monit.prengl

7/31/2019 Monit.prengl

1/22

STATE ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA(POLYTECHNIC)

STUDY PROGRAMMES

MONITORING


2/22

STATE ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA( POLYTECHNIC)Guide for EP's Monitoring

CONTENTS

Introduction . 3Procedures for Monitoring of Study Programmes

4

1. General Procedure of the Study Programmes' Monitoring

5

1.1 Study Programmes' Monitoring Conducted by (or Under the

Responsibility of) a Separate Faculty/Branch

5

1.2 Monitoring of SEUA Intra-University Joined Study Programmes

6

2. Special Procedure of the Study Programme's Monitoring

6

2.1 Study Programmes' Monitoring Conducted by (or Under the

Responsibility of) a Separate Faculty/Branch

6


9

Appendix 1 10

Form of the Study Programme's Annual Monitoring Report

Appendix 2 14

The External Consultant-Experts Annual Report on the Study Programmes

Monitoring

Appendix 3 16

Questionnaire For Students: Discipline/Module Evaluation

Appendix 4 19

The External Experts Appointment Procedure and Requirements

Appendix 5 20

General Conclusion Regarding the Study Programme's Annual Monitoring

page 2 / 22


3/22


page 3 / 22


4/22


INTRODUCTION

The appropriate internal quality assurance standard of the European Association for Quality

Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)1defines:

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) should have official mechanisms for approval,

monitoring and periodical review of their Study Programmes and granted qualifications.

There are separated three main teaching - methodological processes related to all programmes of a

higher education institution:

Academic planning [planning of new programmes (specialties)]: a higher education

institution changes structure of its educational offers and the list of programmes/specialties in

accordance with potential students' demands and the market requirements and tendencies.

Main components of the academic planning are design of a package with offers of newprogrammes/specialties; formulation of qualification profiles, goals and problems; market

analysis and defining tuitions.

Development of programmes: within its framework the programmes/specialtys curricula,

teaching programmes, modules and credits are designed; the programme's academic standards

including the programmes'/courses' outcomes and qualification characteristics are defined;

education resources and auxiliary (supportive) services are planned.

Presentation/implementation of programmes: includes organization of learning and

teaching processes; provision of auxiliary (supportive) services; provision of resources for

fulfillment of education processes; ongoing and final assessment/attestation of students'

knowledge.

A higher education institution implements four main processes directed to the quality assurance of

Study Programmes which are in parallel with and closely related to abovementioned three teaching

- methodological processes, namely:

1. Granting permission for the programmes' development;

2. The programme's intra-university approval/implementation licensing;

3. Monitoring of the programme's progress;

4. The programme's periodical review and re-approval.

1Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. ENQA, Part 1, Point 1.2. Helsinki, 2007.(2nd edition).

page 4 / 22


5/22


This Guide is aimed to regulate the Study Programmes quality assurance processes at the University

in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the European Association for Quality Assurance in

Higher Education (ENQA).

It consists of a description of one of the abovementioned four processes, namely, the procedure

necessary for monitoring of the programmes progress and the attached forms which define the lists

of data for the procedures implementation and the ways to present them.

The best practices of the European higher education institutions and experience obtained within

frameworks of the ongoing DIUS project were used during preparation of the procedure.

1. Procedures for Monitoring of Study Programmes

Monitoring of Study Programmes is a quality assurance process which guarantees correspondence

of organization of learning and teaching processes; provision of auxiliary (supportive) services;

provision of resources for fulfillment of education processes; ongoing and final assessment/attestation

of students' knowledge to problems of the implemented programme.

The aim of monitoring is to evaluate quality of presenting the programmes and to initiate

improvement actions.

The problems of monitoring are as follows:

To identify the programmes' weaknesses and problems related to its implementation and tosuggest necessary adjustments to be done in the programme and the courses;

To assess productivity of teaching and learning processes; modernity of teaching methods and

technologies and to identify needs for resources;

To evaluate correspondence of quantitative descriptors (acceptance, contingent, withdrawal,

advancement, graduation and job opportunities) to previously defined target indices.

The monitoring covers all programmes of the higher education institution and their courses. At the

State Engineering University of Armenia the annual monitoring of education processes starts by the

Rectors order. The Division of Educational Quality Control and Management (DEQCM) of

the Department of Educational Reforms and Development Programmes (DERDP) presents the list of

Study Programmes subject for monitoring and the schedule for its implementation. At the University

the overall process of monitoring is conducted on the Chair's, the Faculty's and the University's

levels.

At the University the process of annual monitoring of Study Programmes is implemented by two

types of procedures (depending on the situation with the observed programme):

page 5 / 22


6/22


1. General procedure of monitoring relates to all those programmes which have passed at

least one full cycle and got approval with conclusions related to previous internal or external

quality assurance (annual monitoring, overall evaluation and review of the programme and

accreditation);

2. Special procedure of monitoring pertains to the groups of programmes which are risky:

Newly implemented programmes (being on the first cycle);

The programmes which have not got approval as a result of a previous annual

monitoring or because of external quality assurance, according to the approved plan of

necessary changes;

The programmes which repeatedly have low indices in terms of acceptance, provision

of resources and/or low level of students' advancement, i.e. the programmes

implementation of which is highly risky.

The programmes' monitoring is conducted with the annual frequency, at the beginning of each

academic year and includes collection and analysis of the previous year's descriptive data. The

procedure according to which a given programme's monitoring should be conducted is defined by

the Rector's order based on the conclusion of DERDP.

1 General Procedure of the Study Programmes' Monitoring

1.1 Monitoring of Study Programmes Conducted by ( or Under the Re sponsibility of) a

Separate Faculty/Branch

The Faculty formes a work group which developes the programme and ensures its

implementation. This work group starts the monitoring process;

The work group is guided by the procedure of Study Programmes monitoring and by the

approved schedule. The groups action plan is approved during the Chairs session.

Based on the monitoring results and according to the monitoring form (Appendix 1) the

work group prepares the annual monitoring report and the draft plan for the next years

actions/changes.

page 6 / 22


7/22


The monitoring report includes also the external expert's (experts') annual report

(Appendix 2) and results of students' surveys participated in the programme (Appendix

3). The external expert's appointent procedure and reqirements are presented in the

Appendix 4.

Picture 1 shows the phases of a general procedure of monitoring for a non-risky Study Programme

conducted by a separate Faculty (Branch) of SEUA. It is concluded with the SEUA Academic

Councils decision (a general conclusion) regarding the annual monitoring of the Study Programme

(Appendix 5). It is based on the conclusions of DERDP and the Academic Councils Quality Control

and Assurance Commission and the results of discussions conducted during the Councils session. It

acts as a basis for preparation of a next annual monitoring and implementation of necessary changes.

Detailed descriptions of this and other procedures are presented at the corresponding package of

documents approved by the SEUA Academic Council.

1.2. Monitoring of SEUA Intra-University Joined Study Programmes

By the arrangement of the Deans of Faculties responsible for the programme a joined work

group arranges and implements the programme's monitoring and prepares the report in accordance

with the appropriate form (Appendix 1). External experts' and students' opinions are attached in

the report (Appendises 1-2, 3). Then, the monitoring report is submitted for a discussion at the

joined session of the Chairs responsible for the programme. Details of the monitoring are

thoroughly examined during the session.

After getting approval at the Chairs joined session the monitoring report is submitted to the

Deans of Faculties who further present the report for discussions by the Faculties Councils.

Otherwise, the monitoring report is returned for revision.

If the Faculties' Councils give approval then the monitoring report is sent for further

discussion (according to the scheme of a general procedure presented on Picture 1). If even one

Faculty does not give a positive feedback then the report is sent back with comments for additional

review.

Based on the conclusions of DERPD and the Academic Council's Commission SEUA Academic

Council approves the joined programme's monitoring reports in accordance with the defined

format appendix 5 .

page 7 / 22


8/22


2. Special Procedure of the Study Programme's Monitoring

2.1. Monitoring of Study Programmes Conducted by ( or Under the Re sponsibility of)

a Separate Faculty/Branch

The process of risky programmes' monitoring is also conducted according to step-by-step

procedures described in the point 1.1 of a given Guide; the only difference is that on every level the

monitoring report for each programme is discussed separately. Moreover, the Faculty Council's

decision should include also a separate point with some suggestions on the programme's continuation,

review or termination.

Then DERPD checks and evaluates correspondence of the report and the attached documents

received from the Faculty to the standard requirements and then the report and the attached

documents are presented to the Rector (the coordinating Vice-Rector). In case of discrepancy it is

returned for the Faculty's additional review.

Considering the final report the Rector (the Vice-Rector), through the Academic Councils

Commission , sends it to a discussion/review of the Academic Council.

Proceeding from the conclusions and the results of discussions of DERDP and the Academic

Council's Commission , the Academic Council makes one of the following decisions:

To consider the programme's monitoring results as satisfactory and to continue the

programme taking into account comments and suggestions appeared as a result ofdiscussions

of the monitoring report;

To consider the programme's monitoring results as incomplete and to recommend the Faculty

to take appropriate measures for revision of the programme on time.

To consider the programme's monitoring results as non-satisfactory and to start the

programmes termination processes.

Picture 2 presents the phases of the special procedure of the Study Programme's monitoring.


Monitoring of these programmes is implemented according to the procedures presented in the points

1.2 and 2.1 of a given Guide.

page 8 / 22


9/22


page 9 / 22


10/22


Pic.1 The general procedure scheme for monitoring the educational program

page 10 / 22

Program group(making up the reportaccording to the form)

Academic council

Dean of theFaculty(Forming the faculty monitoring

report)

Council of faculty(branch)(Acceptance of themonitoring report)

Externalexpert(s)

discussionresults of the

feedbackprocess

The discussionprocess ofmonitoring

DERDP(estimating the monitoring

report,university of the

monitoring report)

Committee of the Academiccouncil(discussing the general report

and the resolution draft)

Rector/coordinatingVice-rector

Committee (discussion andestimation of the report)

Chair sitting(discussing the monitoring resultsandthe report and making conclusions)


11/22


8-43

page 11 / 22

Pic. 2 The special procedure scheme for monitoring theeducational program

External expert(s)

Chairsitting(Discussing the monitoring results and

the report and making conclusions)

Program group(making up the reportaccording to the form)

Committee(discussing and estimating the

report)

Faculty(branch) council(guaranting the monitoring report)

Positive conclussion (theprogram continues taking

into account theregammendations)

Negative conclusion(review or termination

of the program)

The discussionprocess ofmonitoring

Academic councilCommittee of theAcademiccouncil (discussingthe report and

making up the resalution draft)

DERDP(Estimating the monitoring report)

Dean of the faculty

Coordinating Vice-rector

Rector


12/22


Appendix 1

STATE ENGINEERIGN UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA (POLITECHNIC)

Form of the Study Programme's Annual Monitoring Report

Branch

Faculty

Chair

Specialty (specialization) and classifier......................................

Type of study (full-time, correspondence and distant).

Qualification awarded (bachelor, master, researcher).............................

Date of the programme's initial approval.

Date of the programmes final approval..

Terms of the programme's next complete (periodic) review.................

1. The previous academic years action plan on quality improvement (based on the results

of a previous monitoring)

All actions are subject for reporting.

# Action (Event) Performance(yes/no)

Responsibleperson

Annotation

2. Students Evaluation

Below are the survey results conducted among the programme's student stream on the quality of the

presented programme, learning opportunities/resources, questions raised during the academic year

and response measures, as well as suggestions for improvement for the current academic year,

according to the approved form (Appendix 3)

3. Response of the Programmes Teaching Staff

Comments of the teaching staff on the processes of the programmes implementation and the

expected outcomes are presented here; productivity of conducted changes and initiatives, as well as

the level of satisfaction with resources provided within the reporting year are assessed; needs for

further changes/improvements are justified (see point 5) .

page 12 / 22


13/22


4. External Expert's (Experts') Comments/Reports

The following problems are raised in this section:

What are the questions and suggestions that the external experts have had during the academic

year?

What were the response measures?

The cases when the suggestions have not been fulfilled are clarified.

This section responds to the external experts (experts) annual report which is prepared according to

the attached questionnaire.

5. The Programme Changes

The programme changes planned (approved) for the previous and current academic years are

presented here; results of already implemented changes are assessed.

6. Cooperation and Management

External cooperation; participation of client organizations in the programme's

implementation and improvement;

Types and results of cooperation with other Faculties;

Collaboration with other Universities within the framework of similar programme.

7. The Programme's Statistics

Academic Year

Admission and the Students Contingent

Number of applicants

Admission coefficient and

admission/entrance score

Number of students

Indicators of Students Progress

Students progress

Transfers, withdrawals

Indicators of the students progress

(Proportion of grades: Excellent, Good and

page 13 / 22


14/22


Satisfactory based on GPA)

Data Related to the Graduating Students

Proportion of students intended to continue

their study on the next level

Proportion of graduates having jobs relatedto their specialties

8. Analysis of Statistics and Main Tendencies

Current situation and main tendencies related to the programmes admission, flow of the students

contingent, the students progress and the graduates employment are presented in this section, the

projected indicators deviated during the programme's approval are commented here as well.

9. The Programmes Strengths and the Best Practices for Dissemination (above the

Minimal Requirements of the University)

Strengths/Best

PracticesFactual Evidence

Suggestions for Development

and Dissemination of Best

Practices

10. The Work Group's Action Plan for Quality Improvement for the Next Academic Year

Sphere of

Improvement/c

ourse

Planned

Actions/Measures

Work Groups

Responsible

Person

Implementaion

Period

11. Problems which require measures/solutions beyond the work groups responsibility (on the

Faculty and University levels)

12. Other information related to monitoring (links to the labour market and Academic ,

international cooperation, re-training of the teaching staff, development of resources and other

ones)

The Head of the work group.

page 14 / 22


15/22


The monitoring results have been discussed and approved during the Chairs session (# of the

Ordinance.........., date)

Head of the Chair

page 15 / 22


16/22


Appendix 2

STATE ENGINEERIGN UNIVERSITY OF ARMENIA (POLITECHNIC)

The External Consultant-Experts Annual Report on the Study Programmes Monitoring

Name, Last Name..

Work Place, Position..

Date of Submitting the Report

The Programme, Qualifications Subject for Expertise.........................................................

Faculty, Chair.....................................................................................................................

Academic Year.....................................................................................................................

1. The package of documents submitted by the Chair/Faculty sufficient for conducting expertise;modes of collaboration with the Chair/Faculty during the process of expertise,

comments/suggestions for preparation of expertise.

2. Correspondence of resources and forms for the programme's provision to its goals, problems

and outcomes.

3. Assessment methods, examination criteria and procedures, their correspondence to the

assessment of the programme's/courses outcomes; methods of verification of competences

expected from graduates;

4. The process/level of outcomes expected to be obtained by graduates

during the reporting year; factual evidences for the expert's conclusions;

5. Quality and productivity of methods necessary for assisting the processes

of teaching and learning from the perspective of outcomes obtained by

students; comparison with similar programmes;

6. Modes of response of the work group/the Chair to comments and

recommendations of the experts previous report; impact of changes on

the programme's quality;

7. Comments and recommendations regarding the changes of the

programme's content, structure, teaching and assessment;

8. Suggestions regarding dissemination of the programme's best practices

and methodological innovations;

9. Other comments related to the monitoring problems.

External Consultant-

Expertname, last name

..page 16 / 22


17/22


degree, title, position and organization

Signature, date...................................................................................................................................

page 17 / 22


18/22


A ppendix 3

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS: DISCIPLINE/MODULE EVALUATION

page 18 / 22

Name of the Module Dat

Specialty, Degree/Qualification Awarded Year of Study (1, 2, 3 or 4)

Faculty (Chair) Academic Group

The University constantly strives to revise and improve the quality of teaching andlearning processes. The purpose of this survey is to give the teaching staff of SEUA anopportunity to take into account the students opinion in the process of revision of modules.

Your answers are very valuable for us and completing the questionnaire will take you only a

few minutes. None of the personal opinions will be published or disclosed but the answers

will be considered while summing up the data stream. Comments (questions 13-15) must beconstructive and reliable. They can include such peculiarities of the discipline or the module

as the content of the presented material, style of teaching and the presentation form,

classrooms and laboratories facilities, as well as other details related to the discipline or the

module. The final results of the survey will be reviewed in the corresponding faculty and the

university divisions in due course providing feedback from students. Please, respond to the

questions 1-12 pointing out the answer that most correctly corresponds to your opinion.

Please, give a written comment to the questions 13-15. After each question you may add an

additional comment you would like to make.

1. Materials presented during the lectures and teaching methods

helped in the learning processes and in my individual work

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree

Additional comments:

2. Modes of provided consultations helped in the learning processes and

for acquisition of materials taught

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


3. Seminars/practical classes helped in the learning processes and for

acquisition of materials taught

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


19/22


page 19 / 22


4. The laboratory/research works helped in the learning processes and for

acquisition of materials taught

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


5. There were adequate resources in the library available for acquisition of a given module

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


6. Provided computers/facilities were adequate and satisfactory for fulfillment of a given

modules requirements

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


7. Supplementary materials available for this module (lecture outlines, computer

presentations, case studies and other resources) were helpful for the learning processes

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


8. I was informed enough about the modules timetable and the scheduled activities

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


9. The modules workload for provided academic hours was realistic

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


10. The module was interesting

Completely

agree

Agree

Difficult to

answer

Disagree

Completely disagree


11. The modules content satisfied m ex ectations


20/22


Appendix 4

The External Experts Appointment Procedure and Requirements

After consulting with respective Chair(s) the Dean of Faculty offers the External experts

(experts) candidacy for the Study Programme's annual monitoring;

The External consultant/expert is appointed by the coordinating Vice Rector, in the presence

of the Dean for one academic year, not later than September 15th of the current year;

A specialist having at least 10 years of scientific-teaching experience and academic degree

may be appointed as the External expert. This person:

- Does not work in the Chair (or the Chairs if it is a joined programme) which implements

the programme;

- A full professor of SEUA who did not deal with a given programmes preparation, review

and teaching;

- Works in the industry and simultaneously teaches at SEUA and did not deal with a given

programmes preparation, review and teaching;

- A professor of another University who is involved in the same Study Programme or has a

close specialty.

- An expert should not be have conflicts of interests or problems with the work groups

members or the Head of Chair;

- The External expert conducts assessment of the annual monitorings results; reveals

existing problems and makes suggestions regarding changes and improvements; prepares

the annual monitorings report of the External consultant-expert (according to the

appropriate forms presented in the Appendix 2);

- The programme group (the Chair) is obligated to provide necessary conditions for a the

External expert's successful work and to provide required documents for preparation of

the annual report.

page 20 / 22


21/22


Appendix 5

Approved at the SEUA Scientific Counsels Session

(Ordinance #..................................................., date)

Rector/Vice-Rector

..................................................................................

General Conclusion Regarding the Study Programme's Annual Monitoring

1. The list of quality improvement measures prepared on a basis of the previous monitorings

results

...

2. Strengths of the programme and dissemination of best practices

...

3. Omissions and limitations originated during the programme's implementation

..............................................................................................................................................

4. Recommendations on quality improvement to be completed by the work group during the

current (next) academic year

..............................................................................................................................................

The monitoring results have been discussed and approved by the Faculty Council (Ordinance #....,

date)

The monitoring results have been discussed and checked by DERDP.

The Head of DERDP

page 21 / 22


22/22


page 22 / 22

monit.prengl

Documents