1 / 19

EUA Institutional Evaluation Programme: University of Maribor

EUA Institutional Evaluation Programme: University of Maribor. 28 June, 2013. Distinctive Features. Strong emphasis on the self-evaluation phase A European perspective A peer-review approach Improvement oriented Focus on institution as a whole

tariq
Download Presentation

EUA Institutional Evaluation Programme: University of Maribor

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. EUA Institutional Evaluation Programme:University of Maribor 28 June, 2013

  2. Distinctive Features • Strong emphasis on the self-evaluation phase • A European perspective • A peer-review approach • Improvement oriented • Focus on institution as a whole • Aim: Contribute to the dynamics of development and evaluates the university’s capacity for change

  3. Methodology • Examination of short and long term objectives (mission statement) • Examination of external and internal constraints, as well as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats • Recommendation of strategies to improve the quality of the institution • No standardised solution nor imperative proposals, but support to the institution for improvement • A voluntary process

  4. 4 Key questions • What is the institution trying to do? • How is the institution trying to do it? • What proves that it works? • How does the institution change in order to improve?

  5. Evaluation Process • Self-evaluation resulting in Self-Evaluation Report • Two visits by the Evaluation Team • Oral report (main findings) • Written report by the Evaluation Team • Dissemination by the University and the IEP • Follow-up evaluation (optional)

  6. IEP Evaluation Team • Kerstin Norén, Chair • Gerard Wrixon • Simona Lache • Jacob Müller • Fabrice Hénard, Team Coordinator

  7. Governance • Integration of faculties • Dissemination of good examples • Cooperation between faculties in multidisciplinary teams • Keeping track of national and European changes/developments • Complication of governance structure • Who is responsible? • Good integration of students in governing bodies

  8. Governance • We support idea of a more cohesive university • Visibility • Reputation • Central intelligence • Subsidiarity remains • Enhance communication to achieve consistency • Lobby for multi-year financing contract to secure development

  9. Teaching and learning • Students are pleased with their studies • Uneven development of Bologna process • Duplication of courses • Need for more practical training • Too much concentration on research development could threaten undergraduate education

  10. Teaching and learning • Make sure that habilitation process includes deep knowledge of the Bologna Process • Continuous improvement of didactics • Develop Life Long Learning • Make sure resources are not used to duplicate courses • Start careful restructuring and search for coherence and mutual recognition between faculties • Promote further contacts with stakeholders for (re)-design of programmes

  11. Research • Excellence in research and development • Predominant applied research, basic research in some limited areas • Good examples of multidisciplinary research in the region between “Poland-Black Sea”

  12. Research • Research as a service to the society • Students needs for contacts with employers • Possibility of European funding • Characteristics of the country profiling the university • Internationalisation in the wider area • = Applied research should be favoured

  13. Services to the society • University is important for the stakeholders • The way the Career Center works • Good work with surrounding society

  14. Services to the society • Expand contacts with society around and undertake collaborative projects • Formalised structure for the stakeholders • Increase Alumni students contacts in all faculties • Become the focal point for the region

  15. Internationalisation • Ambitious new university-wide strategy including both research and education • High number of incoming students • Strategic links with universities

  16. Internationalisation • Tighten strategic links at faculty level • Look for university networks with similar universities • Advocate for English-taught programmes

  17. Quality Assurance • Good system with Quality Development Centre and the Quality Assessment Committee • Round table discussions following programme evaluation for improvement of questionnaires • Results of reports are not always implemented

  18. Quality Assurance • Incentives to take up decisions on QA • A portion of funding should be tied to the extent to which the faculty responds to recommendations in the yearly quality reports • Quality Development Centre to include Teaching and Learning Development (including staff development).

  19. Thank you!

More Related