Current State of the Institutional Quality Assurance Management at the University of Split

1. Current State of the Institutional Quality Assurance Management at the University of Split by Professor Ivan Slapnicar Vicedean FESB, University of Split Dubrovnik, October 11, 2003

2. Croatia Parliament Government Advice Ntnl. Council for Higher Education Ministry of Science & Technology Rectors’ Conference Universities (Osijek, Rijeka, Split, Zagreb) Scientific Expert Boards Faculties Promotions of Professors Evaluation and accreditation of Study Programmes and Institutions

3. University of Split • Founded 1974, faculties in 1960-ties • 15,000 students, 1,200 employees, 650 faculty and teaching staff • Additionally 5,600 students in 2-year vocational programmes • 13 faculties and 2 departments • No Strategic Plan yet, no QA Agency • All programmes accredited

4. Teaching indicator

5. Scientific Indicator

6. Analysed Faculties • FESB, http://www.fesb.hr, 1,503 students • EF, http://www.efst.hr, 2,283 students • MF, http://www.mefst.hr, 334 students • NAT, http://www.pmfst.hr, 652 students These account for 40% university students in Split.

7. Management structure (FESB) • Dean and 3 Vicedeans • 6 departments (Heads) • Chairs • Collegium = Dean + Vicedeans + Heads (weekly meetings) • Faculty Council = 52 Professors and 5 students (monthly meetings)

8. Student Evaluations • University: provisions in the Statute, questionnaire defined. • FESB • each semester • 40% of the students • general results on the web • average marks: 3.8 (FESB), 4.03 Professors, 4.10 TAs • own set of questions

9. Student Evaluations • EF • last year, no statistical analysis • intentions to continue – development of more suitable set of questions • MF • after each session • 90%-100% of students • average marks 3.5-4.0 • clear actions to be taken (Chairs)

10. Student Evaluations • NAT • recently started • 50% of the students involved • planned each semester • University questionnaire • average marks good • actions to be taken by Heads

11. Information Systems • FESB: own high quality system with all statistical data – developed over 20 years • Ministry: offers ISVU system – not yet widely adopted • NAT: none

12. Quality Improvement • Vary within the university • Mid-term exams: FESB and others • Up-to-date equipment including Teleconferencing • Publishing textbooks (FESB), similar incentives EF • Introducing ECTS in new studies

13. Improvement of Teaching Practices • No University Education Center • Use of equipment left to teachers (80% at EF) • CARNet offers some courses • MF: specialised teacher courses • EF: sends younger staff to MS or PhD abroad (TEMPUS)

14. Following Graduates • FESB – informal contacts • EF – strong Alumni Association • MF – close contacts with the hospital • NAT – close contacts with schools

15. Participation of students • Insufficient • Tends to improve

16. Recommendations • Strategic Plan • Quality assurance agency or board • Incentives to improve teaching • University-wide Information System • University-wide student evaluations + statistics • Evaluations of faculties and programmes public • SWAT analysis + act upon it • Higher international standards for faculty promotions

17. Chicken or egg? Or:are improvements possible in current (economic) situation? • Croatia vs. Germany • Split vs. Zagreb