda Koops, School of Leisure and Tourism Management

13.45 – 14.00 Panel break 14.00 – 14.30 Discussion with staff officers

- Dorien Riedstra, Quality Assurance Manager - Alette Hospers, Director of HRM - Charissa Meijer, Internal Auditor

14.30 – 14.45 Break 14.45 – 15.15 Discussion with Professors of Applied Sciences and Academisation Director

- Rudy Folkersma – SoMT - Marinus Spreen – SWAT - Gabriël Antonio – SWAT - Ineke Oenema – SoE

15.15 – 15.45 Possible additional discussion with Executive Board 15.45 – 17.30 Panel consultation 17.30 – 17.45 Feedback

Monday 11 November 2013 – Audit trails, Trail Studying with a disability

13.00 to 16.00 Preliminary consultation panel

16.00 to 16.30 Discussion with counsellors

- Hermien Moning – Student counsellor for disability - Falco de Klerk Wolters – Head of School - Berend Tuinstra – Health and Safety Coordinator - Dineke de Haan – Counsellor SEC - Marina Tjepkema – Counsellor M&EM - Marian Hazekamp - Counsellor HM

16.40 to 17.10 Discussion with Examination Committees

Janneke Kingma – Chairwoman SoSWAT Karin Faber – Chairwoman SoH Anne Klaas Schilder – Chairman SoLT


Rick Reyneveld – Chairman SoMT Chris Beuker – Chairman SoC Folkert de Jong – Secretary SoB

17.20 to 17.50 Discussion with students with a disability

Mart Miedema – SEC Kaily Schaafsma – M&EM Denise Sijnstra – M&EM Karim Ouri – M&EM Jaap Anders – TM Marisca Antoine – HM

Tuesday 12 November 2013 – Audit trails, Trails 2a and 2b PDCA cycle OLB

(Education in Primary School programme) and Marketing

9.00 to 9.45 Discussion with students of OLB

Lea Lehman – year 2, Meppel Amanda Postma – year 2, Assen Erik Koppers – year 3, Meppel Cristien Rinsma – year 4, Leeuwarden Anita Hoekstra – year 4, Leeuwarden Patrick Knippels – year 4, Assen Mariska Boertien – year 3, Groningen Marwienke Tillema – fast track, Meppel

10.00 to 10.45 Discussion with lecturers from the Education in Primary Schools Programme (PABO)

Peter Geerdink – Graduation Phase Coordinator Hilly Boers – Tutor PBL years 1 & 2 Lidewij van Katwijk – research lecturer Carolien Calon – PBL Designer and tutor years 1 & 2 Marijke de Jager – Education Coordinator ITEPS Johan Uitdewilligen – Lecturer Ans Bakker – Programme Committee Hennie Annema – Phase Coordinator, SLB, fast track

11.00 to 11.30 hours Discussion with Professors of Applied Sciences and Curriculum Committee of the School of Education

Alex Riemersma – Professor of Applied Sciences Fries en Meertaligheid (Frisian and Multilingualism)

Sieneke Goorhuis – Professor of Applied Sciences Early Childhood Albert Weishaupt –Professor of Applied Sciences Professional Organisations Johan Sterken – Curriculum Committee Eeltje Geugies – Steering Group for Curriculum Development Wilma van der Schaaf – Curriculum Committee Harry Hommes – Curriculum Committee Jelle Brandsma – Steering Group for Curriculum Development

11.30 to 12.00 Discussion with OLB Examination Committee and Test Committee

Margriet Kingma – Chairwoman of the Examination Committee Douwe Jan Douwes – Secretary of the Examination Committee Harm Kort – Member of the Examination Committee Annet van Heuvelen – Member of the Examination Committee Mieke van der Bosch – Member of the Examination Committee Lonneke Hofstede – Member of the Test Committee


12.15 to 12.45 Discussion with management: Head of School, Academic Dean, team leaders, internal auditor OLB

Ingrid Janssen – Head of School Herma Korfage – Academic Dean Petra Krajenbrink – Academic Dean Jolanda Post – Profile Team Leader Assen Ton Gelmers – Profile Team Leader Meppel Louwien Eising – Profile Team Leader Emmen Gea Hoekzema – Profile Team Leader Groningen Willeke Steursma – Internal Auditor

12.45 to 13.45 Lunch

13.45 to 14.30 Discussion with Marketing students Kelly Vermeer - year 2 Peter Brouwer - year 2 Isabel Coppenrath - year 2, Stura (Student Council) Sabine van Wijk - year 3, Stura/Programme Committee Bas Venema - year 3 Michel Bollman - year 4 Laura Marissen - year 4 Gisella Stap - years 4-5

14.45 to 15.30 Discussion with Marketinglecturers

Geesje Eising – Coordination of study career counselling / Els van der Meulen – Coordination of Horse Business Management/ Thesis Committee member Margriet Weerman MSc – Thesis Committee member Rick Groenveld – Coordinator of industrial placement/graduation supervision/ Thesis Committee member Rina Drijfholt – Subcouncil School of Commerce Elga van der Spoel – Coordinator of Tourism and Event Management Joëlle Hietbrink – Coordinator of language courses Tom Hoppen – Study career adviser

15.45 to 16.15 Discussion with Professors of Applied Sciences and Curriculum Committee of the School of Commerce

Gert-Jan Hummel – Curriculum Committee member Gera van der Vegt – Curriculum Committee member Max Knap – Curriculum committee member Jannie Keen – Curriculum Committee member Herman Blom – Preliminary study of continued development of the Professorship of Applied

Sciences International Trade 16.15 to 16.45 Discussion with the Marketing Examination Committee and Test Committee

Chris Beuker – Chairman of the Examination Committee Wolter Borger – Secretary of the Examination Committee / member of the Assessment

Committee Jan de Geus – Chairman of the Test Committee Simone Kops Hagedoorn – Member of the Test Committee Johan Postema – Member of the Test Committee

17.00 to 17.30 Discussion with management: Head of School, Academic Dean, team leaders, internal auditor of Marketing

Hanny van Geffen – Head of School Gerry Geitz – Academic Dean M and IBandL Niek van der Tol – Team Leader M and IBandL Johan Postema – Team Leader M and IBandL


Lotte Nijssen – Internal Auditor Wednesday 13 November Trail 3: Internal use of profiling of internationalisation in the School of Business and School of Media & Entertainment and Technology 9.00 to 9.45 Discussion with the management: Heads of School, Academic Deans, team leaders, Director of Internationalisation

Ann Mannen – Head of School SoB Patrick Bemelmans – Head of School SoMEMTECH Wayne Johnson – Head of Sites Kees Elbers – Academic Dean SoB Richard Delger – Academic Dean SoMEMTECH Emile Zirkzee – Team Leader FandC, LogMgt Rianne Meijerink – Curriculum Manager IBandMS Femke Tamminga – Team Leader Life Science

9.45 to 10.00 Break 10.00 to 10.45 Discussion with lecturers

- Maarten Raangs – Industrial Placement Coordinator HRM - Linda Coenen – Erasmus Coordinator LogMgt - Pei Pei Vong – Lecturer ABA - Peter de Boer – Lecturer IBandL - Rene Laan – Coordinator and study career adviser International ICT - Jochen den Ouden – Information technology lecturer - Winnie van Schilt – Information Technology lecturer - Werner Timans – Mechanical Engineering lecturer

10.45 to 11.00 Break 11.00 to 12.00 Discussion with students

- Rosalina Africano – year 4, ABA - Maarten Fennis – year 3, IBandMS - Edgar Smirnovs – year 3, ILM - Astrid Maerman – year 2, HRM - Hayyan Ebrahem – year 1, Information Technology - John Le Houerou – year 1, Information Technology - Coen Reuvers – year 3, Mechanical Engineering - Joris Lankhorst – year 4, Information Technology

Conclusion 11.45 to 13.00 Lunch

13.00 to 13.45 Discussion with Executive Board about remaining questions and explanation

13.45 to 16.30 Panel consultation

16.30 hours Feedback of findings to institution


Annex 3

List of

Studied Documents


The following were made available to the panel in advance: Verbinden en verbeteren, Kritische Reflectie Stenden Hogeschool [Connect and improve,

Critical Reflection Stenden University] NSE 2013 Stenden University Total NSE 2013 Fact sheet Stenden University Stenden Staff Satisfaction Survey (MTO) 2012 2012 Consolidated report T1-2013 T1-2013 report School of L&T incl. report ETFI T1 2013 Course Document MenEM Stenden

The following documents were delivered prior to the audit trails: Educational policy 1 Institutional plan ‘Wereldwijs. Onderwijs en onderzoek, de koers van Stenden 2013-2017’ [‘World-wise, Education and Research, Stenden’s compass for 2013-2017’] 2 Basic memorandum PBL 2nd draft incl. Annex Quality Standard for Programme Plans /Course document + Memorandum Stenden Skills labs and PBL 3 Framework for Comprehensive Test Policy 4 Wereldwijs Onderwijs, [‘Worldwise Education’] 2008 5 Performance agreements ‘Niet bij prestatie-afspraken alleen’ [‘Not only by performance agreements ’] 6 Evaluation frameworks Wereldwijs Onderwijs incl. management response 7 Evaluation of Bouwstenen [Building Blocks] 2011 Research policy 1 Institutional Plan ‘Wereldwijs. Onderwijs en onderzoek, de koers van Stenden 2013-2017’ 2 Wereldwijs Onderwijs, 2008 3 Memorandum ‘Onderzoek en kennisvalorisatie als fundament’ [‘Research and knowledge valorisation as a foundation’] 4 Policy memorandum ‘Naar Stenden Onderzoekseenheden. Onderzoeksbeleid 2013-2017 ’[‘Towards Stenden Research Units. Research Policy 2013-2017’] Staff policy 1 Institutional Plan ‘Wereldwijs. Onderwijs en onderzoek, de koers van Stenden 2013-2017’ 2 Wereldwijs Onderwijs, 2008 3 Performance agreements ‘Niet bij prestatie-afspraken alleen’ 4 Vision of the discussion cycle ‘From shared ambition to shared results’ and accompanying ‘Regulations relating to the discussion cycle’ 5 ‘Stenden gezond aan het werk’, [Working in a healthy manner at Stenden’] elaboration of Stenden University Health Policy 6 Strategic HRM Policy Plan 7 Professionalisation Plan ‘professionaliseren vanuit kracht’ [‘professionalisation based on strength’] Facilities 1 Institutional plan ‘Wereldwijs. Onderwijs en onderzoek, de koers van Stenden 2013-2017’ 2 Wereldwijs Onderwijs, 2008 [Worldwise Education 2008] 3 Long-term Accommodation Plan 2011 4 Memorandum Stenden Skills labs and PBL 2013 Study and disability 1 Study and Disability Regulations 2012 2 Counselling Protocol Study and Disability 2009 3 Working method for student counsellors Quality Assurance Plan 1 ‘Control in Quality, Quality in Control’, memorandum P&C and Quality Management


2 ‘Journey to Global Success’, Educational Quality Plan 3 Memorandum on P&C and Quality Management system Evaluation and management information 1 De Kwestie van Kwaliteit 5 [A Matter of Quality] 2 Consolidated reports T3-2012 and T1-2013 Professional examinations folder 1 Annual Report COBEX 2012 Other 1 Management and Control Regulations 2 Internationalisation: Policy, Strategy, and Implementation 3 Report Expert Panel incl. management response 4 PBL KIT


Annex 4

List of Abbreviations


AD Academic Dean

APL Accreditation of prior learning

AQR Annual Quality Report

BA Bachelor’s degree

CvB Executive Board

EC European credit

EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management

HBO higher professional education

HoS Head of School

HRM Human Resource Management

MA Master’s degree

MR Participation council

MT management team

NSE National Student Survey

NVAO Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders

OBP Administrative and support and staff

PBL Problem-based Learning

PDCA Plan, Do, Check, Act

RvT Supervisory Board

SLB Study career adviser

TER Teaching and Examination Regulation


Credits 12 February 2014 The Advisory Report was drafted on the instructions of the NVAO for the purpose of assessing the application for the institutional audit of the quality assurance of Stenden University.

NVAO

Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie (Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders) Parkstraat 28 ⁄ 2514 JK Den Haag Postbus 85498 ⁄ 2508 CD Den Haag Nederland

T 31 70 312 23 00

F 31 70 312 23 01

E [email protected]

www.nvao.net

Application number 000783


NVAO

Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie (Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders) Parkstraat 28 ⁄ 2514 JK Den Haag Postbus 85498 ⁄ 2508 CD Den Haag Nederland

T 31 70 312 23 00

F 31 70 312 23 01

E [email protected]

www.nvao.net

__________________________________________________________________________________ I, Katherine A. Andrean-Gellert, sworn translator for the English language, registered with the District Court of

‘s-Hertogenbosch, registered pursuant to the Sworn Court Interpreters and Translators Act (Wbtv) under

number 1921, certify this to be a true and full translation of the text seen by me and attached hereto. In witness

whereof signed and stamped.

’s-Hertogenbosch, 22 August 2014