Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    4 Dius - Dissemination Edu Draft 4.2 Engl

    Uploaded by

    Tempus Websites
    The document discusses quality assurance processes at the State Engineering University of Armenia including: 1. Annual monitoring and periodic review of study programs to assess quality, identify weaknesses, and propose improvements. 2. Surveys of students and graduates to evaluate program content and teaching methods and obtain feedback on programs. 3. Procedures for program approval, monitoring, and review that involve committees, councils, external experts, and self-assessment reports. The university is working to map its processes against the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance of higher education programs and awards.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    4 Dius - Dissemination Edu Draft 4.2 Engl

    Uploaded by

    Tempus Websites
    27 views22 pages
    The document discusses quality assurance processes at the State Engineering University of Armenia including: 1. Annual monitoring and periodic review of study programs to assess quality, identify weaknesses, and propose improvements. 2. Surveys of students and graduates to evaluate program content and teaching methods and obtain feedback on programs. 3. Procedures for program approval, monitoring, and review that involve committees, councils, external experts, and self-assessment reports. The university is working to map its processes against the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance of higher education programs and awards.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses quality assurance processes at the State Engineering University of Armenia including: 1. Annual monitoring and periodic review of study programs to assess quality, identify weaknesses, and propose improvements. 2. Surveys of students and graduates to evaluate program content and teaching methods and obtain feedback on programs. 3. Procedures for program approval, monitoring, and review that involve committees, councils, external experts, and self-assessment reports. The university is working to map its processes against the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance of higher education programs and awards.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    27 views22 pages

    4 Dius - Dissemination Edu Draft 4.2 Engl

    Uploaded by

    Tempus Websites
    The document discusses quality assurance processes at the State Engineering University of Armenia including: 1. Annual monitoring and periodic review of study programs to assess quality, identify weaknesses, and propose improvements. 2. Surveys of students and graduates to evaluate program content and teaching methods and obtain feedback on programs. 3. Procedures for program approval, monitoring, and review that involve committees, councils, external experts, and self-assessment reports. The university is working to map its processes against the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance of higher education programs and awards.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 22

    State Engineering University of Armenia (POLYTECHNIC)

    TEMPUS SMGR PROJECT

    Design, Approval and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards best practice
    1

    SEUAS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES


    Within the frames of DIUS project according to the ESG 2 requirements the next specific objectives were attained:

    1. Describing the processes of design, approval, annual monitoring and periodic review of the study program on the basis of mapping,
    2. Development and testing of the tools for assessment of quality of program implementation:

    Annual monitoring of the study program,

    Periodic review of the study program,

    3. Analizing of the surveys results, 4. Preparation of the self-assessment report.


    2

    ESG2. Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards


    STANDARD: Institutions should have formal mechanisms for the approval, periodic review and monitoring of their programmes and awards. The quality assurance of programs and awards are expected to include: development and publication of explicit intended learning outcomes; careful attention to curriculum and program design and content; specic needs of different modes of delivery and types of higher education; availability of appropriate learning resources; formal program approval procedures by a body other than that teaching the program; monitoring of the progress and achievements of students; regular periodic reviews of programmes (including external panel members); regular feedback from employers, labour market representatives and other relevant organisations; participation of students in quality assurance activities.
    3

    Annual Monitoring of the Academic Program


    The goals of monitoring are as follows:
    assessing the program (separate disciplines) implementation and efficiency of acquiring the intended learning outcomes; revealing the program weaknesses and propose the necessary improvements to the program/disciplines; assessing the efficiency of the teaching and learning processes, and technologies, revealing the resources needs; assessing accordance of the programs characteristics (admission, contingent, dismissals, progress, graduation etc.) with the target indices established initially.

    The main tools of program monitoring are as follows:


    students survey on satisfaction with different aspects of the program (disciplines);

    the most successful and the most unsuccessful (irrelevant) program components from the students perspective;
    external expertise of the program implementation; analysis of the main quantitative indicators of the program (admission, contingent, graduates, resources, students progress etc).
    4

    Academic council

    Committee of the Academic council (discussing the general report and the resolution draft)

    Rector/coordinating Vice-rector

    THE GENERAL PROCEDURE SCHEME FOR MONITORING STUDY PROGRAM

    DERDP (preparation of the university monitoring report)

    Council of faculty (branch) (Acceptance of the monitoring report)

    Dean of the Faculty (Forming the faculty monitoring report)

    Committee (discussion and estimation of the report)


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

    The discussion process of monitoring

    External expertise

    Program team (making up the report according to the form)

    Discussion results of the feedback process

    Periodic Review of the Study Program


    The main goals of the program review are as follows:
    Carrying out a critical analysis of the
    The main tools of the program review are as follows:

    Assessment of the program learning

    program from the perspective of its strong and weak points in the process of implementation;

    outcomes within the frames of the University (branch, faculty, chair) self-analysis;
    Annual monitoring results (students

    Analyzing of students, alumni and

    employers opinion on the quality of the program implementation;


    Comparing

    surveys during 4 years);

    Alumni and employers survey;

    the actual program learning outcomes with the established academic standards;

    Analytical report of the program

    team on improvements;

    the

    necessary

    Re-assessment of the program

    Report

    modernity and its demand in the labour market for the next cycle of implementation.

    of the faculty quality assurance committee on the periodic review of the study program.
    6

    Committee of the Academic council (discussing the general report and making up the resolution draft)

    Academic council

    Coordinating Vice-rector

    DERDP ( Checking the accordance of the documents introduced with the requirements and forms)

    A PROCEDURE SCHEME FOR A PERIODIC REVIEW AND REAPPROVAL OF STUDY PROGRAM INTRODUCED BY A SEPARATE FACULTY

    Faculty (branch) council (Accepting the commission report)

    Dean of the faculty

    Committee (discussion and estimation of the report)


    The expert group of the committee (expert examination of the program and formation of the report ) Chair Sitting (Considers the self-analyzing report and adopt a resolution on the future status of the program) Head of Chair

    External expert(s)

    Review and re-approval of the program Positive conclusion (the program continues taking into account the recommendations) Negative conclusion (review or termination of the program)

    students, graduates and employers Surveys

    Program group (reviewing the program and making up the self-analysis report)

    MAPPING OF ESG 2 primary situation at SEUA

    MAPPING OF ESG 2 Current situation at SEUA during DIUSAS project life time

    DISCIPLINE/MODULE EVALUATION
    Statistical Analysis Tools: SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)

    BACHELOR DEGREE PROGRAM


    Type of answers points 12 10 8 6 4 2

    Faculty: Computer Systems and Informatics Discipline: System Programming Number of students: 84

    Completely agree Agree Difficult to answer Disagree Completely disagree Not applicable

    10

    STUDENTS SURVEY (Bachelor Degree Program)


    discipline/module

    11

    THE RESULTS OF STUDENTS SURVEY


    discipline/module
    1. Materials presented during the lectures and teaching methods helped in the learning processes and in my individual work 2. Modes of provided consultations helped in the learning processes and for acquisition of materials taught 3. Seminars/practical classes helped in the learning processes and for acquisition of materials taught 4. The laboratory/research works helped in the learning processes and for acquisition of materials taught 5. There were adequate resources in the library available for acquisition of a given module 6. Provided computers/facilities were adequate and satisfactory for fulfillment of a given modules requirements 7. Supplementary materials available for this module (lecture outlines, computer presentations, case studies and other resources) were helpful for the learning processes 8. I was informed enough about the modules timetable and the scheduled activities 9. The modules workload for provided academic hours was realistic 10. The module was interesting 11. The modules content satisfied my expectations 12 12. Feedback from the lecturer/professor helped in the learning processes

    Average value is 10 Dispersion: 8.8 11.9

    GRADUATES SURVEY
    Statistical Analysis Tools: SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) BACHELOR DEGREE PROGRAM
    Faculty: Computer Systems and Informatics Study Program: Information Technologies Number of graduates: 48

    MASTER DEGREE PROGRAM


    Faculty: Computer Systems and Informatics Study Program: Information Technologies

    Number of graduates: 14

    Adopted scale of calculation of the average value is the next: Type of answers Completely agree Agree Difficult to answer Disagree Completely disagree points 10 8 6 4 2
    13

    GRADUATES SURVEY (Bachelor Degree Program)

    THE RESULTS OF GRADUATES SURVEY


    graduates survey
    1. Content of the program allows you to acquire enough knowledge to be engaged in professional activities 2. The program and teaching methods allowed to acquire enough practical skills 3. The program and teaching methods allowed to develop skills for formulating and solving technical problems 4. The program and teaching methods allowed to develop managerial skills 5. The program and teaching methods allowed to obtain enough skills to use computers and applied programs 6. The program and teaching methods allowed to obtain foreign language skills enough for professional activities 7. The General Engineering courses were taught by highly qualified lecturers 8. The specialty courses were taught by highly qualified lecturers 9. Students knowledge has been evaluated objectively 10. The internship allowed to improve the professional knowledge and to obtain practical skills 11. Profile internships corresponds profession

    Average value is 6,9 Dispersion : 5.6 7.8

    12. Laboratories/specialized auditoriums were equipped with modern facilities 13. The program had appropriate methodological materials and necessary resources

    GRADUATES SURVEY (Master Degree Program)

    THE RESULTS OF GRADUATES` SURVEY


    Graduates survey

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

    Content of the program allows you to acquire enough knowledge to be engaged in professional activities The program and teaching methods allowed to acquire enough practical skills The program and teaching methods allowed to develop skills for formulating and solving technical problems The program and teaching methods allowed to develop managerial skills The program and teaching methods allowed to obtain enough skills to use computers and applied programs The program and teaching methods allowed to obtain foreign language skills enough for professional activities The General Engineering courses were taught by highly qualified lecturers The specialty courses were taught by highly qualified lecturers Students knowledge has been evaluated objectively The internship allowed to improve the professional knowledge and to obtain practical skills Profile internships corresponds profession Laboratories/specialized auditoriums were equiped with modern facilities The program had appropriate methodological materials and necessary resources

    Average value is 6,5 Dispersion : 4,7 7.6

    12 13

    Employers' Survey
    Statistical Analysis Tools: SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Number of companies: 13 Number of employers: 38 Study Program: Information Technologies

    Adopted scale of calculation of the average value is the next:

    Type of answers Completely agree Agree Difficult to answer

    points 10 8 6

    Disagree
    Completely disagree

    4
    2
    18

    EMPLOYERS SURVEY

    THE RESULTS OF EMPLOYERS SURVEY


    1 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 9 4 3 2 1 3 2

    1. Graduates theoretical knowledge corresponds to the job requirements 2. Graduates demonstrate practical skills 3. Graduates are able to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems 4. Graduates are capable of solving management problems 5. Graduates have enough knowledge of computer technology and applied programs 6. Graduates have enough foreign languages skills in the professional field
    4

    7. Graduates have necessary record keeping skills in Armenian (preparing documents and texts, etc.) 8. Graduates prove to have a creative approach in their professional activities

    9. Graduates have satisfactory business skills


    6

    Average value is 7.8 Dispersion: 7.4 8.4

    10. Graduates have skills in cooperation with colleagues and teamwork

    The main outcomes of the project: 1. Up-to-date tools and procedures for design, approval, annual monitoring and review of study programs, 2. Establishment QA infrastructures at Gyumri and Kapan branches, 3. Trained staff (at the academic and administrative level) responsible for conducting of the effective university self-assessment processes, 4. Promotion student involvement in the university self-assessment

    processes.
    5. Development and testing students, alumni and employers on-line surveys.
    21

    22

    You might also like