1 Ysu Grading
Content
DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011
YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY (YSU)
ESG Standard 1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance Well elaborated general QA and organizational development policy, however, high conformity with ESG processes seem not to be described in detail yet. The description of quality assurance policy per se according to the ESG is missing: no information on the relationship between teaching and research in the institution is presented. The organization of the quality assurance system, the responsibilities of departments, schools, faculties and individuals to quality assurance processes, the ways in which the policy is implemented, monitored and revised also lacks. Instead, the objectives of quality assurance policy are described in terms of three group principles (safeguarding academic standards, quality assurance, and quality enhancement). The strategy for quality and standards (one of the issues the policy statement is expected to include) defined by the YSU Strategic Development Plan for 2010-2014 is stated that covers ESG standards. However, the time frame and priorities are not stated. Besides, there is no indication of strategic plan monitoring and review mechanisms. The university states its concept of quality as coherence with the state academic standards, instead of introducing quality assurance policy and procedures. According to this document the QA system of YSU concentrates on academic programmes, state academic standards and qualifications framework. The university does not have a clear quality assurance policy, but there are some quality assurance procedures and strategies in place. With regards to implementation, the status of the QA approach is not clear. Feedback mechanisms seem to be planned, however, student participation and feedback are envisioned through their involvement in the processes of programme monitoring and review only. Overall, there is no information on developed and applied regular feedback mechanisms. As for the improvement, the list of measures to be taken is presented. 2. Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards Sufficient mechanisms developed for quality assurance of programmes and awards required by ESG are documented and introduced. Some of them still are subject to approval by YSU Academic Council. The annexes enable to have a full picture of study programme development and approval processes while the development of programme monitoring and review procedures are still in process. QA mechanisms are not described in this standard. The university has formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of their programmes and awards. Principally all these mechanisms seem to be in the stage of planning, their documentary basis is in place (see points 1 & 2), but there is no evidence of implementation of these mechanisms. YSU envisions providing for feedback mechanisms in these procedures (see points 2 & 3). Overall, the rules, procedural descriptions are well described and there is systematic involvement of stakeholders. However, it is not clear how far learning outcomes serve as point of reference for monitoring and review of programmes. 1
DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 Further, the implementation status of the prescribed rules and processes is not clear. Although stakeholder involvement is foreseen there is no information available if and how feedback is collected systematically. Students participate in quality assurance activities programme monitoring and review as stated in principles for quality assurance policy. However, there is no information on regular feedback mechanisms from employers, labor market representatives and other relevant organizations. There is also no information on how the new developments are initiated. 3. Assessment of Students Existence of clear and publicly available criteria, assessment methods, examination regulations, clear regulations covering mitigating circumstances is stated. Overall, the principles are well described; it remains unclear if and to what extent the assessment is oriented towards learning outcomes. Further, there is lack of information on ways of measuring the achievement of the intended learning outcomes. Part of the information (point 8, 9) does not refer to quality assurance mechanisms but rather to the grading process. Under this standard the university introduces only the methods and policy of student assessment, but there is no evidence that it is the result of plan implementation. The monitoring, analysis and improvement of student assessment system is not presented here. Criteria and procedures for student assessment seem to be put in practice and available, however, the administration checks that the assessment procedures are followed instead of how effective they are. The frequency of this is not indicated. With regards to feedback mechanisms no information is available. As for the steps undertaken to improve the situation there is also no information available and learning outcome approach could be a point. 4. Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff Coherent and systematic approach with regard to quality control of staff; less elaborated with regard to staff development. The procedures and regulations of the teaching staff being qualified and competent are described and effective faculty performance management system is to be planned soon. However, there is no information on teaching staff needs analysis and support mechanisms as well as those of working with young staff. No indication of teaching staff encouragement, punishment, firing mechanisms as well as assessment tools for the evaluation of inefficient functioning. There are regulations and procedures to make sure that teaching staff is competent and qualified, the university also has an approved programme for development of professional competences and teaching skills of YSU permanent teaching staff (operating from 2011/12 academic year), staff encouragement mechanisms. The university envisions introduction of the effective faculty performance management system, which comprises student feedback, faculty self-assessment and supervisor review within the frames of short term programmes. But the university does not present the qualitative analysis of these surveys, for example, there are mechanisms in place for checking teacher effectiveness, but there are no mechanisms for firing incompetent staff. With regards to implementation, the approach stated seems to be implemented; there are some mechanisms for assessment of the staff in place. Further, there is lack of information on procedures and 2
DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 regulations to make sure that the teaching staff is qualified and competent to meet the objectives of the academic programmes; no evaluation mechanisms indicated for teaching staff assessment procedure, staff professional development. With regards to improvement, apart from an improvement step is indicated in regard with development of professional competences and teaching skills of the permanent staff envisioned by already approved programme no information is available. 5. Learning Resources and Student Support Overall, analysis of needs and list of measures is presented. The institution provides physical resources: developed and adopted strategy for development of library resources, permanently upgrading computing facilities. However, there is no statement on their adequacy and appropriateness for each programme offered. The development of a system of Academic Advisers is envisioned. Still there is no indication whether learning resources and other support mechanisms are designed based on students needs. YSU has in place policy for developing and upgrading its libraries, programmes for updating its learning and research laboratory base/ President-supported/. The library and computer facilities are constantly being updated, students are provided by all the necessary information materials and guidebooks related to their study at YSU, there is s system of Academic Advisers in place; the university has its Student Union and Student Career Center. However, there are no introduced mechanisms to reveal student satisfaction with the resources available, needs, also mechanisms evaluating the effectiveness of university resources, which will enable an external quality assurance agency to judge the quality of this standard. With regards to implementation Resource upgrading and operating student support mechanisms are stated - Student Union and Student Career Center but there is no information in the effectiveness and efficiency of their functioning. status of implementation of the listed measures not clear As for the evaluation and feedback mechanisms, apart from satisfaction surveys in regard with provided services and resources are conducted only among graduates no information is available. Last, a list of measures to be taken is presented, the upgrading of the library, computing facilities, learning and research laboratories as well as support services takes place but there is no indication of learning resource and student support evaluation mechanisms. 6. Information Systems In general, a well elaborated approach towards data collection and reporting. Key performance indicators are envisioned by the University. The university has information collection subsystems. However, there is no indication on the regular mechanisms of information system planning, evaluating and monitoring and it lacks a centralized information collection apporach. In this report the university does not introduce its mechanisms for assessing and reviewing the effectiveness and validity of information collection and management either.
3
DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 Overall, the approach seems to be implemented. The means of collecting and analyzing information about institution s activities are stated, however, how the university checks the validity and reliability of information collection, analysis is not clear. The feedback mechanisms seem to be in place using data for reaction. It takes place in the form of graduate satisfaction survey in this case missing more regular feedback opportunity by current students and teaching staff. The data seem to be systematically evaluated. Measures for improvement seem to be deduced from data. Further area of improvement could be: a) focusing on relevant data for quality in teaching and learning b) incorporation of learning outcome approach (do my data tell me, it and to what extent the envisaged learning outcomes in my study programme are reached? 7. Public Information The approach is quite convincing. Information about the activities of the university is generally available for students and public at large (applicant and student guides, CD-s, annual and financial reports, website). However, there are no qualitative surveys, analysis, which will help applicants and other stakeholders to better orientate in their choice. As the University has not indicated the policy of public information provision to stakeholders on the programmes and awards it offers, the implementation of the process is introduced in the form of information provision means. Therefore, the quality of providing impartial, objective and readily accessible information is assured is not clear, since there is no indication of such feedback and evaluation mechanisms. Nor is there any information on how the university undertakes its improvement activities. Further, it is not clear whether the public is informed about the findings of the internal QA.
General comments: Overall, there is no information about existing (implemented) QA politics and information about plans for future.
4
YEREVAN STATE UNIVERSITY (YSU)
ESG Standard 1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance Well elaborated general QA and organizational development policy, however, high conformity with ESG processes seem not to be described in detail yet. The description of quality assurance policy per se according to the ESG is missing: no information on the relationship between teaching and research in the institution is presented. The organization of the quality assurance system, the responsibilities of departments, schools, faculties and individuals to quality assurance processes, the ways in which the policy is implemented, monitored and revised also lacks. Instead, the objectives of quality assurance policy are described in terms of three group principles (safeguarding academic standards, quality assurance, and quality enhancement). The strategy for quality and standards (one of the issues the policy statement is expected to include) defined by the YSU Strategic Development Plan for 2010-2014 is stated that covers ESG standards. However, the time frame and priorities are not stated. Besides, there is no indication of strategic plan monitoring and review mechanisms. The university states its concept of quality as coherence with the state academic standards, instead of introducing quality assurance policy and procedures. According to this document the QA system of YSU concentrates on academic programmes, state academic standards and qualifications framework. The university does not have a clear quality assurance policy, but there are some quality assurance procedures and strategies in place. With regards to implementation, the status of the QA approach is not clear. Feedback mechanisms seem to be planned, however, student participation and feedback are envisioned through their involvement in the processes of programme monitoring and review only. Overall, there is no information on developed and applied regular feedback mechanisms. As for the improvement, the list of measures to be taken is presented. 2. Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards Sufficient mechanisms developed for quality assurance of programmes and awards required by ESG are documented and introduced. Some of them still are subject to approval by YSU Academic Council. The annexes enable to have a full picture of study programme development and approval processes while the development of programme monitoring and review procedures are still in process. QA mechanisms are not described in this standard. The university has formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of their programmes and awards. Principally all these mechanisms seem to be in the stage of planning, their documentary basis is in place (see points 1 & 2), but there is no evidence of implementation of these mechanisms. YSU envisions providing for feedback mechanisms in these procedures (see points 2 & 3). Overall, the rules, procedural descriptions are well described and there is systematic involvement of stakeholders. However, it is not clear how far learning outcomes serve as point of reference for monitoring and review of programmes. 1
DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 Further, the implementation status of the prescribed rules and processes is not clear. Although stakeholder involvement is foreseen there is no information available if and how feedback is collected systematically. Students participate in quality assurance activities programme monitoring and review as stated in principles for quality assurance policy. However, there is no information on regular feedback mechanisms from employers, labor market representatives and other relevant organizations. There is also no information on how the new developments are initiated. 3. Assessment of Students Existence of clear and publicly available criteria, assessment methods, examination regulations, clear regulations covering mitigating circumstances is stated. Overall, the principles are well described; it remains unclear if and to what extent the assessment is oriented towards learning outcomes. Further, there is lack of information on ways of measuring the achievement of the intended learning outcomes. Part of the information (point 8, 9) does not refer to quality assurance mechanisms but rather to the grading process. Under this standard the university introduces only the methods and policy of student assessment, but there is no evidence that it is the result of plan implementation. The monitoring, analysis and improvement of student assessment system is not presented here. Criteria and procedures for student assessment seem to be put in practice and available, however, the administration checks that the assessment procedures are followed instead of how effective they are. The frequency of this is not indicated. With regards to feedback mechanisms no information is available. As for the steps undertaken to improve the situation there is also no information available and learning outcome approach could be a point. 4. Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff Coherent and systematic approach with regard to quality control of staff; less elaborated with regard to staff development. The procedures and regulations of the teaching staff being qualified and competent are described and effective faculty performance management system is to be planned soon. However, there is no information on teaching staff needs analysis and support mechanisms as well as those of working with young staff. No indication of teaching staff encouragement, punishment, firing mechanisms as well as assessment tools for the evaluation of inefficient functioning. There are regulations and procedures to make sure that teaching staff is competent and qualified, the university also has an approved programme for development of professional competences and teaching skills of YSU permanent teaching staff (operating from 2011/12 academic year), staff encouragement mechanisms. The university envisions introduction of the effective faculty performance management system, which comprises student feedback, faculty self-assessment and supervisor review within the frames of short term programmes. But the university does not present the qualitative analysis of these surveys, for example, there are mechanisms in place for checking teacher effectiveness, but there are no mechanisms for firing incompetent staff. With regards to implementation, the approach stated seems to be implemented; there are some mechanisms for assessment of the staff in place. Further, there is lack of information on procedures and 2
DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 regulations to make sure that the teaching staff is qualified and competent to meet the objectives of the academic programmes; no evaluation mechanisms indicated for teaching staff assessment procedure, staff professional development. With regards to improvement, apart from an improvement step is indicated in regard with development of professional competences and teaching skills of the permanent staff envisioned by already approved programme no information is available. 5. Learning Resources and Student Support Overall, analysis of needs and list of measures is presented. The institution provides physical resources: developed and adopted strategy for development of library resources, permanently upgrading computing facilities. However, there is no statement on their adequacy and appropriateness for each programme offered. The development of a system of Academic Advisers is envisioned. Still there is no indication whether learning resources and other support mechanisms are designed based on students needs. YSU has in place policy for developing and upgrading its libraries, programmes for updating its learning and research laboratory base/ President-supported/. The library and computer facilities are constantly being updated, students are provided by all the necessary information materials and guidebooks related to their study at YSU, there is s system of Academic Advisers in place; the university has its Student Union and Student Career Center. However, there are no introduced mechanisms to reveal student satisfaction with the resources available, needs, also mechanisms evaluating the effectiveness of university resources, which will enable an external quality assurance agency to judge the quality of this standard. With regards to implementation Resource upgrading and operating student support mechanisms are stated - Student Union and Student Career Center but there is no information in the effectiveness and efficiency of their functioning. status of implementation of the listed measures not clear As for the evaluation and feedback mechanisms, apart from satisfaction surveys in regard with provided services and resources are conducted only among graduates no information is available. Last, a list of measures to be taken is presented, the upgrading of the library, computing facilities, learning and research laboratories as well as support services takes place but there is no indication of learning resource and student support evaluation mechanisms. 6. Information Systems In general, a well elaborated approach towards data collection and reporting. Key performance indicators are envisioned by the University. The university has information collection subsystems. However, there is no indication on the regular mechanisms of information system planning, evaluating and monitoring and it lacks a centralized information collection apporach. In this report the university does not introduce its mechanisms for assessing and reviewing the effectiveness and validity of information collection and management either.
3
DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 Overall, the approach seems to be implemented. The means of collecting and analyzing information about institution s activities are stated, however, how the university checks the validity and reliability of information collection, analysis is not clear. The feedback mechanisms seem to be in place using data for reaction. It takes place in the form of graduate satisfaction survey in this case missing more regular feedback opportunity by current students and teaching staff. The data seem to be systematically evaluated. Measures for improvement seem to be deduced from data. Further area of improvement could be: a) focusing on relevant data for quality in teaching and learning b) incorporation of learning outcome approach (do my data tell me, it and to what extent the envisaged learning outcomes in my study programme are reached? 7. Public Information The approach is quite convincing. Information about the activities of the university is generally available for students and public at large (applicant and student guides, CD-s, annual and financial reports, website). However, there are no qualitative surveys, analysis, which will help applicants and other stakeholders to better orientate in their choice. As the University has not indicated the policy of public information provision to stakeholders on the programmes and awards it offers, the implementation of the process is introduced in the form of information provision means. Therefore, the quality of providing impartial, objective and readily accessible information is assured is not clear, since there is no indication of such feedback and evaluation mechanisms. Nor is there any information on how the university undertakes its improvement activities. Further, it is not clear whether the public is informed about the findings of the internal QA.
General comments: Overall, there is no information about existing (implemented) QA politics and information about plans for future.
4
