NVAO’s external quality assurance procedures

Axel Aerden

17 April 2012

The position of NVAO

2

‘Higher education’

‘Government’ ‘Society’

Enhancement

Accountability Information

NVAO

Recognition

FundingSupport

Appreciatio

n

Value for €

Proof of useQuality

Access

(Consumer) protection

Support

NVAO’s Scope of work

• Recognition of new higher education institutions• Institutional audits • Initial accreditation

• (New) programmes that want to offer a recognised degree

• All bachelor and master’s programmes, including associate degrees and research masters (MPhil)

• Accreditation• programmes that already offer a recognised degree

• Publication of decisions (and officially recognised degrees)

• Internationalisation

3

Publication

Report

Official register

(Initial) accreditation• Concentrate on content

(& focus on performance) learning outcomes

Audit• Focus on policy & practice

re. internal QA system teaching and learning

NVAO’s overall approach

4

Institution

Programme Report

Aim of NVAO’s system (1/2)

• Balancing accountability and enhancement• Stimulate quality culture

institutional audit• Start from institutional vision/policy on (internal) QA• Focus on functioning of (internal) QA system

with respect to teaching & learning

• Commit professionals / Increase academic ownership programme assessment• Focus on content; not on procedures• Assess learning outcomes; not quantitative elements

5

Aim of NVAO’s system (2/2)

• Balancing accountability and enhancement• Reward earned trust

limited programme assessment• Two types of programmes assessments

• Stimulate HE to aim above threshold accredit as satisfactory, good, excellent

6

Institutional audit

7

• Effective implementation (by progr. assessment )

• Standard 3: Results

• Standard 1 and 2 : Vision and policy

• Standard 4: Improvement policy

actplan

do

check

•Standard 5: Organisation and decision-making structure

1. What is the vision of the institution regarding the quality of the education it provides & of the development of a quality culture?

2. Does the institution have an appropriate policy to realise this vision?

3. How does the institution measure the degree to which this vision is realised?

4. How can the institution demonstrate that it systematically improves the quality of its programmes?

5. Does the institution have an effective organisation and decision-making structure regarding the quality of its programmes?

Positive / Negative / Conditional

8

Pro

gram

me

asse

ssm

ent

Extensive programme assessment

Limited programme assessment

Insti

tutio

nYes No

Is this institution recognised?

Recognition procedure

Insti

tutio

nal a

udit

Has this institution undergone an institutional audit?

Yes No

+ decision - decision

9

Pro

gram

me

asse

ssm

ent

Prog

ram

me

asse

ssm

ent

Is this programme on the register/ recognised?

(Lim./Compr.) initial accreditation procedure

(Lim./Compr.) accreditation procedure

- decision + decision + decision - decision

Extensive programme assessment

Limited programme assessment

Satisfactory - Good - Excellent

Deleted from register Included on register

Impr

ovem

ent

perio

d

Programme assessment

10

Limited programme assessment

Extensive programme assessment

Assessment of• content of the programme• focus on performance

Detailed assessment of• content,• policy and• procedures

3 standards 16 standards

Themes

1. Intended learning outcomes 2. Programme and staff quality

3. Achieved learning outcomes & Learning assessment

1. Intended learning outcomes 2. Programme3. Staff4. Services5. Quality assurance system6. Achieved learning outcomes &

Learning assessment

Conclusion: unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent quality

Focus on learning outcomes

11

Programme Module x Module y Module z ...

Intended LOs

Intended LOs

Intended LOs

Intended LOs

...

(C. &) LOs (C. &) LOs (C. &) LOs

Assessment Assessment Assessment ...

( E C T S ) C o u r s e c a t a l o g u e

Achieved?

Achieved?

Achieved?

Achieved?

…

Importance of learning outcomes (& ECTS)

• Direct window on what programmes aims to do & what a programme actually does• Less focus on policy, process & procedures

• But process & procedures are easier to assess

• Facilitates international transparency & comparability• E.g. International benchmarking

• Open to all types of teaching & learning• Technology Enhanced Learning / Distance learning• Work-based learning / Assessment of prior learning

• Provides a common language for HE & stakeholders• Teaching & Learning

12

PARTICIPANTS:ECA Partners (& one observer)

Multilateral agreement re. joint programmes

Mutual recognition agreements 2007

Mutual recognition agreements 2010-2011

AIMS FOR:mutual recognition of accreditation & quality assurance decisions

RESULTS OF THIS COOPERATION:• Code of good practice (2004)• Principles for the selection of experts (2005)• Principles for accreditation procedures

regarding joint programmes (2007)• Bilateral mutual recognition of accreditation

agreements (2007)• Qrossroads.eu (2008)• Principles regarding learning outcomes in

accreditation procedures (2009)• Multilateral agreement regarding joint

programmes (2010)

13www.ecaconsortium.net

a.aerden@nvao.net - @AAerden

www.nvao.net - www.qrossroads.eu

14

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Programme assessment scale

• Generic qualityThe quality that in all reasonableness could be expected of a bachelor’s or master’s programme within higher education, and this from an international perspective.

• UnsatisfactoryThe programme does not provide generic quality.

• SatisfactoryThe programme provides generic quality.

• GoodThe programme is of notably higher quality than generic quality.

• ExcellentThe programme is of a quality very much above generic quality and fulfils an exemplary role for other relevant programmes.

15

Expert panel composition (1/2)

• At least four members, one of whom is a student;• at least two authoritative subject-matter experts

• At least one with teaching experience at relevant level;

• aware of latest international developments in the discipline

• expertise in the professional field (where applicable)• educational expertise • assessment or audit expertise;

Expert panel composition (2/2)

• The panel is independent• no ties with the institution offering the programme for

at least five years;• an independent, external secretary trained and

certified by NVAO;• Signed declarations of independence and codes of

conduct;• Panel composition and declarations of independence

will be published and made public;• The parties involved in the assessment can report any

matters that could affect the independence to NVAO.