1 / 13

Have we made a difference

517153-TEMPUS-DE-TEMPUS-JPGR Conducting graduate surveys and improving alumni services for enhanced strategic management and quality improvement. Have we made a difference in regard to Quality Assurance, defining the right scope in relation to the strategies of the institutions.

callum-levy
Download Presentation

Have we made a difference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 517153-TEMPUS-DE-TEMPUS-JPGR Conducting graduate surveys and improving alumni services for enhanced strategic management and quality improvement Have we made a difference in regard to Quality Assurance, defining the right scope in relation to the strategies of the institutions

  2. CONGRAD is a Tempus IV Joint Project running from October 2011 until October 2014. Objectives • To implement regular graduate surveys at HEIs in Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina • To collect systematic and reliable information on the links between study offerings and subsequent employment • To provide a general insight in country-specific conditions of the transition between higher education and the labour market • To contribute to the improvement of institutional self-evaluation processes and to enable the evidence-based evaluation of higher education reforms and curricular changes in the last decade Project Coordinator: Prof. Dr. Martin DiewaldDeputy Project Coordinator: Jana Nöller, M.A. Soz., MA

  3. CONSORTIUM • Bielefeld University, Germany (coordinator) • Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic • Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain • University of Jyväskylä, Finland • University of Belgrade, Serbia • University of Novi Sad, Serbia • University of Kragujevac, Serbia • University Singidunum, Serbia

  4. CONSORTIUM (continued) • Subotica Tech – College of Applied Sciences, Serbia • School of Higher Technical Professional Education, Serbia • Higher Business Technical School, Serbia • Centre for Education Policies, Serbia • University of Montenegro, Montenegro • University of Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina • University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

  5. Approach – Design Contact data collection On-line questionnaire development 2007 cohort and 2012 cohort~ 60.000 graduates (census) Analytical Unit and EU Partners 2012 Feedback and contributions by higher education institutions Contact data of all graduates collected and verified by student service offices at faculty level or central level Core questionnaire(with institutional supplements) Field work Online survey coordinated by Analytical Unit Institutional field work organised by Institutional Coordinator 2013 ~ 40.000 participants (responded) Data analysis Reporting 2014 Analytical Unit and EU Partners Analytical Unit Data editing and analysis, interpretation Institutional reports and project report 5

  6. Approach – Framework Socio-biographic background Higher education Parents‘ education Gender Motives and abilities Prior education Structures Study conditions Curricula Study behaviour Socio-cultural conditions Labour market conditions Competences Transition process Employment and work Country Region Quasi knowledge economy Globalisation, Internationalisation Life course 6 Source: CHEERS Framework (modified)

  7. Perspectives Regarding QA • Study conditions • Study success • Student support • Voluntary engagement • Counselling & Guidance • Regional/international mobility • Transition process • Curricula & Competences • HE reforms/Bologna process

  8. QA, defining the right scope in relation to the strategies of the institutions has provided valuable feedback on • Curricula and education programs • Learning resources, • Learning outcomes • Quality of teaching • Pedagogical approaches • Practical training and short term mobility • Employability of graduates and graduate tracking

  9. Obstacles encountered Relationship between faculties and university: resistance at the faculty level • Incomplete participation of all faculties Quality of the data provided by student services officers • higher number of graduates that could not be contacted Technical obstacles • Server capacities • Sending emails took more time and resources • Yahoo, Gmail filters • Bounced e-mails The size of the questionnaire Are we getting realistic feedback?

  10. The questionnaire • Extensive changes were made in the study programs between the two cohorts (transition from traditional to Bologna studeies) • Students and faculty staff do not know what study programs are • The respondents do know about ISCO codes • In 2007 we had “nastavni plan i program” not study programs, so there was confusion among some student services officers • Should we continue to model the questionnaire according to the German model?

  11. Have we made a difference? • When will the partners or others from the region perform the next survey? • How will they collect the student contact data? • Will accreditation bodies in the region define surveys more closely? • What are the expectations from alumni networks/organisations?

  12. Have we made a difference? The survey has shown its usefulness at the regional, national, institutional and departmental level. It is an important source of information to improve curriculum design and optimize institutional strategies, a proper QA tool. Will the financing of such surveys become a regular budget line of institutions in the region?

  13. Questions, comments…. Prof. Dr. Ivanka Popović University of Belgrade

More Related