Quality work is organised in relation to courses, study programmes and the study programme portfolio. Information from relevant sources should systematically be collected and used as a basis for quality work. Among other factors, assessments must be based on relevant quality indicators.
Criticisable conditions and events may be reported through the university’s Speak Up system.
The purpose of quality work at the course level is to reveal aspects of courses and practice, as seen from the perspective of students and employees, that need to be improved, but also to identify qualities that should be maintained.
The following processes are included in quality work at the course level:
These evaluations are also part of the basis for quality work at the study programme level.
Student evaluations may be conducted for each course or jointly for courses in the same semester.
The method of evaluation and whether courses should have a mid-term – or an end of term evaluation is decided by the person responsible for the course in cooperation with the student representative at the beginning of the semester. Alternatively, the Faculty Board may stipulate that this matter will be decided by the programme committee/PhD programme committee.
| Responsibility: |
Person responsible for the course in cooperation with the student representative. |
| Time: |
Is normally carried out as a mid-term evaluation |
| Frequency: |
Each time the course is taught |
| Method:
|
Is normally carried out by using one of the following methods:
|
| Contents: |
Main focus on learning outcomes, work- and assessment methods, the students’ scope of work, and the learning environment. |
| Documentation: |
|
| Follow-up: |
The minutes from the dialogue and possible report from the digital evaluation are made available to the student representatives and presented in the lecturers’ meeting and programme committee/PhD programme committee. Proposals for changes are discussed in the annual study programme report. Proposals for changes to the PhD programmes will be presented in the annual quality report. |
The method of evaluation and whether periods of practical training should have mid-term or end of term evaluation are stipulated as follows:
Alternatively, the Faculty Board may stipulate that the programme committee should decide the matter.
| Responsibility |
Person responsible for the course/study programme coordinator/Head of Study
|
| Frequency: |
One student evaluation per period of practical training
|
| Method: |
Should normally be conducted by one of the following methods:
|
| Contents: |
Main focus on learning outcomes, the professional relevance of practical tasks and activities, facilitation, follow-up and supervision from the place of practice, the student’s own efforts and the scholarly facilitation and supervision of the university.
|
| Documentation: |
Report/summary of the evaluation.
|
| Follow-up: |
The report is submitted to the lecturers’ meeting and the programme committee with possible comments fra the person responsible for the course/the administration. Proposals for changes are commented on in the annual study programme report. The study programme coordinator/person responsible for the course is responsible for reporting suspicions of significant quality failures at a place of practical training to the Head of Department. The Head of Studies is responsible for following up suspicions of significant quality failures at a place of practical training for teacher students |
When practical training is part of a course, student evaluations of practical training may be included as part of the ordinary course evaluation where this is expedient and practically possible.
Evaluation of doctoral supervision is carried out through progress reports submitted at least once per year by the candidate and the supervisor. Also, circumstances surrounding the supervision are to be discussed in the appraisal interview.
Progress reports should be dispatched to the PhD programme manager and possibly also the leader of the current specialisation. The reports will then be a part of the basis for the annual evaluation of the PhD programme.
If quality failures are revealed in connection with supervision, the Head of Department and the Dean are responsible for follow-up in relation to the involved supervisor(s).
The objective of quality work at the study programme level is to highlight different aspects of the programme as seen from the perspective of student, employees and external parties. The aim is to improve the programme and to ensure that existing qualities are maintained. Quality work at the programme level is also intended to ensure that the quality of the programme meets the criteria set by the Regulations as well as any additional requirements stipulated by the University of Agder.
Quality work at the study programme level is comprised of the following processes and reports:
| Responsibility: |
Division of Student and Academic Affairs |
| Time: |
After completed period of exchange |
| Frequency: |
For each completed exchange period |
| Method: |
Digital evaluation |
| Contents: |
Main focus on facilitation from both UiA and the exchange institution, academic content and relevance to the study programme at UiA. |
| Documentation: |
Report that includes all evaluations of exchange in the current study programme. |
| Follow-up: |
The report will be submitted to and followed up by the study programme manager/Head of Study and subsequently discussed in the lecturers’ meeting and the study programme committee. |
There must be procedures available for providing information to places of practical training about issues that impact on the implementation of the subject content and the quality assurance of the practical training.
As regards places of practical training that are used regularly, written agreements between UiA and the place of practical training must be available that regulate:
For practical training not governed by National Curriculum regulations, it is a requirement that the university, the place of practical training and the individual student sign a three-part agreement.
The study programme coordinator/Head of Studies will invite to a dialogue meeting with places of practical training that regularly receive students from the study programme.
| Responsibility: |
Study programme coordinator/Head of Study in cooperation with the manager of the place of practical training |
| Frequency: |
After the first completed practice at the current place of practice and after that at least every third year |
| Method: |
Dialogue meeting |
| Contents: |
Main focus on the university’s facilitation and follow-up in the practical training period, the students’ preparation and previous knowledge, the facilitation and follow-up of the place of practical training, and the feedback from the students. |
| Documentation: |
Minutes |
| Follow-up: |
The minutes from the dialogue meetings are submitted to the lecturers’ meeting and the study programme committee.. |
Evaluations of study programmes in lecturers’ meetings will be based on a summary of existing evaluations, grade statistics for the courses that are included in the programme and other data that may be relevant.
| Responsibility: |
Study programme coordinator/PhD programme coordinator/Head of Study |
| Frequency: |
At least once each semester |
| Contents: |
Focus on the unity and cohesion of the programme, learning outcomes, teaching- and assessment methods, the scope of work for students, relevance and learning environment. |
| Documentation: |
Minutes from the Lecturers’ meetings |
| Follow-up: |
Minutes from the Lecturers’ meeting with proposals for changes to the programme description, plus course descriptions and other possible measures, are part of the basis of the annual study programme report or quality report (PhD). Minutes from the lecturers’ meetings in study programmes where there is no programme committee will be submitted to and followed up by, the Head of Department. |
Evaluation in Study Programme Committee/PhD programme Committee is carried out for all degree programmes as well as for the Postgraduate Certificate in Education. The evaluation is based on relevant data concerning the study programmes and other relevant documentation. For the PhD Programme Committee, relevant information from the progress reports of the PhD candidates and supervisors (anonymous), will constitute parts of the basis of the evaluation. Student representatives may bring input from fellow students to the meeting in the study programme committee/PhD programme committee.
| Responsibility: |
Study programme manager/PhD programme manager/Head of Study |
| Time: |
Normally in the autumn semester. |
| Frequency: |
Annual evaluation per academic year. |
| Contents: |
Focus on unity and cohesion, learning outcomes, teaching- and assessment methods, the scope of work for students, relevance and learning environment. |
| Documentation |
Minutes from the study programme committee. |
| Follow-up: |
Minutes from the meeting in the study programme committee with proposals for changes and other possible measures is part of the basis for the annual study programme report or quality report (PhD) |
The annual study programme report is submitted for all degree programmes and the Post-Graduate Certificate in Education. The report is submitted annually on the basis of evaluations in the lecturers’ meetings, the study programme committee and relevant study data. The report after the periodic programme evaluation replaces the study programme report in years when the periodic programme evaluation is carried out.
| Responsibility: |
Study programme coordinator/Head of Study |
| Time: |
Autumn semester |
| Frequency: |
Ånnual |
| Contents: |
Assessment of the quality of the programme, possible proposals for changes to the programme description and possible proposals for measures. If changes have taken place that may impact whether accreditation criteria are being met, these changes must be included in the study programme report. The report should also account for the follow-up of proposals in the previous study programme report. |
| Documentation: |
Report. |
| Follow-up: |
The study programme report will be followed up by the Head of Department. Programme reports in the teacher education will be followed up by the Dean. |
Periodic programme evaluation is to be carried out for all study programmes and free-standing courses that are offered on a regular basis. For disciplines at the bachelor’s level, the evaluation is carried out with emphasis on the major subject. Periodic programme evaluation of bachelor’s programmes also includes periodic programme evaluation of the current one-year programme. For PhD programmes, periodic programme evaluation is carried out at the programme level.
The evaluation is based on an overview of the academic environments which are linked to the programme, relevant study data, study programme reports and quality reports (PhD) from previous years and the programme description.
The faculty Board/Teacher Education Board stipulates the plan for periodic evaluations in the quality report.
| Responsibility: |
Study programme manager/PhD programme manager/Head of Study |
| Frequency: |
At least every sixth year for all study programmes. For new degree programmes at the bachelor’s and master’s level, a periodic programme evaluation will be carried out after the programme has been offered twice. The Academic Affairs Committee or the Faculty Board/Teacher Education Board may implement additional periodic programme evaluations. |
| Method: |
Periodic programme evaluation is carried out by a panel comprised of students and internal as well as external participants. |
| Contents: |
Assessment of whether the criteria of the Regulations relating to quality assurance and the Regulations relating to supervision of education policy, as well any additional requirements stipulated by UiA, are met. |
| Documentation: |
Report from the evaluation panel with a consideration of whether the criteria have been met and recommendations for further development of the study programme. |
| Follow-up |
The Head of Department/Head of Study is responsible for preparing a reply to the report and proposals for a revised study programme. For PhD programmes, the Dean is responsible for preparing a reply. The university’s Academic Affairs Committee reaccredits study programmes of 30 ECTS credits or more. The university’s Research Committee prepares statements on reaccreditation PhD programmes before discussions in the Academic Affairs Committee. The Faculty Board reaccredits free-standing courses and externally funded offers of study up to and including 30 ECTS credits. |
On the basis of periodic programme evaluation, a reaccreditation will be carried out as follows:
Evaluation panel
Periodic programme evaluation is carried out by a panel that is appointed by the Faculty Board/Teacher Education Board. The panel is composed as follows:
|
|
Panel for degree programmes and Post-Graduate certificate |
| Study programme manager/Head of study/PhD programme manager |
1 |
| Course lecturers from the programme |
2-4 |
| Academic staff from another HE-institution (Norwegian or Foreign) |
1-4 |
| Representatives from working life and society |
1-2 |
| Students |
1-2 |
The panel is chaired by a member of the academic staff at another HE- institution.The current faculty/Teacher Education Unit places administrative resources at the disposal of the evaluation panel.
Normally, a simplified, periodic evaluation will be conducted In the case of one-year programmes and half-year programmes that are not part of a bachelor’s – or a master’s programme, as well as for free-standing courses that are offered on a regular basis. At least one employee, one student and one external representative will take part in the evaluation. For non-degree further and continuing education offers, the periodic programme evaluation may be conducted jointly at each faculty or department.
The process for establishing and accrediting new study programmes are as follows:
For establishing and accrediting One-year programmes and half-year programmes, a simplified process without external expert committee is normally deployed.
Externally funded study programmes of 30 ECTS credits are established and accredited by the Faculty Board.
External expert committee
The University Board, or the Rector on authorisation by the Board, appoints members to the external expert committee based on a proposal from the Faculty/Teacher Education Unit.
The committee should be comprised of two to three representatives from the HEI- sector and possibly a representative from working life/society.
Members of expert committees should not be in a function at UiA or have attachments to the institution that may lead to disqualification. The stipulations of the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act with Regulations concerning the composition of committees must be adhered to.
For representatives from the HEI-sector, the following academic qualifications are required:
The objective of quality work at study programme portfolio level is to identify challenges to the total portfolio and single programmes and to identify possible systematic challenges that cut across the programmes. Analyses of data at the faculty – and institutional levels will be part of the basis for the work. A report on the programme portfolio is prepared once per year (calendar year).
Quality work at the study programme portfolio level includes the following activities and reports:
Annually
Periodic
The discussion in the faculty’s/teacher education unit’s manager meeting is based on the Dean’s/Head of Department’s/Head of Study’s proposal for follow-up of annual study programme reports and reports from periodic programme evaluations, relevant study data and possible external contributions.
| Responsibility: |
The Dean |
| Time: |
Spring semester |
| Contents: |
Specific challenges linked to individual study programmes, systematic challenges that cut across study programmes and the need for change concerning resources or other matters based on information obtained by the quality work. Possible changes to the faculty’s/department’s programme portfolio for the coming academic year. |
| Follow-up: |
The discussion functions as a part of the basis for the annual quality report. |
The study programme report and discussions of challenges to quality in the faculty managers’ meeting constitute the basis of the annual quality report.
| Responsibility: |
The Dean |
| Time: |
Spring semester |
| Contents: |
The quality report should include an assessment of the faculty’s/department’s study programme portfolio and learning environment in relation to relevant quality indicators. The report will describe possible systematic challenges linked to one or several of the faculty’s study programmes and viable solutions for changes to the programme portfolio. The quality report will also include an analysis of focus areas stipulated by the University Board. For PhD – programmes the quality report should also include an assessment of the quality of the programme as a whole and the quality of each specialization. |
| Follow-up: |
The report is adopted by the faculty board/teacher education board and submitted to the University Board as an attachment to the annual Education – and Research Report. |
Based on the quality report, an annual dialogue meeting is to be conducted between the university management and the managers at each faculty/teacher education unit.
| Responsibility: |
The Rector |
| Tidspunkt: |
Spring semester |
| Innhold: |
Matters that are to be discussed at the meeting include:
|
An annual dialogue meeting is to be conducted between the university management and the Deans of the joint faculties/Unit
| Responsibility: |
The Rector |
| Time |
The autumn semester |
| Contents: |
|
Each year, the University Board discusses the Education – and Research report. This report should include analyses of relevant quality indicators at the institutional level and benchmarking with other universities in relation to central parameters such as applicant and student numbers, throughput and number of candidates, as well as the university’s score in national investigations. The quality reports from the faculties/Teacher education unit are submitted as attachment to the Education and Research Report.
The Education and Research report should also include an analysis of focus areas stipulated by the University Board. Challenges identified in the Education and Research report constitute the basis for decisions concerning next year’s focus areas.
Based on the proposal for study programme portfolio from the faculties/teacher education unit and discussions in the dialogue meetings, the University Board reaches a decision concerning which study programmes should be offered for the next academic year.
Based on the adopted study programme portfolio, the University Board reaches a decision concerning the planned admission of students for the coming academic year.
Once in every Board period a strategic study programme portfolio review is to be carried out based on regional needs, national guidelines and international trends. The objective of this review is both to complete an overall assessment of to what extent UiA, through its study programmes, contributes to solving society’s challenges, and to consider the link between the study programme portfolio and the research portfolio. The University Board adopts more detailed stipulations concerning focus areas and the process.
Other investigations, which will be relevant to the university’s quality work, will be initiated by UiA and carried out on a regular basis. Examples of such investigations include candidate surveys, learning environment investigations and study start surveys. Other kinds of investigations may be initiated by the sector and completed on a national basis; examples include NIFU’s candidate survey and the Study barometer with NOKUT’s teacher and student surveys, SHOT - the students’ health and satisfaction survey, et.al.
Administrative managers of faculties, the teacher education unit and the various units of the central administration are responsible for preparing descriptions of procedures that have an impact on study quality and the learning environment.
Administrative managers of faculties, the teacher education unit and the units of the central administration are also responsible for preparing annual reports on quality work related to administrative services in their unit. These reports constitute the basis for discussion and follow-up in a joint administrative managers’ meeting.
Measures as, for instance, follow-up in the wake of discussions in the joint administrative managers’ meeting are included in the planning activities relating to the next academic year.
Responsible for this page: Turid Høgetveit <turid.hogetveitSPAMFILTER@uia.no (Remove SPAMFILTER from the address)>