This document provides guidelines for institutions participating in the Institutional Evaluation Programme run by the European University Association. It outlines the evaluation process, including establishing a self-evaluation group to conduct a self-study and write a report. The report will be reviewed by an external evaluation team who will make two site visits. The evaluation focuses on strategic planning, quality processes, and a strategic priority selected by the institution. The process aims to support quality improvement and development through self-reflection and peer review.
The document discusses Classroom Improvement Plans (CIPs). CIPs are plans to improve classrooms and their environments. They involve members like principals, section heads, coordinators, teachers, and students. Elements of a CIP include vision, mission, SWOT/C analysis, prioritization, planning, implementation, and evaluation. The cycle of a CIP involves planning, doing, checking, and acting/evaluating. The document provides examples and guidance on developing the components of a CIP, such as writing vision and mission statements, setting objectives, conducting a SWOT/C analysis, prioritizing needs, planning, implementing, and evaluating.
This document provides information about RPMS tools and performance assessment for teachers in the Philippines. It discusses the two RPMS tools for teachers, which assess Proficient Teachers and Highly Proficient Teachers. It also outlines the parts of the tools, including key result areas, objectives, means of verification, and performance indicators. The document gives examples of how a sample teacher's performance would be assessed using the tools, providing hypothetical documentation the teacher may submit for different objectives and calculations for determining overall performance ratings.
[Appendix 1] rpms tool for t i iii sy 2020-2021 in the time of covid-19JulieBethReyno1
This document outlines the position and competency profile for teachers in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic for the 2020-2021 school year. It details the qualification standards, duties and responsibilities, and key result areas (KRAs) that teachers are assessed on. The KRAs include content knowledge and pedagogy, diversity of learners and assessment/reporting. Specific performance indicators within each KRA describe how teachers can demonstrate applying knowledge, facilitating learning with technology, developing higher-order thinking skills, responding to learner diversity, and addressing needs of learners in difficult circumstances. Teachers' performance is evaluated based on classroom observations, lesson plans, and other teaching materials they provide as evidence.
The document provides guidance for teachers on building a portfolio to document their learning and application of skills from an online Learning Delivery Modalities course. It includes a table with suggested artifacts to include, such as lesson plans and learning resources, and guidance on formatting, submission, and evaluation of the portfolio. The portfolio aims to help teachers integrate their online learning with practical application in the workplace.
This document contains the Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS) portfolio of Teacher B. Poganda from Bignay National High School for SY 2018-2019. The portfolio includes the teacher's objectives and performance targets for each Key Result Area (KRA), along with strategies and documentation used to meet the objectives. It also provides descriptions of differentiated supervision and observation approaches. In summary, this document presents a teacher's RPMS portfolio outlining objectives, strategies, and documentation for evaluation according to the school's performance management system.
Take note, that is not the font style I used. Hindi supported ung font style dito sa website. If you want to get the font style I used when you download this file, download also these following font styles:
DJB Pokey Dots (for KRA, MOV and OBJECTIVE)
AR DELANEY (for the domains of PPST)
Calligram Personal (for the objectives placed on green background)
[Appendix 1 b] rpms tool for highly proficient teachers sy 2021 2022 in the t...GlennOcampo
The document is an RPMS tool for highly proficient teachers (Master Teacher I-IV) for the 2021-2022 school year that outlines their position, qualifications, duties and responsibilities, and performance evaluation. It contains details on the education, experience, and training requirements for each level of Master Teacher. It also lists key result areas (KRAs) related to content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, and learner development and engagement. Under each KRA are objectives with corresponding performance indicators and means of verification for evaluation.
This document appears to be a teacher's performance evaluation containing their results on various Key Result Areas (KRA). The KRAs include Content Knowledge and Pedagogy, Learning Environment, Diversity of Learners and Planning, Community Linkages and Professional Engagement, and a Plus Factor. Each KRA contains several objectives that are measured and scored. The evaluation also includes the teacher's name, position, and signature of the principal.
The document discusses Classroom Improvement Plans (CIPs). CIPs are plans to improve classrooms and their environments. They involve members like principals, section heads, coordinators, teachers, and students. Elements of a CIP include vision, mission, SWOT/C analysis, prioritization, planning, implementation, and evaluation. The cycle of a CIP involves planning, doing, checking, and acting/evaluating. The document provides examples and guidance on developing the components of a CIP, such as writing vision and mission statements, setting objectives, conducting a SWOT/C analysis, prioritizing needs, planning, implementing, and evaluating.
This document provides information about RPMS tools and performance assessment for teachers in the Philippines. It discusses the two RPMS tools for teachers, which assess Proficient Teachers and Highly Proficient Teachers. It also outlines the parts of the tools, including key result areas, objectives, means of verification, and performance indicators. The document gives examples of how a sample teacher's performance would be assessed using the tools, providing hypothetical documentation the teacher may submit for different objectives and calculations for determining overall performance ratings.
[Appendix 1] rpms tool for t i iii sy 2020-2021 in the time of covid-19JulieBethReyno1
This document outlines the position and competency profile for teachers in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic for the 2020-2021 school year. It details the qualification standards, duties and responsibilities, and key result areas (KRAs) that teachers are assessed on. The KRAs include content knowledge and pedagogy, diversity of learners and assessment/reporting. Specific performance indicators within each KRA describe how teachers can demonstrate applying knowledge, facilitating learning with technology, developing higher-order thinking skills, responding to learner diversity, and addressing needs of learners in difficult circumstances. Teachers' performance is evaluated based on classroom observations, lesson plans, and other teaching materials they provide as evidence.
The document provides guidance for teachers on building a portfolio to document their learning and application of skills from an online Learning Delivery Modalities course. It includes a table with suggested artifacts to include, such as lesson plans and learning resources, and guidance on formatting, submission, and evaluation of the portfolio. The portfolio aims to help teachers integrate their online learning with practical application in the workplace.
This document contains the Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS) portfolio of Teacher B. Poganda from Bignay National High School for SY 2018-2019. The portfolio includes the teacher's objectives and performance targets for each Key Result Area (KRA), along with strategies and documentation used to meet the objectives. It also provides descriptions of differentiated supervision and observation approaches. In summary, this document presents a teacher's RPMS portfolio outlining objectives, strategies, and documentation for evaluation according to the school's performance management system.
Take note, that is not the font style I used. Hindi supported ung font style dito sa website. If you want to get the font style I used when you download this file, download also these following font styles:
DJB Pokey Dots (for KRA, MOV and OBJECTIVE)
AR DELANEY (for the domains of PPST)
Calligram Personal (for the objectives placed on green background)
[Appendix 1 b] rpms tool for highly proficient teachers sy 2021 2022 in the t...GlennOcampo
The document is an RPMS tool for highly proficient teachers (Master Teacher I-IV) for the 2021-2022 school year that outlines their position, qualifications, duties and responsibilities, and performance evaluation. It contains details on the education, experience, and training requirements for each level of Master Teacher. It also lists key result areas (KRAs) related to content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, and learner development and engagement. Under each KRA are objectives with corresponding performance indicators and means of verification for evaluation.
This document appears to be a teacher's performance evaluation containing their results on various Key Result Areas (KRA). The KRAs include Content Knowledge and Pedagogy, Learning Environment, Diversity of Learners and Planning, Community Linkages and Professional Engagement, and a Plus Factor. Each KRA contains several objectives that are measured and scored. The evaluation also includes the teacher's name, position, and signature of the principal.
This portfolio documents the teacher's implementation of the LDM 2 course standards in their teaching practice during the 2020-2021 school year. It includes individual learning plans for students, lesson plans, teaching resources, certificates of professional development activities, and reflections on improving practice. The teacher worked to engage students and their families in the distance learning process by ensuring clear communication and monitoring of student progress through feedback. They also collaborated with colleagues to support students, especially those in difficult circumstances, and applied the skills learned in the LDM course.
This document provides guidance to teachers on building a teaching portfolio to document their implementation of new teaching modalities. It outlines the objectives of documenting evidence of teaching practice in a portfolio that will be evaluated against standards. The portfolio will contain evidence from previous training modules and reflections on teaching progress. Teachers are provided templates to plan the content of their portfolio and evaluate it according to set criteria. The goal is for teachers to continue developing their practice and have materials to support performance evaluations.
This document outlines objectives and means of verification for assessing teachers' performance in various domains. It includes 13 objectives related to content knowledge, pedagogical strategies, learning environment management, curriculum planning, assessment, communication with stakeholders, and additional teaching-related activities. Each objective lists several means of verification such as classroom observations, lesson plans, assessment tools, and documentation of engagement with learners, parents, and professional development activities.
The document outlines the required and self-selected artifacts for a teacher's portfolio for the school year 2020-2021 at San Emilio National High School. The required artifacts include an individual learning monitoring plan, weekly home learning plans/lesson plans, teacher-made or modified learning resources, certificates of participation in professional development activities, and a reflective summary. The self-selected artifacts can include evidence of engaging learners for their progress and achievement, professional engagement with colleagues, and engaging key stakeholders in the teaching and learning process. Guidelines are provided for possible self-selected artifacts that address different standards.
This document provides a summary report of a two-day monitoring and evaluation (M&E) training conducted for policy staff at the Ministry of Finance in Afghanistan. The training aimed to build participants' capacity in M&E and equip them with skills to effectively plan and implement M&E of programs, particularly those under the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. A total of 15 staff members from various departments attended the training, which covered terminology, concepts, tools and the importance of M&E. Participants engaged in group work and discussions. Based on an evaluation, the training was successful in enhancing understanding of key M&E topics.
Developing the skills of VET Practitioners - a real story
Presentation at VELG Conference 2015
Kerrie-Anne Sommerfeld (Rubric Training Solutions) and Claire Rasmussen (FedUni TAFE)
"DepEd Order No.2, s. 2015 Guidelines on the Establishment & Implementation o...REYBETH RACELIS
"DepEd Order No.2, s. 2015 Guidelines on the Establishment & Implementation of the Results - based Performance Management System (RPMS) in the Department."
The American TESOL Institute Comprehensive Plan outlines their certification programs which aim to provide teachers with an understanding of TESOL history and theory, improve lesson planning skills, build confidence, and prepare teachers for practical TESOL instruction. The plan details needs assessments of education stakeholders to determine program needs, a prior approval process for professional learning credits, course components, completion requirements including attendance, demonstrated competencies and a plan of action, and record keeping and appeals processes.
The document summarizes proceedings from a monitoring and evaluation learning forum for IFAD projects in Nigeria. Participants shared challenges and experiences. Key outcomes included developing a framework to monitor annual workplans and budgets, and defining options for sustainable capacity building, including recommendations for harmonized country-level M&E support.
This document provides guidelines for implementing outcome-based education at an engineering institute in India. It outlines the institute's vision, mission, and quality policy. It then discusses key aspects of OBE including the revised Bloom's taxonomy, guidelines for writing course outcomes, mapping course outcomes to program outcomes, assessing student competency through rubrics, and using activity-based learning. The document provides examples and templates for developing course outcomes, mapping them to assessments and program outcomes, calculating attainment levels, and facilitating continuous improvement.
This document contains an RPMS (Results-Based Performance Management System) tool for teachers in the Philippines for the 2021-2022 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic. It includes the position and competency profile, duties and responsibilities, and performance indicators for Key Result Areas related to content knowledge and pedagogy, and learning environment. Teachers are evaluated based on classroom observations, lesson plans, and other means of verification to determine their level of performance in establishing effective learning environments and demonstrating strong content knowledge and teaching skills.
01 BHROD PPST-RPMS Preliminary for Orientation sy 2019-2020edmond84
This orientation provides an overview of the RPMS-PPST orientation for the 2019-2020 school year. The objectives are to reinforce understanding of the assessment tools and establish trainers. The agenda includes discussing the context of RPMS, the PPST, the RPMS process, tools, classroom observation protocols and simulations. The goal is to support the implementation of the PPST-based RPMS for teacher development and quality education.
The document provides a template for an outcome-based education (OBE) curriculum. It includes templates for the curriculum framework and course outlines.
The curriculum framework template includes sections for the vision and mission of the university and program, program educational objectives, program learning outcomes, course schemes and descriptions. The course description template includes the course objectives, learning outcomes, content, assessment strategies, and resources.
The document also provides frameworks for the curriculum and course outlines. The curriculum framework includes guidelines for mapping learning outcomes from the program to courses and assessment. The course outline framework provides a structure for course details, mapping outcomes, content, strategies, and evaluation criteria.
Faculty development team annual plan 2013 2014toddkaneCSUGC
The Faculty Development Team annual update summarizes their accomplishments in 2013-2014, including onboarding over 250 new faculty, developing new training courses, conducting performance reviews, and planning new initiatives for 2014 like rolling out a peer/annual review process and developing new training courses.
[Appendix 5 a] sat rpms for t i-iii sy 2021-2022 in the time of covid-19Gie Escoto
This document contains a self-assessment tool for teachers in the Philippines to evaluate their performance based on objectives related to their professional work. The tool has three parts: demographic information, ratings of objectives related to teacher quality requirements, and core behavioral competencies. Teachers are to complete the tool to guide their professional development and improvement areas based on a results-based performance management system. The objectives cover domains like content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and planning, and assessment and reporting. Teachers provide self-ratings of their capability levels and priorities for development for each objective.
The document discusses the alignment of the Results-based Performance Management System (RPMS) with the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST). It provides context on the development of RPMS and PPST. Key aspects of the alignment process from 2015 to 2018 include: aligning RPMS objectives, indicators, and tools with the domains and standards of PPST; standardizing the performance assessment process; and focusing the system on teachers' core functions and quality of work. The result is a PPST-based RPMS that better guides teachers' professional development.
This document is an introduction to the Results-based Performance Management System (RPMS) Manual for Teachers and School Heads. It was developed by the Philippine National Research Center for Teacher Quality to align the RPMS with the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers. The manual provides guidance for teachers on preparing and completing RPMS documents, and for school heads on assessing teacher performance. It describes the tools and processes used to evaluate performance over the RPMS cycles. The goal is to support continuous improvement in teacher quality.
The Role of Stakeholders and Parterships in Open Education by Economia Creati...Antonio Carlos Ruiz
In the context of Network Society in the Digital Era, education and open education programmes has to understant and commit to solid partnerships developing win-win strategies. Multifaceted stakeholders partnerships in education are essential for creating and implementing policies, programmes and curricula that can address the complexity of nowadays in an inclusive, efficient and effective way.
The document provides guidance for facilitating a workshop on note taking strategies for university students. It includes an outline of the workshop with timing for each section, which introduces students to different note taking methods like the Cornell method, outline method, T-notes, and mind maps. The workshop aims to help students take better notes through practicing active listening, identifying their personal note taking styles, and learning recommended strategies.
The document is a presentation on writing a research paper. It provides steps for writing a research paper, including understanding the assignment, selecting and focusing the topic, developing a thesis statement, designing a research strategy, finding and evaluating sources, creating an outline, drafting and revising. It emphasizes maintaining academic integrity by properly citing sources to avoid plagiarism and introduces students to library resources for research.
This portfolio documents the teacher's implementation of the LDM 2 course standards in their teaching practice during the 2020-2021 school year. It includes individual learning plans for students, lesson plans, teaching resources, certificates of professional development activities, and reflections on improving practice. The teacher worked to engage students and their families in the distance learning process by ensuring clear communication and monitoring of student progress through feedback. They also collaborated with colleagues to support students, especially those in difficult circumstances, and applied the skills learned in the LDM course.
This document provides guidance to teachers on building a teaching portfolio to document their implementation of new teaching modalities. It outlines the objectives of documenting evidence of teaching practice in a portfolio that will be evaluated against standards. The portfolio will contain evidence from previous training modules and reflections on teaching progress. Teachers are provided templates to plan the content of their portfolio and evaluate it according to set criteria. The goal is for teachers to continue developing their practice and have materials to support performance evaluations.
This document outlines objectives and means of verification for assessing teachers' performance in various domains. It includes 13 objectives related to content knowledge, pedagogical strategies, learning environment management, curriculum planning, assessment, communication with stakeholders, and additional teaching-related activities. Each objective lists several means of verification such as classroom observations, lesson plans, assessment tools, and documentation of engagement with learners, parents, and professional development activities.
The document outlines the required and self-selected artifacts for a teacher's portfolio for the school year 2020-2021 at San Emilio National High School. The required artifacts include an individual learning monitoring plan, weekly home learning plans/lesson plans, teacher-made or modified learning resources, certificates of participation in professional development activities, and a reflective summary. The self-selected artifacts can include evidence of engaging learners for their progress and achievement, professional engagement with colleagues, and engaging key stakeholders in the teaching and learning process. Guidelines are provided for possible self-selected artifacts that address different standards.
This document provides a summary report of a two-day monitoring and evaluation (M&E) training conducted for policy staff at the Ministry of Finance in Afghanistan. The training aimed to build participants' capacity in M&E and equip them with skills to effectively plan and implement M&E of programs, particularly those under the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework. A total of 15 staff members from various departments attended the training, which covered terminology, concepts, tools and the importance of M&E. Participants engaged in group work and discussions. Based on an evaluation, the training was successful in enhancing understanding of key M&E topics.
Developing the skills of VET Practitioners - a real story
Presentation at VELG Conference 2015
Kerrie-Anne Sommerfeld (Rubric Training Solutions) and Claire Rasmussen (FedUni TAFE)
"DepEd Order No.2, s. 2015 Guidelines on the Establishment & Implementation o...REYBETH RACELIS
"DepEd Order No.2, s. 2015 Guidelines on the Establishment & Implementation of the Results - based Performance Management System (RPMS) in the Department."
The American TESOL Institute Comprehensive Plan outlines their certification programs which aim to provide teachers with an understanding of TESOL history and theory, improve lesson planning skills, build confidence, and prepare teachers for practical TESOL instruction. The plan details needs assessments of education stakeholders to determine program needs, a prior approval process for professional learning credits, course components, completion requirements including attendance, demonstrated competencies and a plan of action, and record keeping and appeals processes.
The document summarizes proceedings from a monitoring and evaluation learning forum for IFAD projects in Nigeria. Participants shared challenges and experiences. Key outcomes included developing a framework to monitor annual workplans and budgets, and defining options for sustainable capacity building, including recommendations for harmonized country-level M&E support.
This document provides guidelines for implementing outcome-based education at an engineering institute in India. It outlines the institute's vision, mission, and quality policy. It then discusses key aspects of OBE including the revised Bloom's taxonomy, guidelines for writing course outcomes, mapping course outcomes to program outcomes, assessing student competency through rubrics, and using activity-based learning. The document provides examples and templates for developing course outcomes, mapping them to assessments and program outcomes, calculating attainment levels, and facilitating continuous improvement.
This document contains an RPMS (Results-Based Performance Management System) tool for teachers in the Philippines for the 2021-2022 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic. It includes the position and competency profile, duties and responsibilities, and performance indicators for Key Result Areas related to content knowledge and pedagogy, and learning environment. Teachers are evaluated based on classroom observations, lesson plans, and other means of verification to determine their level of performance in establishing effective learning environments and demonstrating strong content knowledge and teaching skills.
01 BHROD PPST-RPMS Preliminary for Orientation sy 2019-2020edmond84
This orientation provides an overview of the RPMS-PPST orientation for the 2019-2020 school year. The objectives are to reinforce understanding of the assessment tools and establish trainers. The agenda includes discussing the context of RPMS, the PPST, the RPMS process, tools, classroom observation protocols and simulations. The goal is to support the implementation of the PPST-based RPMS for teacher development and quality education.
The document provides a template for an outcome-based education (OBE) curriculum. It includes templates for the curriculum framework and course outlines.
The curriculum framework template includes sections for the vision and mission of the university and program, program educational objectives, program learning outcomes, course schemes and descriptions. The course description template includes the course objectives, learning outcomes, content, assessment strategies, and resources.
The document also provides frameworks for the curriculum and course outlines. The curriculum framework includes guidelines for mapping learning outcomes from the program to courses and assessment. The course outline framework provides a structure for course details, mapping outcomes, content, strategies, and evaluation criteria.
Faculty development team annual plan 2013 2014toddkaneCSUGC
The Faculty Development Team annual update summarizes their accomplishments in 2013-2014, including onboarding over 250 new faculty, developing new training courses, conducting performance reviews, and planning new initiatives for 2014 like rolling out a peer/annual review process and developing new training courses.
[Appendix 5 a] sat rpms for t i-iii sy 2021-2022 in the time of covid-19Gie Escoto
This document contains a self-assessment tool for teachers in the Philippines to evaluate their performance based on objectives related to their professional work. The tool has three parts: demographic information, ratings of objectives related to teacher quality requirements, and core behavioral competencies. Teachers are to complete the tool to guide their professional development and improvement areas based on a results-based performance management system. The objectives cover domains like content knowledge and pedagogy, learning environment, diversity of learners, curriculum and planning, and assessment and reporting. Teachers provide self-ratings of their capability levels and priorities for development for each objective.
The document discusses the alignment of the Results-based Performance Management System (RPMS) with the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST). It provides context on the development of RPMS and PPST. Key aspects of the alignment process from 2015 to 2018 include: aligning RPMS objectives, indicators, and tools with the domains and standards of PPST; standardizing the performance assessment process; and focusing the system on teachers' core functions and quality of work. The result is a PPST-based RPMS that better guides teachers' professional development.
This document is an introduction to the Results-based Performance Management System (RPMS) Manual for Teachers and School Heads. It was developed by the Philippine National Research Center for Teacher Quality to align the RPMS with the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers. The manual provides guidance for teachers on preparing and completing RPMS documents, and for school heads on assessing teacher performance. It describes the tools and processes used to evaluate performance over the RPMS cycles. The goal is to support continuous improvement in teacher quality.
The Role of Stakeholders and Parterships in Open Education by Economia Creati...Antonio Carlos Ruiz
In the context of Network Society in the Digital Era, education and open education programmes has to understant and commit to solid partnerships developing win-win strategies. Multifaceted stakeholders partnerships in education are essential for creating and implementing policies, programmes and curricula that can address the complexity of nowadays in an inclusive, efficient and effective way.
The document provides guidance for facilitating a workshop on note taking strategies for university students. It includes an outline of the workshop with timing for each section, which introduces students to different note taking methods like the Cornell method, outline method, T-notes, and mind maps. The workshop aims to help students take better notes through practicing active listening, identifying their personal note taking styles, and learning recommended strategies.
The document is a presentation on writing a research paper. It provides steps for writing a research paper, including understanding the assignment, selecting and focusing the topic, developing a thesis statement, designing a research strategy, finding and evaluating sources, creating an outline, drafting and revising. It emphasizes maintaining academic integrity by properly citing sources to avoid plagiarism and introduces students to library resources for research.
This document provides guidance for facilitating a workshop on writing research papers. It outlines the learning outcomes and agenda, including introducing key steps and resources to support students' research papers. The facilitator is encouraged to engage students through polls to understand their experience levels and topics. Key topics covered include understanding assignments, developing a thesis statement, designing a research strategy, and using citation management tools. The overall aim is to equip students with best practices for writing successful research papers.
This document provides an outline and facilitator notes for a workshop on exam strategies for university students. The workshop covers various topics to help students prepare for and manage exam anxiety, including self-assessment of anxiety levels, Bloom's taxonomy of learning, how some stress can be beneficial, strategies to overcome anxiety during exams, steps to prepare for exams, and different exam question types. The outline provides estimated times for each section and suggests interactive polls and discussions to help students reflect on effective study methods and ways to apply the material.
El documento presenta el programa de estudios del módulo de Análisis derivativo de funciones para todas las áreas y carreras de nivel profesional técnico-bachiller. Incluye el objetivo general de la carrera, que es formar profesionales competentes para desempeñarse a nivel de mandos intermedios aplicando conocimientos científicos, tecnológicos y humanísticos. También presenta las competencias transversales al currículum y el contenido del programa, el cual comprende aspectos específicos del módu
Here is a sample training plan outline that covers the key elements that should be included in an effective safety training program plan:
1.0 Introduction
- Purpose and importance of the training plan
2.0 Management Commitment
- Commitment to providing necessary resources
3.0 Needs Assessment
- Process for identifying training needs
4.0 Training Requirements
- Regulatory training requirements
5.0 Training Program Design
- Learning objectives, course content, delivery methods
6.0 Training Implementation
- Responsibilities, scheduling, recordkeeping
7.0 Evaluation of Training
- Effectiveness evaluation, continual improvement
8.0 Documentation and Recordkeeping
- Training records, certifications
The assistant supports the director in the daily management of EPS.
Board: The board consists of the directors of the participating research groups
and institutes. The board is responsible for the policy and strategy of EPS.
Advisory board: The advisory board advises the board on strategic issues and
consists of representatives of the participating universities and institutes.
PhD council: The PhD council represents the PhD candidates and advises the
board on the PhD programme.
Education committee: The education committee is responsible for the
development and quality of the PhD education programme.
Finance committee: The finance committee advises the board on financial issues.
The director is responsible for the daily management of EPS and is
This document provides a summary of a peer review of the evaluation function of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The review assessed FAO's evaluation function against criteria of utility, credibility and independence.
Key findings include: FAO has a mature evaluation function but opportunities exist to improve strategic use of evaluations. Credibility of evaluations relies on individual managers but systems are being strengthened. Functional independence exists but could be further clarified.
Recommendations focus on: improving strategic use of evaluations; clarifying roles in country evaluations; strengthening the evaluation-management relationship; improving evaluation quality; systematizing evaluation practice; and clarifying issues regarding the independence of the evaluation office. Changes to FAO's evaluation policy charter are also
The IMPADA Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is a tool designed for education organisations (and practitioners) to self-assess the effectiveness of their adult education provision with disadvantaged groups.
This Implementation Guide supports the provider’s leadership team through the process, including setting up the most effective Assessment Team.
The CAF is also supported by a Methodology, to enable the Assessment Team to self-assess, produce a Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and action plan identified improvements.
This document provides an assessment report of the ICLON Research program on Teaching and Teacher Learning from 2009-2014. It begins with an introduction to the evaluation process and criteria. It then discusses the structure, organization, and mission of ICLON, noting its focus on research related to teaching and teacher learning. The report assesses the quality, relevance, and viability of ICLON's research program and PhD training. It provides recommendations to further improve the research and PhD program, particularly around increasing international visibility and benchmarking.
Master thesis Solvay Brussels School 2012-2014 - Teodora VirbanTeodora Virban
This document presents a comparative analysis of European Commission evaluations of development cooperation programmes in four countries between 2012-2014. It provides an overview of program evaluation concepts and the European Commission's approach to evaluations. The analysis examines four evaluation reports from Colombia, Jamaica, Nepal and the Philippines to compare how key evaluation criteria were addressed and the overall methodology and structure of the reports. The goal is to assess the level of consistency in approach across the different evaluations.
This document provides an introduction to the core module 1 training guide on monitoring and evaluation of HIV/AIDS programs. The guide was developed by Family Health International with funding from USAID to build M&E skills for staff implementing HIV prevention, care, and treatment programs. Core module 1 introduces basic concepts of monitoring and evaluation, including distinguishing between monitoring and evaluation, identifying opportunities and barriers to M&E, understanding M&E frameworks, levels of M&E and responsibilities, developing goals, objectives and evaluation questions, selecting indicators, and introducing common M&E methods and tools.
New Developments in External Quality Assurance in the EHEAColin Tück
This document discusses new developments in external quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area. It covers the following topics:
1. An overview of the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) which registers quality assurance agencies that comply with European standards.
2. A project examining cross-border quality assurance and the degree to which countries allow international quality assurance agencies to operate within their systems.
3. An ongoing revision of the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance to update and clarify the standards.
4. A proposal for a European approach to quality assurance of joint academic programs, focusing on single, integrated reviews based on European standards rather than additional national criteria.
The document outlines the roles, tasks, and estimated costs for implementing a national evaluation of research organizations (NERO) in the Czech Republic. It describes the evaluation management structure, including an Evaluation Management Board and Team. The Team would manage the evaluation process, support peer review panels, and analyze results. Evaluated units would complete self-assessments. Peer review panels would include international experts who would assess submissions remotely. The document estimates direct costs for panels, management, and IT support, as well as indirect costs for evaluated units. Total costs are estimated to remain below 1% of public R&D funding over 5 years, as required.
This document provides an overview of the UNDP Evaluation Office (EO), including its mandate, functions, and approach to ensuring credibility and utility of evaluations. The EO is mandated to independently evaluate UNDP programs and operations to promote organizational learning, transparency, and accountability. It conducts a variety of evaluation types, including thematic, country-level, and regional evaluations. The EO works to ensure the quality, credibility, and utility of evaluations through maintaining independence, using legitimate evaluation processes, and broadly engaging stakeholders.
The European Framework for Quality Assurance in Higher EducationColin Tück
The document discusses European quality assurance frameworks for higher education. It outlines the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) which provide common standards for quality assurance. It also describes the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) which registers quality assurance agencies that comply with the ESG. The key points covered are:
1) The ESG provide common standards for internal and external quality assurance across Europe.
2) EQAR maintains a register of quality assurance agencies that comply substantially with the ESG to enhance trust in higher education.
3) Current priorities in the European Higher Education Area include enhancing learning/teaching quality, graduate employability, and implementing structural reforms.
This background report holds the guidelines and templates for the implementation of the National Evaluation of Research Organisations (NERO), for the use of the main actors involved (evaluation management, panel experts, referees and research organisations).
Quality Assurance in the Bologna ProcessColin Tück
The document discusses quality assurance in European higher education. It outlines the development of common quality assurance standards and processes through initiatives like the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG), the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR), and a new European Approach for quality assurance of joint programs. The ESG establish common quality assurance principles and standards for internal and external review. EQAR maintains a register of quality assurance agencies that comply with the ESG to promote trust and recognition across borders. The European Approach aims to establish a consistent framework for quality assurance of joint programs based on existing EHEA tools like the ESG and qualifications framework.
Presentation by Nigel Penny from the United Kingdom, on forming audit opinions on financial statements in UK's National Audit Office, made during the workshop co-organised by SIGMA and the Turkish Court of Accounts on Forming of audit opinions, held in Ankara on 26-27 October 2016.
The document provides an overview of the IFRC Framework for Evaluation, which guides how evaluations are planned, managed, conducted, and utilized by the IFRC Secretariat. The framework promotes reliable, useful, and ethical evaluations to contribute to organizational learning, accountability, and the IFRC's mission. It outlines key parts of the framework, including evaluation criteria to guide what is evaluated and standards and processes to guide how evaluations are conducted. The framework is intended to guide those involved in evaluations and inform stakeholders about expected practices.
Presentation given at Building a sustainable quality management approach - Academies for EaP countries organised by the SIGMA Programme and the GiZ Eastern Partnership Regional Fund. Stage 1: Building for excellence.
This document outlines the quality improvement plan of the Development Economics Faculty at Universitas Airlangga in Indonesia. It discusses 6 key areas: 1) internal quality assurance, 2) mission statement, 3) educational programs, 4) students, 5) faculty, and 6) educational infrastructure. For each area, it performs a self-check, identifies issues to improve, and outlines actions to enhance quality. It also discusses the faculty's quality improvement system, processes, and strategies to strengthen its educational programs and research activities through initiatives like workshops, language assistance, and community outreach.
The document discusses an educational lifecycle process assessment (ELPA) methodology that uses ISO standards to evaluate the performance and capability of educational organizations' processes. The ELPA is based on ISO/IEC 19796-1, which defines a process reference model for educational organizations, and ISO/IEC 15504-2, which provides a common framework for process assessment. The ELPA aims to assess how well educational organizations implement their lifecycle processes and determine process maturity levels.
Agency reviews against the ESG 2015: Expectations of the EQAR Register CommitteeColin Tück
The document outlines the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education's (EQAR) expectations for external quality assurance agency reviews against the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) 2015. It provides guidance on how review reports should demonstrate agencies' compliance with the ESG standards, including addressing internal quality assurance processes, methodology design, implementation of processes, use of peer experts, criteria for outcomes, reporting, complaints/appeals, regular activities and analysis. It also covers agencies' official status, independence, resources, internal quality assurance, and undergoing cyclical external reviews. The EQAR will use review panels' assessments of agencies' compliance with ESG standards to make decisions on registration.
The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector is used as the benchmark for due diligence by many industry and multi-stakeholder initiatives. The Alignment Assessment Tool serves to evaluate the alignment of the standards and implementation of these initiatives with the recommendations in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance. To find out more, visit https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/Alignment-assessment-due-diligence-garment-footwear.htm
Professional peer review of the evaluation function unepDr Lendy Spires
This document summarizes a peer review of the evaluation function of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The review assessed the evaluation function based on three criteria: independence, credibility, and utility. Overall, the review found that UNEP generally follows UNEG norms and standards in evaluation. However, it also identified some areas for strengthening, including increasing the independence of the evaluation function by establishing a dedicated budget line, raising the threshold for mandatory independent evaluations, and enhancing reporting to governing bodies. The review provided recommendations to improve the strategic focus of evaluations, strengthen the management response system, and better utilize lessons learned.
La Web 2.0 permite el intercambio de información básica o especializada entre docentes y estudiantes de manera organizada a través del mundo digital. Esto tiene implicaciones positivas en la educación como permitir investigaciones, buscar y compartir recursos, debate e interaprendizaje horizontal, creando conocimiento y aprendizaje abiertos. La pedagogía conectivista sustenta el uso de las Web 2.0 en la educación, con principios como la interacción, participación, relevancia, confiabilidad, diversidad y autonomía.
Este documento propone la construcción de un Modelo Pedagógico para el E-Learning. Explica que un modelo representa la realidad de manera esquemática y que un Modelo Pedagógico representa el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Luego define el E-Learning como una modalidad de educación a distancia mediada por tecnologías que promueve la interacción entre estudiantes, docentes y conocimiento. Finalmente, argumenta que un Modelo Pedagógico para E-Learning debe estar fundamentado teóricamente y basarse en principios como
El documento describe las contribuciones de las redes sociales y comunidades virtuales en ambientes de aprendizaje virtual cuando se utilizan como actividad pedagógica. Argumenta que estas herramientas permiten la comunicación, creatividad y construcción de conocimiento entre estudiantes de forma natural y espontánea. Además, sugiere integrarlas en el currículo a través de estrategias didácticas digitales como webquest y wikis para lograr un aprendizaje significativo.
El documento describe las 4 fases del proceso de evaluación y autorregulación institucional. La Fase I involucra la preparación de documentos. La Fase II es el proceso de autorregulación inicial. La Fase III es el proceso de autoevaluación. La Fase IV es el proceso de autorregulación final que produce un informe ejecutivo y documentos de apoyo.
El documento presenta un plan de mejoramiento que incluye una agenda de trabajo con actividades como juicios valorativos, fortalecer fortalezas y superar debilidades. Propone evaluar características de un programa identificando fortalezas y debilidades, y luego sintetizar los factores evaluados para describir la calidad del programa, explicitar fortalezas y converger debilidades. Finalmente, el plan incluye articular el proyecto de mejoramiento con el plan de desarrollo, estructurar el proyecto con un cronograma y presupuesto.
El documento presenta los principios y criterios para un modelo de autoevaluación institucional de la Universidad Santo Tomás. La misión de la universidad es promover la formación integral de las personas mediante la enseñanza, investigación y proyección social. El documento describe los compromisos misionales de la universidad y explica que la evaluación es un proceso continuo de mejora para asegurar la calidad. Además, presenta principios como la investigación, flexibilidad, responsabilidad y mejora continua que guiarán el proceso de autoevaluación.
Este documento presenta un resumen histórico del desarrollo de la evaluación educativa. Comienza describiendo las primeras generaciones de evaluación en el siglo XX, que se centraban en la medición de habilidades y aptitudes de los estudiantes. Luego describe la segunda generación en la década de 1930, influenciada por los trabajos de Tyler, que introdujo la evaluación por objetivos. Finalmente, describe la tercera y cuarta generación en las décadas posteriores, que buscaron superar las limitaciones anteriores y enfatizaron el juicio de
Este documento discute el proceso de ponderación y calificación utilizado en la evaluación de programas académicos por el Consejo Nacional de Acreditación (CNA) en Colombia. Explica que la ponderación es un ejercicio cualitativo previo a la autoevaluación donde se determina la importancia relativa de factores y características del programa. También describe diferentes metodologías para ponderar como jerarquizar elementos, agruparlos por relevancia y cuantificarlos. Finalmente, cubre cómo los pares académicos del CNA califican los program
El documento describe la misión y proyecto educativo de la Universidad de La Salle y del Programa de Ingeniería Ambiental y Sanitaria. La misión de la universidad es la formación integral y generación de conocimiento para contribuir a una sociedad justa y en paz. El proyecto educativo del programa se alinea con este objetivo y busca formar ingenieros con enfoque ambiental, social y político. El programa tiene presencia nacional debido a su abordaje holístico de problemas ambientales y sanitarios.
El documento describe los lineamientos del proyecto institucional de una universidad, incluyendo su orientación hacia la docencia pertinente, la investigación con impacto social y la promoción de una sociedad democrática y justa. También describe los criterios para la toma de decisiones administrativas, la evaluación de estudiantes, profesores y personal, y la internacionalización e intercambios interinstitucionales.
El documento presenta un informe final al Consejo Nacional de Acreditación (CNA) sobre el programa de una universidad. El informe contiene tres tomos con información sobre los avances del programa, los resultados de la autoevaluación, y un plan de mejoramiento. Incluye anexos con instrumentos aplicados, descripción del programa, y regulaciones de profesores y estudiantes. El informe busca renovar la acreditación del programa y demostrar su capacidad de autorregulación y desarrollo continuo.
La Guía establece el procedimiento para la renovación de la acreditación de programas académicos de pregrado, el cual incluye la presentación de un informe de autoevaluación por parte de la institución describiendo los cambios en el programa desde la acreditación inicial, así como la capacidad de autorregulación y mejora continua del mismo. Luego, un equipo de pares académicos realiza una evaluación externa y emite un informe al Consejo Nacional de Acreditación. Si el concepto es favorable, el Consejo recomienda al Minister
El documento describe las 4 fases del proceso de evaluación y autorregulación institucional. La Fase I involucra la preparación de documentos. La Fase II es el proceso de autorregulación inicial. La Fase III es el proceso de autoevaluación. La Fase IV es el proceso de autorregulación final que produce un informe ejecutivo y documentos de apoyo.
El documento presenta un plan de mejoramiento que incluye una agenda de trabajo con actividades como juicios valorativos, fortalecer fortalezas y superar debilidades. Propone evaluar características de un programa identificando fortalezas y debilidades, y luego sintetizar los factores evaluados para describir la calidad del programa, explicitar fortalezas y converger debilidades. Finalmente, el plan incluye articular el proyecto de mejoramiento con el plan de desarrollo, estructurar el proyecto con un cronograma y presupuesto.
Este documento presenta lineamientos para que las instituciones de educación superior realicen procesos de autoevaluación de sus programas con fines de acreditación. Explica que la autoevaluación debe ser un proceso participativo, crítico y orientado a la mejora continua de la calidad. Además, brinda sugerencias sobre cómo diseñar el modelo de autoevaluación, recolectar y analizar la información, y elaborar el informe final. El objetivo es que las instituciones realicen una evaluación integral que identifique fortalezas y debilidades de sus
El documento describe diferentes modelos y enfoques de evaluación educativa. Explica que un modelo es una representación de un sistema o proceso, y que un modelo pedagógico describe las relaciones en el proceso de enseñanza y aprendizaje. Luego discute componentes de los enfoques evaluativos, enfoques clásicos como el de Tyler y Bloom, y enfoques alternativos como la evaluación iluminativa. Finalmente, analiza enfoques basados en objetivos y en la toma de decisiones como el modelo CIPP.
Este documento presenta la guía para la Evaluación Externa con fines de acreditación de programas académicos de pregrado. Explica el proceso de evaluación externa, el rol de los pares académicos, las características que deben tener y las actividades que deben realizar durante la visita a la institución. Además, describe los principios rectores del Sistema Nacional de Acreditación en Colombia y las etapas del proceso de acreditación.
El documento describe el modelo de autoevaluación de la Universidad de La Salle (ULS). Incluye los componentes del modelo (conceptual, metodológico y procedimental), las fases del proceso de autoevaluación (recolección de información, juicios sucesivos valorativos, diagnóstico situacional y planes de mejoramiento), y promueve una cultura de autoevaluación, autorregulación y acreditación.
Philippine Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) CurriculumMJDuyan
(𝐓𝐋𝐄 𝟏𝟎𝟎) (𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝟏)-𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬
𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐏𝐏 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬:
- Understand the goals and objectives of the Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) curriculum, recognizing its importance in fostering practical life skills and values among students. Students will also be able to identify the key components and subjects covered, such as agriculture, home economics, industrial arts, and information and communication technology.
𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐫:
-Define entrepreneurship, distinguishing it from general business activities by emphasizing its focus on innovation, risk-taking, and value creation. Students will describe the characteristics and traits of successful entrepreneurs, including their roles and responsibilities, and discuss the broader economic and social impacts of entrepreneurial activities on both local and global scales.
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
This document provides an overview of wound healing, its functions, stages, mechanisms, factors affecting it, and complications.
A wound is a break in the integrity of the skin or tissues, which may be associated with disruption of the structure and function.
Healing is the body’s response to injury in an attempt to restore normal structure and functions.
Healing can occur in two ways: Regeneration and Repair
There are 4 phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This document also describes the mechanism of wound healing. Factors that affect healing include infection, uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, age, anemia, the presence of foreign bodies, etc.
Complications of wound healing like infection, hyperpigmentation of scar, contractures, and keloid formation.
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPRAHUL
This Dissertation explores the particular circumstances of Mirzapur, a region located in the
core of India. Mirzapur, with its varied terrains and abundant biodiversity, offers an optimal
environment for investigating the changes in vegetation cover dynamics. Our study utilizes
advanced technologies such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote sensing to
analyze the transformations that have taken place over the course of a decade.
The complex relationship between human activities and the environment has been the focus
of extensive research and worry. As the global community grapples with swift urbanization,
population expansion, and economic progress, the effects on natural ecosystems are becoming
more evident. A crucial element of this impact is the alteration of vegetation cover, which plays a
significant role in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of our planet.Land serves as the foundation for all human activities and provides the necessary materials for
these activities. As the most crucial natural resource, its utilization by humans results in different
'Land uses,' which are determined by both human activities and the physical characteristics of the
land.
The utilization of land is impacted by human needs and environmental factors. In countries
like India, rapid population growth and the emphasis on extensive resource exploitation can lead
to significant land degradation, adversely affecting the region's land cover.
Therefore, human intervention has significantly influenced land use patterns over many
centuries, evolving its structure over time and space. In the present era, these changes have
accelerated due to factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Information regarding land use and
cover is essential for various planning and management tasks related to the Earth's surface,
providing crucial environmental data for scientific, resource management, policy purposes, and
diverse human activities.
Accurate understanding of land use and cover is imperative for the development planning
of any area. Consequently, a wide range of professionals, including earth system scientists, land
and water managers, and urban planners, are interested in obtaining data on land use and cover
changes, conversion trends, and other related patterns. The spatial dimensions of land use and
cover support policymakers and scientists in making well-informed decisions, as alterations in
these patterns indicate shifts in economic and social conditions. Monitoring such changes with the
help of Advanced technologies like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems is
crucial for coordinated efforts across different administrative levels. Advanced technologies like
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems
9
Changes in vegetation cover refer to variations in the distribution, composition, and overall
structure of plant communities across different temporal and spatial scales. These changes can
occur natural.
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit InnovationTechSoup
In this webinar, participants learned how to utilize Generative AI to streamline operations and elevate member engagement. Amazon Web Service experts provided a customer specific use cases and dived into low/no-code tools that are quick and easy to deploy through Amazon Web Service (AWS.)
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
Temple of Asclepius in Thrace. Excavation resultsKrassimira Luka
The temple and the sanctuary around were dedicated to Asklepios Zmidrenus. This name has been known since 1875 when an inscription dedicated to him was discovered in Rome. The inscription is dated in 227 AD and was left by soldiers originating from the city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv).
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.
3. Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION AND SCHEDULE ................................................................................................ 4
1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 EVALUATION TEAMS ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 INDICATIVE TIMEFRAME ........................................................................................................................... 4
2 SELF-EVALUATION: PROCESS AND REPORT ......................................................................... 6
2.1 THE SELF-EVALUATION GROUP ............................................................................................................... 6
2.2 PREPARING THE SELF-EVALUATION REPORT: W HAT KIND OF INFORMATION TO COLLECT AND
ANALYSE?............................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 THE CHECKLIST ...................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 THE STRUCTURE OF THE SELF-EVALUATION REPORT .......................................................................... 11
3 SITE VISITS ....................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 PREPARING FOR THE SITE VISITS.......................................................................................................... 14
3.2 FIRST VISIT: AGENDA AND SUGGESTED SCHEDULE .............................................................................. 14
3.3 THE SECOND SITE VISIT ........................................................................................................................ 18
4 EVALUATION REPORT .................................................................................................................. 21
ANNEX 1: ............................................................................................................................................................ 22
THE EUA INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION PROGRAMME .................................................................................... 22
ANNEX 2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 23
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION PROGRAMME 2008/2009
............................................................................................................................................................. 23
ANNEX 3 ............................................................................................................................................................. 24
FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................... 24
SELECTED FURTHER READING.................................................................................................................. 25
3
4. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SCHEDULE
1.1 Introduction
The Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) is an independent membership service of the
European University Association (EUA) that has been designed to ensure that higher education
institutions gain maximum benefit from a comprehensive evaluation conducted by a team of
experienced European higher education leaders. The intention is that these evaluations will support
the participating institutions in the continuing development of their strategic management and
internal quality culture.
The distinctive features of the Institutional Evaluation Programme are:
A strong emphasis on the self-evaluation phase
A European and international perspective
A peer-review approach
An improvement orientation
The focus of the IEP is the institution as a whole rather than individual study programmes or units.
It focuses upon:
Decision-making processes and institutional structures and effectiveness of strategic planning
Relevance of internal quality processes and the degree to which their outcomes are used in
decision making and strategic planning as well as perceived gaps in these internal
mechanisms.
In addition, participating institutions have the possibility to select a strategic priority for more in-
depth analysis and recommendations. This topic will be evaluated within the institutional context
and constitute a separate heading in the evaluation report.
1.2 Evaluation teams
IEP evaluation teams consist of highly experienced and knowledgeable higher education leaders.
Team members are selected by the Steering Committee of the Institutional Evaluation Programme
with a view to providing each participating institution with an appropriate mix of knowledge, skills,
objectivity and international perspective. The number of team members is determined by the size of
the participating institution. Generally, teams consist of five members; institutions with fewer than
2000 students will have a four-member team.
The teams consists of rectors or vice rectors (current or former), one student and a senior higher
education professional acting as the academic secretary. Each team member comes from a
different country, and none comes from the same country as the participating institution.
1.3 Indicative timeframe
The following timeframe applies for the institutions that register for the IEP during the regular
registration period in the spring. The IEP secretariat is prepared to work with each participating
institution to adapt this timeframe to its specific circumstances and requirements.
Stage 1: June-October 2008
The institution applies for participation in the Institutional Evaluation Programme by the
end of June
IEP establishes an evaluation team for each participating institution during the IEP annual
seminar that is attended by all members of evaluation teams
4
5. The participating universities have the option of attending a seminar organised by IEP to
discuss the objectives of the evaluation and to receive guidance on planning the process
Stage 2: October 2008 - March 2009
Self-evaluation phase: the participating institutions undergo a self-evaluation process and
provide IEP with a self-evaluation report on the basis of the IEP guidelines. (Please note:
the self-evaluation report must be received four weeks prior to the first site visit.)
External evaluation phase begins: the evaluation team conducts a first site visit to the
institution and requests any additional information as appropriate
Stage 3: April - May 2009
The institution submits any additional information as requested by the evaluation team
Stage 4: May - July 2009
The evaluation team makes a second site visit to the institution
Stage 5: July – October 2009
IEP presents the written report to the institution for comments on factual errors
IEP sends the finalised report to the institution
IEP publishes the evaluation report on its web-site (www.eua.be/iep)
5
6. 2 SELF-EVALUATION: PROCESS AND REPORT
The IEP emphasises the self-evaluation as a crucial phase in the evaluation process. The self-
evaluation phase has two aspects that are equally important: the self-evaluation process and the
self-evaluation report:
The self-evaluation process is a collective institutional reflection and an opportunity for quality
improvement of any aspect of the institution
The self-evaluation report is one outcome of the self-evaluation process; it provides
information to the evaluation team, with emphasis on the institution's strategic and quality
management activities.
The goal of both the process and the report is to enhance the institutional capacity for improvement
and change through self-reflection. This is a crucial phase in which careful consideration should be
given to maximise the engagement of the whole institution.
As soon as the institution has received these guidelines it should begin the self-evaluation process
by setting up the self-evaluation group (Section 2.1). The self-evaluation group will base its work on
the checklist provided in Section 2.2 and will write the self-evaluation report (Section 2.3).
2.1 The self-evaluation group
To ensure the success of the self-evaluation, the institution will set up a self-evaluation group that
represents a broad view of the institution. The self-evaluation group should have the following
characteristics:
Its members are in a good position to judge strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
The group is small (no more than 10) to ensure that it is efficient
It represents the major constituencies in the institution (academic and administrative staff and
students) to maximise involvement of all major stakeholders
It selects an academic secretary to write the report under the chairperson’s responsibility (cf.
below).
The self-evaluation group will be led by a chairperson whose responsibilities include:
Planning and co-ordinating the work of the self-evaluation group: e.g. tailoring the checklist (cf.
2.2) to the national context and the particular institution, gathering and analysing the data, co-
ordinating the work of any sub-group
Providing opportunities for a broad discussion of the self-evaluation within the institution to
promote a broad identification with the report
Acting as a contact person to the IEP evaluation team and the IEP secretariat
Acting as or appointing a liaison person responsible for arranging the site visits.
The institutional leadership will:
Clarify the responsibility of the self-evaluation group towards staff members who are not on
the team, i.e., the self-evaluation group should not work in isolation but seek, through
institution-wide discussions, to present as broad a view as possible of the institution
Support and encourage the process along the way by explaining its purpose across the
institution.
The self-evaluation will result in a report submitted to the external evaluation team under the
responsibility of the rector. This does not mean that the rector or all actors in the institution
6
7. necessarily agree with all statements in the self-evaluation report. But the rector must accept
responsibility for both the self-evaluation process as well as the report.
It is essential for the success of the self-evaluation that information is circulated widely in the
institution about the procedures, goals and benefits of the Institutional Evaluation Programme.
Annex 1 of these guidelines contains a sample handout that may be used by the institution for this
purpose.
2.2 Preparing the self-evaluation report: What kind of information to collect and analyse?
As an important step in the evaluation exercise, the self-evaluation report has three major
purposes:
To present a succinct but analytical and comprehensive statement of the institution’s view of
quality management and strategic planning
To analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the institution, identify the opportunities and
threats it faces and propose specific actions to address them
To provide a framework against which the institution will be evaluated by the IEP team
As the main vehicle for the institution to present itself, the self-evaluation report is also an
opportunity for the institution to reflect critically upon the way it is managed and handles quality as
a central process in its strategic decision making.
Therefore, the self-evaluation report should not be simply descriptive, but analytical, evaluative and
synthetic. It is based on a SWOT analysis (assess strengths and weaknesses, identify threats and
opportunities) and show how the various elements of strategic thinking and quality management
are interconnected.
Four central questions structure this SWOT analysis:
What is the institution trying to do? What are its norms and values, the mission and goals?
How is the institution trying to do it? What are the organisational characteristics of the
institutions and its key activities and to what extent these are in line with the norms and
values?
How does the institution know it works? To what extent does the institution know whether its
activities and organisational structures meet the institution’s objectives?
How does the institution change in order to improve?
2.3 The Checklist
The following checklist will guide the data collection and analysis in the preparation of the self-
evaluation report. It is important that all the bullet points on the list are addressed by the self-
evaluation group but, since each institution operates within its own specific context, the self-
evaluation group may want to tailor the checklist before starting its work. If some questions are not
relevant or if specific pieces of information are impossible to provide, this should be noted in relation
to the questions.
The checklist is structured into four major sections that reflect the four central questions mentioned
above. A fifth – optional – section considers a strategic priority for the evaluation, which may be
selected by the institution for more in-depth consideration.
I. Norms and values: What is the institution trying to do?
This section discusses institutional norms and values. It analyses the mission and goals of the
institution. The IEP evaluation team will be particularly interested in the strategic choices the
institution has made with regard to its scope and profile.
Governance and management
7
8. What is the degree of centralisation and decentralisation that the institution aims for?
Does the institution have human resources and gender policies in place?
Academic profile
What balance is the institution aiming to achieve among its teaching, research and
other services?
What are the institution’s academic priorities, i.e. which teaching programmes and
areas of research are emphasised?
Does the institution have a policy or preferences regarding certain didactic
approaches?
Academically-related activities: What are the institution’s goals for its relationship to society
(external partners, local and regional government) and its involvement in public debate?
Funding: What should be the institution’s relationship to its funding agencies (public and
others, such as research contractors)?
What balance is the institution aiming to achieve in terms of its local, regional, national, and
international positioning?
Any other institutional goals?
II. Organisation and activities: How is the institution trying to do it?
In practice, the institution manages its activities (teaching, research, and service to society) so as
to realise its mission and goals, while taking account of the specific opportunities and constraints it
faces. The inevitable discrepancy between what ought to be (norms and values) and what actually
exists (organisation and activities) is an indicator of the institution’s strengths and weaknesses. It is
the analysis of strengths and weaknesses that constitutes the next phase of the self-evaluation.
The issues addressed in Section I should be re-visited, but rather than stating objectives, Section II
will reflect upon the institution’s strategy in terms of each of these issues and how they are
achieved, and will analyse the extent to which the institution takes full advantage of its autonomy.
Moreover, each subheading in this section should also contain concrete proposals on how
identified weaknesses could be remedied and strengths could be further enhanced.
Governance and management: Re-visit questions in Section I by taking the following issues
into account:
Analysis of management practice: what are the respective roles of central-level
administrators, offices and faculties/institutes? Does co-ordination among
faculties/institutes take place, and if so how? What does the institutional leadership
1
control and decide? What do the deans of faculty control and decide with respect to:
Academic activities and policies (teaching and learning, research)
Funding issues
The selection and promotion of academic and administrative staff
The selection of students
Development of entrepreneurial activities
How does the institution involve students and external stakeholders in institutional
governance?
How adequate are the institution’s human resources, human resource policy and
practice to current and future needs (e.g., age profile, recruitment, promotion,
redeployment and staff development);
Does the institution have a gender policy? To what extent is it successfully
implemented?
1
The term faculty is used in this text in a generic sense to denote the main structural sub-units of an institution
8
9. How does the institution’s involvement in inter-institutional cooperation (at regional,
national or international level) reflect its positioning as identified in Section I
How do the actual management policies reflect the institution’s mission and goals, and
how could discrepancies between the goals and reality be amended and strengths be
reinforced?
Academic profile : Re-visit questions in Section I by taking the following issues into account:
Analysis of research and educational approaches. This can be brief unless some
programmes or approaches, teaching or research units deserve specific mention
because they reflect the institution’s academic profile (e.g., special didactic
approaches, a unique and/or very large research institute, e-learning etc.)
Analysis of educational programme design and organisation of research activities
How do the study programmes and research activities reflect the mission and goals,
and how could discrepancies between the goals and reality be amended and
identified strengths be reinforced?
Does the institution have a language policy?
Academically-related activities: Re-visit questions in Section I by taking the following issues
into account:
Analysis of research and technology transfer, continuing education, regional and
community service, etc. This can be brief, unless some programmes deserve specific
mention
Analysis of student support services: How do the various academically-related
activities reflect the institution’s mission and goals, and how could discrepancies
between the goals and reality addressed and strengths reinforced?
Funding: Revisit questions in Section I by taking the following issues into account:
What is the total budget of the institution, including salaries, contracts, etc.?
What percentage is allotted by the state or other public authorities, by student fees,
by private sources (research contracts, foundations, etc.)?
Is the state allocation a lump sum, or, if not, what percentage of this allocation is ear-
marked?
What part of the budget is controlled centrally?
What are the amounts allotted to faculties and departments, and according to which
criteria are they distributed? Are these amounts decided by the institution?
What are the allocation procedures within the institution? Who decides what and
how?
What percentage of the budget could be used by the institutional leadership to
implement new initiatives?
Is the institution able to calculate the full costs of research and teaching activities?
What does the institution perceive as strengths and weaknesses in terms of its
funding, and how could weaknesses be remedied and strengths be further
enhanced?
III. Quality assessment practices: How does the institution know it works?
The question “How does the institution know it works?” refers to the internal quality processes and
practices available and operative in the institution.
These quality processes include data gathering and an evaluative judgement concerning the
institution’s activities. Processes related to teaching and learning are enshrined in the “Standards
9
10. and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area” (ESG), which were
2
adopted by ministers in Bergen (2005) and are provided below.
Are internal quality processes based on explicit and publicly available quality strategy and
policy? Are these quality policies widely known and accepted in the institution? Is there a
shared quality culture?
What is the role of students and stakeholders?
Does the institution have formal mechanisms for approval, periodic review and monitoring of
its programmes?
Are students examinations based on published criteria, regulations and procedures that are
applied consistently?
Does the institution have procedures to ensure that teaching staff is competent and qualified?
Are the available resources to support student learning adequate for each programme
offered?
Does institution have regular quality procedures to monitor other activities besides teaching:
Research activities
Administrative processes
External relations (local, regional, national and international)
How does the institution ensure that the data collected via quality procedures is extensive,
analysed and used for effective management of the activities?
To what extent are the outcomes of internal quality processes used in decision making and
strategic development? For instance, if student course evaluations are carried out, how does
the unit concerned (programme, department, etc.) handle the results from these evaluations if
they fall outside norms set by the unit? Or what are the consequences, for example, of
external evaluations of research units?
Does the institution publish regularly up to date, impartial and objective information about its
activities?
IV. Strategic management and capacity for change: How does the institution change in order to
improve?
Once the self-evaluation group has gone through all the above questions, it will come up with a
SWOT analysis that will assess the capacity of the institution to change in order to improve:
How responsive is the institution to the demands, threats and opportunities present in its
external environment?
How are representatives from the external environment involved in the institution’s strategic
management?
To what extent does the institution take full advantage of its autonomy?
Which changes can be expected to be made towards the institution’s aims?
How can a better match be attained between the current and future mission and goals and
the activities (study programmes, research, service to society)?
What role do quality monitoring and quality management play in these developments?
V. Strategic priority
Institutions have the option of selecting one or two strategic priorities for the evaluation. This can
be on such topics as research strategy, teaching and learning, implementing Bologna, etc. The
2
http://www.enqa.eu/pubs.lasso
10
11. topic chosen will be examined within the institutional context and will receive specific
recommendations. The topic in question should also receive special attention of the institution also
in the self-evaluation phase and self-evaluation report.
2.4 The structure of the self-evaluation report
After the self-evaluation group has collected and analysed the data as outlined above, it will
synthesise all the information gathered and present its findings in the self-evaluation report. The
following proposes a structure for this report. The report should be fairly short, analytical, reflective
and critical.
Introduction
Brief analysis of the self-evaluation process:
Who are the self-evaluation team members?
With whom did they collaborate?
To what extent was the report discussed across the institution?
What were the positive aspects, as well as the difficulties, encountered in the self-evaluation
process?
Institutional context
Brief presentation of the institution in its context:
Brief historical overview
Geographical position of the institution (e.g., in a capital city, major regional centre,
concentrated on one campus, dispersed across a city)
A brief analysis of the current regional and national labour-market situation
Number of faculties, research institutes/laboratories, academic and administrative staff and
students
Autonomy with respect to:
Human and financial resources
Capacity to set its own profile for teaching, research and innovation
Capacity to set its own governing structures
Body of the report
The body of the self-evaluation report strives to strike a balance between description and critical
analysis (i.e., identify the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats) and should have the
following sections, which follow the four sections in the checklist:
Section I: Norms and values: What is the institution trying to do?
Section II: Organisation and activities: How is the institution trying to do it?
Section III: Quality practices: How does the institution know it works?
Section IV: Strategic management and capacity for change: How does the institution
change in order to improve?
Optional section: Analysis of the special strategic priority chosen by the institution
As mentioned in 2.2 above, the body of the self-evaluation report should not be simply descriptive,
but analytical, evaluative and synthetic as well. It should assess strengths and weaknesses,
identify threats and opportunities and show how the various elements of strategic thinking and
quality management are interconnected. In addition, the analysis should take into account changes
that have taken place in the recent past as well as those that are anticipated in the future.
Conclusion
11
12. The conclusion summarises the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats and offers a
specific action plan to remedy weaknesses and to develop strengths further.
A useful conclusion has the following characteristics:
Since the goal of the evaluation is to promote ongoing quality and strategic development, the
report should be honest and self-reflective. Therefore, strengths and weaknesses need to be
stated explicitly; specifically, it is best to avoid playing down or hiding weaknesses.
Strengths and weaknesses that are not discussed in the body of the report should not
appear in the conclusion since they would be unsubstantiated.
Strengths and weaknesses that are discussed in the main part of the report are summarised
again in the conclusion.
Plans to remedy weaknesses are offered in the conclusion in the form of a specific action
plan.
Appendices
Annexes will include the following:
An organisational chart of the institution’s faculties (or any other relevant units of
teaching/research)
An organisational chart of the central administration and support services (rector’s office staff,
campus maintenance, libraries etc.)
An organisational chart of the management structure (rector, council/senate, faculty deans
and councils, major committees, etc.)
Student numbers for the whole institution, with a breakdown by faculty, over the last three to
five years; student/staff ratio (lowest, highest and mean ratios); time-to-graduation; drop-out
rates; gender distribution by faculty; demographic trends in the wider target population
Academic staff numbers (by academic rank and faculty) for the whole institution, over the last
three to five years, with a breakdown by level, discipline, gender and age
Funding: government funding (amount and percentage of total budget), other funding
sources (type and percentage of total budget) and research funding (percentage within total
budget); amount of institutional funding for teaching and research per faculty over the last
three to five years
Infrastructure in relation to the number of students and staff: number and size of buildings,
facilities, laboratories, and libraries; their location (e.g., dispersed over a large geographical
area or concentrated on a single campus); age and condition of the facilities
These data should be analysed within the national and institutional context.
Beyond these annexes, the institution is free to add other information, but the number and length of
appendices should be limited to what is strictly necessary in order to understand the statements and
argumentation in the self-evaluation report.
Practical aspects
The maximum length of the self-evaluation report is 20 - 25 pages, excluding the appendices.
The reason for this relatively short report is to maintain a focus on institutional management
without probing too deeply into the specifics of all faculties and all activities. Institutions are
encouraged to make use of any existing data and documents.
The self-evaluation report is written partly for an internal audience (the institution’s staff
members and students) and partly for the evaluation team. The evaluation team is
knowledgeable about higher education in general but, as internationals, they may lack in-
depth knowledge of specific national situations. The self-evaluation group should keep this in
mind when writing its report.
IEP and the evaluation teams will consider the self-evaluation report as confidential and will
not provide any information regarding this report to third parties.
12
13. The self-evaluation report should be read and signed by the rector before being sent to IEP
and the evaluation team. This ensures that the institutional leadership is informed
appropriately.
The self-evaluation report should be made available to all institutional members who will meet
the evaluation team during the site visits.
The report should be sent to the IEP Secretariat and to each individual team member at least
four weeks prior to the first site visit.
It is of the utmost importance to the running of the project and especially the site visits that
deadlines are respected. To ensure this, the self-evaluation group is advised to plan to meet
weekly for a couple of hours to ensure progress. Conducting the self-evaluation process and
writing the report is an ambitious task that requires a substantial time investment of approximately
three months.
13
14. 3 SITE VISITS
3.1 Preparing for the site visits
We have stressed that the IEP process is intended to act as a support to develop further the
universities’ capacity to change. Therefore, the guidelines and sample programmes for the visits
should be adapted to the institution’s specific needs and circumstances. Each institution will be
visited twice, as detailed below.
3.2 First visit: agenda and suggested schedule
For the participating institution, the first visit serves the following purposes:
To contribute to greater awareness by the institution at large of the evaluation process and
its main purpose: to enhance the institution’s strategic development and change
management through an examination of its internal quality arrangements
To identify the topics for the second site visit and to set the appropriate tone. An open and
self-critical approach on the part of the institution is much more beneficial than a “public-
relations” approach
For the evaluation team, the first visit will contribute to develop their understanding of:
the national higher education context
institutional operations in terms of students, staff, finance, facilities and location
the structures and processes of strategic decision making (planning, teaching and research,
financial flows and personnel policy)
the important local issues with respect to strategic management
the existing procedures for quality assurance
The first visit should result in a validation of the self-evaluation report, and the evaluation team
should get a broad impression of how the institution operates (decentralisation, co-ordination, etc.).
Therefore, the choice of persons the evaluation team meets is highly important. For the benefit of
both the institution and the team, a representative and diversified sample of the community should
take part in the first visit. This includes academic and non-academic staff, as well as different types
of students and representatives of external “stakeholders”. The evaluation team wishes to meet
“average” students and “average” academic staff, i.e., not all should be members of official bodies
(senates or council) or unions.
An indicative list of persons and bodies that the evaluation team should meet includes:
The rector as well as other members of the rector’s team
The self-evaluation group, including any sub-group
Representatives of the central staff: mainly from the quality office, international relations
office, financial services, personnel office, planning unit, coordinating unit of research
activities, public relations office, etc.
Representatives of external stakeholders and partners (public authorities, private industry,
other actors from society, etc.)
Delegation of senate / council
Deans / dean council
Students (bachelor, master and doctoral level)
One or two faculties, one or two special centres (if any)
14
15. In order to ensure fruitful discussion:
The number of participants in each meeting should not exceed eight, except for students
who seem to prefer larger groups, up to ten or 12 persons.
The team should meet privately with individual groups, e.g., only students should be present
at the students’ meeting, and not members of the academic staff. These meetings will be
treated confidentially by the evaluation team: it will not report on an individual person’s
statements.
The team should not meet anyone more than twice.
All meetings are interactive: the evaluation team will come prepared with questions in order to
start a dialogue. Participants should not prepare formal presentations.
The first visit lasts 2 days. The institution is responsible for proposing the schedule for the first visit,
which will need to be validated by the evaluation team. A sample schedule for the first visit is
presented below, but other options are also possible in consultation with the evaluation team
secretary.
The sample schedule includes parallel visits to faculties or other units. Please note that:
Faculty is used here in a generic sense to mean a “structural unit”, i.e., some institutions have
only faculties while others have a mixture of faculties, research institutes and other structures.
The evaluation team (split in pairs) will be interested in visiting a mixture of these units.
The number and types of units to be visited should be adjusted based on the institutional
structure and size: some institutions have small numbers of large units; others have large
numbers of small units.
Please adapt the schedule to the characteristics of your institution and keep in mind that the team
will have the opportunity to visit other units during the second visit.
Sample schedule for the first visit
Time What & who? Why?
DAY 0
Late Arrival of evaluation team
afternoon
90 minutes Briefing meeting Division of tasks; discussion of the self-
evaluation; inventory of issues for
Evaluation team alone
preliminary visit
Evening Dinner Welcome, make acquaintance; go over
preliminary programme; discuss key
Evaluation team, with rector and
issues for evaluation from the institution’s
liaison person
perspective (arising from self-evaluation
and/or from rector’s experience)
DAY 1
9.00 – 10.00 Meeting with rector Discuss privately issues that need to be
stressed in evaluation team’s visit and
Evaluation team, rector
report
15
16. 10.15 – 11.00 Introduction meeting Introduction to the institution: structures,
quality management and strategic
Evaluation team, liaison person
management; national higher education
and research policies; students issues
(e.g. tuition fees, governmental grants and
aid)
11.00 – 12.30 Meeting with self-evaluation Understand self-evaluation process and
group extent of institutional involvement; how
useful was self-evaluation for the
Self-evaluation steering group,
institution (emerging issues, function in
evaluation team, liaison person, task
strategic planning processes)? Are self-
forces (if any)
evaluation data still up to date? Will they
be updated for the second site visit?
12.30 – 14.00 Lunch Reflect upon impressions of first meetings
and complete information as necessary
Evaluation team, liaison person
14.10 – 14.40 Visit to faculties A & B Introduction to the faculty: structures,
quality management and strategic
parallel
management; discuss relationships of
Evaluation Dean faculties with the central level; input in
team splits self-evaluation; role of quality control
into pairs to activities in faculty
visit two
faculties
14.40 – 15.40 Visit to faculties A & B Discuss relationships of faculties with the
central level; input in self-evaluation; role
parallel
of quality control activities in faculty;
Evaluation Academic staff representatives recruitment of new staff; staff
team splits development; motivation policies. Please
into pairs to note that deans or vice deans should not
visit two be present at this meeting: it is reserved
faculties for “regular” academic staff only.
15.50 – 16.40 Visit to faculties A & B
parallel Students’ views on experience (e.g.,
teaching and learning, student input in
Evaluation Students
quality control and (strategic) decision
team splits
making)
into pairs to
visit two
faculties
17.00 – 18.00 Meeting with external partners Discuss relations of the institution with
external partners of the private and public
(industry, society and/or local
sectors
authority)
18.30 – 19.30 Debriefing meeting Reflect on impressions; prepare second
day of visit
Evaluation team alone
Evening Dinner Reflect on impressions gained thus far
Evaluation team alone
16
17. DAY 2
9.00 – 9.30 Visit to faculties C & D as in faculties A and B (adapt as
appropriate)
parallel
Evaluation Dean
team splits
into pairs
9.30 – 10.15 Visit to faculties C & D as in faculties A and B (adapt as
appropriate)
parallel Academic staff representatives
Evaluation
team splits
into pairs
10.15 – 11.00 Visit to faculties C & D as in faculties A and B (adapt as
appropriate)
parallel
Evaluation Students
team splits
into pairs
11.00 – 12.00 Tour of campus To visit a sample of labs, classrooms and
libraries
Evaluation team, liaison person
12.00 – 12.30 Debriefing meeting Reflect on impressions; list issues for
additions to self-evaluation report and
Evaluation team alone
main visit
12.30 – 13.00 Evaluation team, liaison person Plan the second visit schedule (select
faculties or units, special or additional
persons to speak); logistical support for or
during visit; visit team’s meeting and
working rooms (where team can work on
its oral report)
13.00 Lunch: Evaluation team, rector and Concluding session to agree topics of
liaison person additional documentation
Afternoon Departure of evaluation team
Practical considerations:
Enough time should be left for the team’s debriefing sessions.
A ten-minute leeway should be left between each meeting to allow groups to go in and out, to
give the evaluation team a few minutes to reflect together on previous meetings or to make
changes to plans for the next meeting. Such brief breaks, in addition to coffee breaks, can
also be useful to catch up on time if some meetings take longer than expected.
If the evaluation team needs to move from one location to another (e.g., to another faculty),
please take realistically into account the time for doing so.
If the institution has several campus sites, careful consideration should be given as to
whether visits to several sites are necessary. Unnecessary visits should be avoided in order
to keep travelling time at a minimum.
The liaison person will make the necessary arrangements for the first visit, including arranging
transportation for the evaluation team to and from the airport, hotel reservations and
scheduling meetings.
17
18. The liaison person provides nameplates for the meetings, distributes the evaluation team’s
short biographies in advance of the site visit and informs participants about the general
objectives of the first visit and of the particular meeting in which they are involved.
At the end of the first visit, the team will:
Ask for additional, written information. These additional documents, as well as any other
information that has been requested, should be sent to all members of the team and to the
IEP secretariat at least four weeks before the date of the main site visit.
Decide the dates of the second visit
Identify the persons, bodies or units to meet
The first visit contributes to the team’s understanding of the specific characteristics of the
institution. As such, it is not intended to lead to any conclusions. The evaluation team will not
produce an evaluation report at this point.
3.3 The second site visit
The focus during the second visit is no longer to gain an understanding of what is specific about the
institution but to find out whether, how, and with what results, the institutional strategy and internal
quality policies and procedures are implemented coherently in the institution.
The practical aspects for organising the first visit apply to the second visit as well, with one
important difference. The evaluation team will be responsible for establishing the programme of the
second visit. An example of a schedule for the second visit is given below. The schedule of the visit
must be discussed between the liaison person and the team secretary in advance. As shown
below, the schedule of the visit may include parallel sessions in order to cover more ground and
collect more evidence. The team will advise the institution in good time of its plans in this respect.
The usual length of the second site visit is 3 days (see the sample schedule below). The
evaluation team may decide, where appropriate, to shorten the visit to 2 days for very small
institutions (less than 2000 students) or to extend it to a maximum of 4 days for very big
institutions.
In exceptional circumstances, however, the chair of an evaluation team may extend the second site
visit by up to one day, should this be deemed necessary. This may be the case, for instance, with
very large institutions (over 25.000 students) or with smaller institutions which are very complex.
Any extension of the main site beyond the usual length must be decided by the chair (in agreement
with the evaluation team) and announced to the institution during the first site visit at the latest.
Sample schedule of the second site visit
Time What & who? Why?
DAY 0
Late Arrival of evaluation team
afternoon
60 minutes Briefing meeting Division of tasks, preliminary discussion of
evaluation report structure and issues
Evaluation team alone
Evening Dinner Welcome, renew acquaintance; go over
site visit programme
Evaluation team, with rector and
liaison person
18
19. DAY 1
9.00 – 10.00 Meeting with rector Discuss privately issues that need to be
stressed in team’s visit and report
Evaluation team, rector
10.10 – 11.00 Meeting with self- evaluation Discuss any changes in context or internal
steering group situation since the first visit, analyse
impact of first visit, review additional
Self-evaluation group, evaluation
information sent to the team, clarify any
team, liaison person, task forces
open questions
11.10 – 12.30 Meeting with the deans Discuss relationship of faculties with
central level with respect to strategic
Deans’ Council or deans from
development and quality management;
several faculties, evaluation team
input in self-evaluation; special issues
arising from self-evaluation parts one and
two and/or from talk with rector
12.40 – 14.00 Lunch Reflect upon impressions of first meetings
and complete information as necessary
Evaluation team, liaison person
14.00 – 15.00 Meeting with central office staff Discuss role of e.g. institutional strategic
members documents (development plans, etc.) in
development of institution; special issues
arising from self-evaluation parts one and
two and/or from talk with rector
15.10 – 16.00 Meeting with senate Discuss relationship of senate/democratic
representation body with rectoral team
Senate representatives
regarding strategic and quality
management
16.00 – 16.45 Meeting with student delegation Students’ views on the institution, on
relations with rector’s office, on student
Student representatives
input in quality management and in
(strategic) decision making
17.00 – 18.00 Meeting with outside partners Discuss relationships of institution with
external stakeholders of private and public
(Industry, society and/or local
sector
authorities)
18.00 – 19.00 Debriefing meeting Exchange impressions, review the day
Evaluation team alone
Evening Dinner Reflect on impressions and start
preparing oral report
Evaluation team alone
19
20. DAY 2
9.00 – 10.00 Visit to faculties E and F Introduction to the faculty: structures,
quality and strategic management; discuss
parallel Dean
relationships of faculties with the central
Evaluation
level; input in self-evaluation; role of quality
team splits into
control activities in faculty
pairs
10.00 – 11.00 Visit to faculties E and F Discuss relationships of faculties with the
central level; input in self-evaluation; role of
parallel
quality control activities in faculty;
Evaluation
Academic staff recruitment of new staff; staff development;
team splits into
motivation policies. Please note that deans
pairs
or vice deans should not be present at this
meeting: it is reserved for “regular”
academic staff only.
11.15 – 12.15 Visit to faculties E and F Students’ views on their experience (e.g.,
teaching and learning, student input in
parallel Students
quality control and (strategic) decision
Evaluation
making)
team splits into
pairs
12.30 – 14.00 Lunch Evaluation team, alone, to exchange
impressions
Evaluation team alone
14.00 – 15.00 Meeting with international To discuss their experience of the
researchers and international institutions
graduate students
15.30 – 20.00 Debriefing meeting Exchange impressions, review day and
begin drafting the oral report
Evaluation team alone
[evaluation team needs a working room in
the hotel for this task]
20.00 Dinner Continuation of debriefing meeting
Evaluation team alone
21.00 – 23.00 Drafting oral report [evaluation team needs a working room in
the hotel for this task]
Evaluation team alone
DAY 3
9.00 – 10.00 Concluding meeting Discuss draft oral report with the rector
alone, to ensure it reflects the findings of
Rector, evaluation team
the team as well as the needs of the rector
for the institution’s further development
10.00 – 10.30 Adapting oral report Adapt oral report according to discussion
with rector
Evaluation team alone
10.30 – 12.00 Presentation of oral report
Evaluation team, rector and members of the institution (invitations to be decided by
the rector, e.g. rectoral team, liaison person, self-evaluation group, senate etc).
Afternoon Lunch and departure of evaluation team
20
21. 4 EVALUATION REPORT
The evaluation team will draft a written report based on the oral report presented at the end of its
visit. The draft report will then be communicated to the rector. The rector will correct any factual
errors and, most importantly, comment on the usefulness of the report for the institution’s follow-up
process.
The institution’s reaction must be sent to the IEP secretariat, which will forward it to the team
secretary. The report will then be finalised and sent officially to the rector, thus formally concluding
the main evaluation process.
Please note that as of 2008-2009 evaluation round IEP will publish final evaluation reports on its
web-site (www.eua.be/IEP).
The Table below summarises the key milestones and division of tasks during the report-writing
stage.
Indicative timeframe and division of labour
Task Main responsibility Time Frame
Write draft report Team secretary 6 weeks after the second visit
Comment on draft Evaluation team Within 2 weeks
Send redraft to IEP staff Team secretary Within 2 weeks
Edit EUA editor Within 1 week
Comment on new draft Team secretary (if necessary, in consultation Within 2 weeks
with the team chair)
Send report to institution IEP staff ASAP
Institution corrects factual Rector Within 3 weeks
errors
Any change + sending final IEP staff (if necessary, in consultation with the Within 2 weeks
report to institution + team chair and secretary)
publishing it on IEP web-site
(www.eua.be/IEP)
21
22. Annex 1:
The EUA Institutional Evaluation Programme
This sheet can be distributed by participating institutions to all participants in the self-evaluation
process or in the site visits.
The Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) is an independent membership service of the European
University Association (EUA) that has been designed to ensure that higher education institutions gain
maximum benefit from a comprehensive evaluation conducted by a team of experienced European
higher education leaders and that the procedures and processes in place in these institutions can be
reviewed against best practices internationally. The intention is that these evaluations will support the
participating institutions in the continuing development of their strategic management and internal
quality culture.
The IEP focuses on the institutional decision-making processes and structures, and the effectiveness
of strategic development. It evaluates the relevance of internal quality processes and their use in the
strategic positioning of the institutions. The IEP evaluations have a formative orientation, i.e., they are
aimed at contributing to the development and enhancement of the institutions. The IEP is not geared
towards passing judgements or ranking or comparing institutions.
The evaluation is undertaken from the perspective of the institution to ensure understanding of the
institutional context and to make recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the internal
governance and management processes and quality arrangements. In this way, the evaluation is
responsive to the institution’s needs, mission, culture and situation and is future-oriented since it
emphasises the development of the institution.
The IEP evaluation team consists of rectors or vice-rectors (active or former), one student and a senior
higher education professional acting as academic secretary. Team members provide an international
and European perspective; they all come from different countries, and none of them comes from the
country of the participating institution.
During the first visit, the evaluation team becomes acquainted with the institution and its environment.
In the second visit, generally two months later, the focus is on finding out whether, how, and how
effectively, the institution’s strategic policies and quality procedures are implemented.
It should be emphasised that the main preoccupation of the team is to be helpful and constructive.
Team members will come prepared to lead discussions with carefully prepared questions. Sessions
are intended to be interactive. No formal presentations by institutional members should be made.
The evaluation team’s conclusions and recommendations are collected in a report that will be
presented to the institution and subsequently published.
Since 1994, over 250 evaluations in 39 countries (mostly in Europe but also in Latin America and
South Africa) have been conducted by IEP. These have included all types and sizes of higher
education institutions: public and private universities and polytechnics, comprehensive and specialised
institutions, including art and music schools.
22
23. Annex 2
Terms and Conditions for participation in the Institutional Evaluation
Programme 2008/2009
Participation fee:
The cost of participating in the Institutional Evaluation Programme in 2008 – 2009 is 31,500 Euros
for EUA members (34,000 for non-members), payable at the beginning of the evaluation
procedure. In addition, participating institutions have to cover the accommodation (hotels and
meals) and local transportation (airport transfer) costs for the members of the evaluation team.
The participation fee is used towards the international travel of team members and the IEP
programme administration, including the training of pool members. Please note that team
members do not receive any payment for their services.
Interval between the site visits:
Care must be taken to avoid an unduly long interval between the first and the second site visit. As
a rule, the normal interval should be two to four months. An interval exceeding nine months
should be avoided, because this would require such a significant update of the self-evaluation
report that the whole evaluation process would have to start again. Moreover, it is important that
the impressions collected by the team members during the first visit are still fresh in their minds
by the time they undertake the second visit.
For this reason, IEP, in cooperation with the institution, will make every effort to ensure that the
second site visit takes place within nine months of the first. If this time frame cannot be met due
to delays caused by the institution, IEP will consider the ongoing evaluation as having been
terminated, unless a different time frame for the evaluation has been specifically agreed upon by
the institution and IEP, either initially or in the course of the evaluation. In the case of a
termination, the evaluation fee is due in full.
Should the institution choose to commence the evaluation process anew after the termination,
there may be a negotiated modification of the fee. This will depend on the extent to which the
operations and results of the terminated evaluation can be used for the new evaluation, thus
reducing the overall cost.
23
24. Annex 3
Follow-up activities
After an institution has participated in the Institutional Evaluation Programmes, it becomes eligible for
the following activities and services:
A follow-up evaluation two to four years later: at the request of the institution, IEP will form
a team of four evaluators (two of whom participated in the original evaluation) to conduct a
follow-up evaluation on the changes implemented since the initial evaluation.
Participation in the Alumni Forum: the Forum meets twice a year on the occasion of major
EUA conferences to discuss timely topics related to quality.
Please contact IEP staff (iep@eua.be) if you are interested in the follow-up activities of the IEP.
24
25. Selected further reading
EUA (CRE) publications
Please note that all EUA publications may be downloaded from the EUA website at
http://www.eua.be/index.php?id=128
Barblan, A. (1995). Management for Quality: the CRE Programme of Institutional Evaluation -
Issues encountered in the pilot phase - 1994/1995. CRE action n° 107. CRE, Geneva.
Conraths, B. & Trusso, A. (2007). Managing the University Community: Exploring Good Practice.
EUA, Brussels
CRE (2000), Quality Assurance as a Tool for Change: a Project Report on Quality Strategies in
South Western Europe. CRE-dossier n° 1. CRE, Geneva.
EUA (2004). Developing Joint Masters Programmes for Europe. Results of the EUA Joint Masters
Project.
EUA (2005). Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society. Results of EUA Doctoral
Programmes Project.
EUA (2006). Guidelines or Quality Enhancement in European Joint Master Programmes. EMNEM -
European Masters New Evaluation Methodology.
EUA (2006). Quality Culture in European Universities: A Bottom-Up Approach. Report on the Three
Rounds of the Quality Culture Project 2002-2006.
EUA (2007). Embedding Quality Culture in Higher Education - A selection of papers from the 1st
European Forum for Quality Assurance
EUA (2007). Creativity in Higher Education - Report on the EUA Creativity Project 2006-2007
Hofmann, S. (2005). 10 Years On: Lessons Learned from the Institutional Evaluation Programme.
EUA, Brussels.
Kanaan, S. & Barblan, A. (1997). Institutional Evaluation as a Tool for Change - L'évaluation
institutionnelle comme un outil de changement. CRE doc n° CRE, Geneva.
3.
Reichert, S. (2006). The Rise of Knowledge Regions: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges for
Universities. EUA, Brussels.
Reichert, S. (2006). Research Strategy Development and Management at European Universities.
EUA, Brussels.
Tabatoni, P. & Barblan, A. (1998). Principles and Practices of Strategic Management in Universities,
CRE-Guide n° 2. CRE, Geneva.
Tabatoni, P, Davies, J and Barblan, A (2002). Strategic Management and Universities’ Institutional
Development, Geneva: EUA Thema N° EUA, Brussels.
2,
van Vught, F. A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (1996). Institutional Evaluation and Management for Quality:
The CRE Programme: Background, goals and procedures. CRE-Action n° 107. CRE, Geneva.
Weber, L. Governance and Capacity for Change, EUA, Brussels.
http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/governance_capacity4change.1156863919271.pdf
Self-evaluation and quality management in higher education
Alstete, J. (1996). Benchmarking in Higher Education. Washington DC: George Washington
University/ASHE-Eric.
Barnett, R. (1992). Improving higher education: Total Quality Care. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
25
26. Brennan, J., Frazer, M., Williams, R. (1998). Self-Evaluation in Higher Education: A pack of materials
for groups undertaking self-evaluation. London: QSC/Open University Press.
Dill, D. D. (1992). Quality by design: Towards a framework for academic quality management. In J. C.
Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. VIII).
Frederiks, M. M. H., Westerheijden, D. F., & Weusthof, P. J. M. (1994). Effects of Quality Assessment
in Dutch Higher Education. European Journal of Education, 29, 181-200.
Kells, H. R. (1995). Self-Study Processes. New York: ACE/McMillan.
Kristoffersen, D., Sursock, A., & Westerheijden, D.F. (1998). Manual of Quality Assurance: Procedures
and Practice. Torino: European Training Foundation.
Quality management in higher education institutions: reader Unit 3 of the CHEPS/CHERI postgraduate
course by distance learning: Institutional management and change in higher education. Enschede:
CHEPS/QSC/LEMMA, 1999
Schwarz, S. and Westerjeijden D.F. (eds.) (2004). Accreditation and Evaluation in the European
Higher Education Area. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Trow, M. (1994). Academic reviews and the culture of excellence. Chancellor's Office, 1994:1,
Stockholm.
Vroeijenstijn, A. I. (1995). Improvement and accountability: navigating between Scylla and Charybdis:
Guide for external quality assessment in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Weusthof, P. J. M. (1995). Internal Quality Assurance in Dutch Universities: an empirical analysis of
characteristics and results of self-evaluation. Quality in Higher Education, 1, 235-248.
SWOT
Balamuralikrishna, R. & Dugger, J. C. (1995). SWOT Analysis - A Management Tool for Initiating New
Programs in Vocational Schools. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 12(1) 36-41.
Groff, Warren H. (1981) Strategic Planning Techniques: Matching External Assessment with Internal
Audit.
Herman, J. J. (1993). Strategic Planning for School Success. NASSP Bulletin, 77(557), 85-91.
Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It’s time for a product recall. Long range planning,
30(1), 46-52.
Nijssen, E.J. & Ligthart, P.E.M. (1999). SWOT-analyse: Vloek of zegen? Bedrijfskunde, 71(1), 15-19
Slocum, J. W. & McGill, M. (1994). The new learning strategy: Anytime, anything, anywhere.
Organizational dynamics, 23(2), 33-48.
Strategic management in higher education
Afuh, A. (1998). Innovation management: Strategies, implementation and profits. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management Fads in Higher Education: Where They Come From, What they Do,
Why they Fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, C., Kanaan, S., Kehm, B., Mockiene, B., Westerheijden, D., & Williams, R. (2000). The
European University: A Handbook on Institutional Approaches to Strategic Management, European
Policy and Academic Recognition. Torino: European Training Foundation.
Clark, Burton R. (1983). The Higher Education System. University of California Press.
Clark, Burton R. (ed.) (1984). Perspectives on Higher Education. University of California Press.
26
27. th
Hussey, D. (1998). Strategic management: From theory to implementation. 4 ed. Oxford: Butterworth
Heineman.
McNay, I (1997), Institutional management for universities. TOP-Handbook. Torino: European Training
Foundation.
Management and decision-making in higher education institutions: reader Unit 2 of the CHEPS/CHERI
postgraduate course by distance learning: Institutional management and change in higher education.
Enschede: CHEPS/QSC/LEMMA, 1999.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Strategic management and organisational dynamics. 2nd ed. London: Pitman.
Wit, B. de (1998). Strategy: Process, Content and Context. An international perspective. London: TBP.
27