B REFLEXIONES Y APORTES AL DISPOSITIVO DESDE EL TRABAJO SOCIAL

In the following it is reflected on students ‘own perception of their role in the Institute’s internal quality assurance system and existing policy procedures.

Overall, students’ estimation of their involvement to internal quality assurance processes is rather diverse. Approximately 56 per cent of students can neither refute nor confirm that students are well represented in internal quality assurance processes. Around 32 per cent of respondents even claim that students are underrepresented in such processes. The student association supports respond- ents’ opinion of students’ underrepresentation in all internal quality assurance committees. Moreo- ver, 30 per cent of students state to not be able to participate in such committee, which adds to stu- dents’ general dissatisfaction with their current degree of involvement, as 80 per wish for greater involvement of students in internal quality assurance processes. All these findings indicate that stu- dents do not perceive themselves as legitimate and equal partners in the Institute’s internal quality assurance system. Moreover, the student association also highlights students’ strong dependency on other committee members in pushing through their interests in internal quality assurance commit- tees, which again weakens students’ power position.

In addition to students’ low estimation of their legitimacy status, students also criticize the rather high degree of non- transparency of the Institute’s internal quality assurance procedures. As shown in Figure 8, approximately 56 per cent of students claim that results of course evaluations are not communicated to students.

Figure 8: Results of evaluations are re-communicated to students (DE)

Source: Student survey (2013)

One quarter of respondents can neither agree nor disagree to have received information about eval- uation results. Thus, despite the fact that results of course evaluations are openly published, stu- dents are not sophisticatedly informed about their access to such information. This implies that the results of evaluations are not properly disseminated to students’, which hampers students’ follow-up potential on the implementation of their claims and limits their legitimacy position.

Concerning the Institute’s overall responsiveness to students’ needs within internal quality proce- dures, respondents’ opinions are not enthusiastic, which is illustrated in Figure 9. Overall, only 26 per cent of respondents are of the opinion that the Institute cares about students’ needs. Thus, students are not of the opinion that the Institute is much engaged in meeting students’ wishes and expecta- tion regarding internal quality assurance. In addition to that, students’ opinion regarding their ability to draw attention to their needs is also rather divergent.

As shown in Figure 9, around 38 per cent agree that students are able to draw attention to their needs, which implies that students’ perceive to have a certain power potential within current inter- nal quality assurance procedures.

Figure 9: German Institute’s responsiveness towards students’ needs (DE)

Source: Student survey (2013) Nonetheless, 36 per cent of respondents remain undecided on this issue, while 24 per cent have the feeling to not be able to draw attention to their claims. These results ascertain that students’ per- ceive their power potential as rather limited within the Institute’s internal quality assurance proce- dures.

5.2.7 Students and the approval, monitoring and periodic review of study pro-

grammes & courses (DE)

In accordance to the Institute’s internal quality assurance policy the majority of students confirm that study programmes and curricula are regularly evaluated. Overall, 60 per cent of respondents confirm that course evaluations take place every semester25

, while 27 per cent confirm that evaluation are launched after each study course. Hereby, 86 per cent of respondents confirm that surveys consti- tute the Institute’s most commonly used instruments for quality evaluation. Approximately 60 per cent of students confirm to have provided feedback on the quality of education, while 24 per cent claim to have been neglected in such practices, which points towards a slight inconsistency in the implementation of internal quality assurance practices. This opposes students’ interests, as 80 per cent of respondents claim that the possibility to provide feedback constitutes a vital issue to stu- dents. Thus, students’ are eager to be involved and contribute to the assurance of internal quality standards. Students’ general opinion is also supported by the student association. Hereby, students’ claims for high quality education majorly strive from the Institute’s competitive selection procedures,

25

Students’ high response rates regarding semester evaluations strive from differences in the German academ- ic year circle as at the Institute courses are given each semester (6 months) instead of each quartile so as in the Dutch case study.

which increases students’ expectations about the quality of education and teaching, as many stu- dents put allot of efforts to successfully pass the Institute’s admission procedures. Thus, in return for their efforts, students expect to receive high quality education (I8, 2013).

Though students have urgent claims concerning quality in HE, their opinion regarding the Institute’s responsiveness towards students’ feedback is rather divided. Overall, 53 per cent of students confirm that the German Institute has an interest in improving quality. Still, as shown in Figure 10, around 46 per cent of students are not of the opinion that the Institute considers students’ feedback to improve the quality of education.

Figure 10: Perceived influence and implementation of students’ feedback by the Institute (DE)

Source: Student survey (2013)

Around 40 per cent of respondents remain undecided. These findings show that students have a rather limited or even low estimation of their power potential, as they are not of the opinion that the Institute considers their feedback to improve the quality of education.

Respondents’ negative assessment of students’ impact on internal quality assurance is fortified when analysing students’ estimation of their concrete influence on internal quality matters. As illustrated in Figure 10 above, in total 40 per cent of students are not of the opinion that their provided feedback has an influence on the quality of education. This negative evaluation is supported by the student

association, stating that students’ have rather limited power in inducing changes to the quality of education, due to students’ great dependency on the voluntary cooperation of the single teacher. According to the student association, student feedback is only considered by teachers on a self- motivated basis and in case the latter is not maintaining a hierarchical relationships to students (I8, 2013). Hereby, the student association mentioned several examples in which teachers remained ig- norant of students’ feedback. Adding up to that, the student association could not mentioned one example in which student feedback has led to substantial changes in the quality of education. Thus, the student association supports students’ general perception that their feedback is easily aban- doned. This implies that students perceive themselves as powerless actors within the Institute’s in- ternal quality assurance processes. Students’ negative perception of their power potential is sup- ported by their lack of knowledge regarding the implementation of students’ feedback, with 58 per cent of respondents stating to not know how students' feedback has been acted upon.