Capítulo V Recurso de Revocación
PROCEDIMIENTO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Capítulo I
Given the major policy changes in the field of quality assurance which have taken place on a European scale since 2003, the objective of the Trends V questionnaire in this field was to ascertain to what extent higher education institutions were taking a pro-active approach to internal quality assurance, and whether or not this was supported by external quality assurance processes. The aim was to explore the frequency of evaluations for programmes, student services and research teams. The institutions were also asked to indicate the character (obligatory or voluntary) of processes evaluating the individual teaching staff.
4. QUALITy ASSURANCE
figure 20regular internal
evaluation by heis
Student learning servicesResearch teams Research
activities teaching staffIndividual Programmes 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 43 % 48 % 65 % 67 % 72 %
54
When comparing the relative reported levels of internal quality assurance activity, it can be seen that programmes are evaluated most regularly, while student learning services and research teams much less so. While the questionnaires did not explore the extent or consequences of these internal evaluations, nevertheless the responses provide a clear signal that most higher education institutions do undertake various forms of internal quality assurance. Furthermore, although Trends V and Trends III data are not directly comparable, it can be observed that considerably greater proportions of higher education institutions are now undertaking activities key to developing an active internal quality assurance system than in 2003.
Internal evaluation of programmes
Over 95% of responding higher education institutions stated that they conduct internal evaluations of their programmes, of which over 70% do so on a regular basis, while 24% do so “sometimes”. This compares favourably with the Trends III findings, where 82% answered that they had some form of internal mechanisms for monitoring the quality of teaching.
When examined nationally, it is clear that there are strong system trends underlying these responses, with 12 countries clustered in the category of all/nearly all institutions conducting regular evaluations, and a further 11 countries where most institutions undertake these processes. At the other end of the spectrum, it is not surprising to find that some of the institutions where none or only a minority of higher education institutions conduct such evaluations can be found in countries where there is not yet an operational quality assurance system.
All/nearly all institutions
AD,ES,GB,IE,LT,LV,Mk,NL,NO,RU,SI,UA no institutions BA,CS,HR,LU,MT majority of institutions AT,DE,EE,HU,IS,SE figure 21
regular internal
evaluation of
programmes
most institutions BE,BG,CH,CZ,Dk,GE,IT,PL,PT,RO,Sk minority of institutions CY,FI,FR,GR,TRLinguistic confusion regarding the wording of this question is possible. In particular, the concept of “internal evaluation” may have been confused with “self-evaluation” as a preparatory phase for external quality assurance. Higher education institutions in those countries which have recently introduced new “Bologna” programmes, and where the QA mechanisms are so far linked to an external accreditation process, may also have responded with this in mind. Nevertheless, the overall responses give a clear indication of the extent of the regular use of internal QA mechanisms for academic programmes across Europe.
evaluation of student learning services
The overall response is far less affirmative regarding the evaluation of student learning services, such as libraries, academic orientation/advisory services, etc. Only 43% of higher education institutions respond that they regularly evaluate such services, with a further 36% stating that they do so “sometimes”. 20% of responding institutions do not evaluate these services at all.
These rather low figures compare favourably, however, with the Trends III findings, where 26% stated in 2003 that they had internal mechanisms to monitor the quality of activities other than teaching and research. The geographical variations in these Trends V responses are striking. In only a handful of countries do a majority of higher education institutions include such vital services as libraries and student advisory offices in their regular quality assurance procedures. These figures are also disturbing when viewed in relation to the provision of student services (see Chapter 3), where 85% of institutions report that they offer academic orientation services, a significant increase from 2003. Most of these services must either be so new that they have not yet been evaluated, or alternatively there are no plans to evaluate them on a regular basis. There is a clear need for a more concerted approach to improving quality of these key elements of the teaching and learning environment. Effective quality culture is difficult to envisage if these services are neglected. most institutions LV,NO,RU figure 22
regular internal
evaluation of
student learning
services
majority of institutions GE,IE,NL no institutions AD,BA,CS,HR,LU,MT minority of institutions AT,BE,BG,CH,CY,CZ,DE,EE, ES,FI,FR,GR,HU,IS,IT,LT,Mk,PL, PT,RO,SE,SI,Sk,TR,UAAll/nearly all institutions
GB
56
evaluation of research teams
In the research field, slightly less than half of the higher education institutions stated that they regularly evaluate their research teams, while a quarter replied that they “sometimes” do so, and a further quarter responded “no”. However, nearly two-thirds of higher education institutions stated that they collected quantitative data systematically on all research activities, with a further quarter answering that they did so for some activities. Again, these figures are improvements on the Trends III data from 2003, where 53% of institutions stated they had some form of internal mechanism for monitoring the quality of research.
evaluation of individual teaching staff
Regarding the evaluation of individual teaching staff, two-thirds of responding higher education institutions stated that they had obligatory procedures, while a further 17% stated that voluntary procedures were in place. 16% stated that they did not have such procedures.
While these trends in increasing internal evaluation are evident, the main challenge appears to be to broaden the scope of institutional quality assurance activities. Extending quality assurance to the provision of vital student services, especially those related to guidance and counselling and thus to supporting students with the greatest needs, remains a particular challenge.