Stenden University of Applied Sciences

Transcription

1 [Certified translation from Dutch into English] Advisory Report Stenden University of Applied Sciences Institutional Audit 12 February 2014 [Logo] Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders

2 NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/2

3 Advisory Report Stenden University of Applied Sciences Institutional Audit 12 February 2014 NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/3

4 Contents NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/4

5 Contents 1 Summary advice 10 2 Explanation Composition of the Audit Panen Working method of the Panel Structure of the Advisory Report and layout of the sections 12 3 Description of the institution General information Profile of the institution Key figures as at Assessment per standard Standard 1: Vision of the quality of education Standard 2: Policy Standard 3: Results Standard 4: Improvement policy Standard 5: Organisational and decision-making structure 24 5 Recommendations for improvement 28 Annex 1: Composition of the panel 32 Annex 2: Programmes of the visits to the locations 34 Annex 3: List of studied documents 40 Annex 4: List of abbreviations 44 NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/5

6 Section 1 Summary Advice NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/6

7 Standard 1 Vision Stenden University has firmly formulated its vision of the quality of education. The vision is relevant to the context and forms a connecting guideline for the development of education and for what one understands to be good education. The vision is elaborated upon in three profile pillars: Problem-Based Learning (PBL), Internationalisation and Research. The panel concludes that these pillars are clearly connected in the elaboration and are widely supported within the institution by the Executive Board and staff. The panel does, however, consider the objectives of these pillars rather robustly formulated, especially in the pillar internationalisation. It sees that a robust ambition in the context of Stenden has a positive effect on making people enthusiastic, but the institution should continue to pay attention to balance. At the same time, the institution is faced with challenging circumstances, such as a recent merger and external requirements. These sometimes require more externally driven, operational setting of priorities within Schools. Within frameworks, the institution gives the Schools the opportunity to do so. According to the panel, this results in practice in a multitrack approach. The panel considers it a matter of course that, in certain aspects, priority is given at present to challenges at hand, but advises creating more clarity regarding the different tracks. The panel has found a strong quality culture and has observed an obvious and operationalised awareness of quality at the different levels of the institution. All things considered, the panel is of the opinion that Stenden University has a widely supported vision of the quality of the institution s education and satisfies Standard 1. Standard 2 Policy Stenden s vision is worked out in an adequate manner in central policy. Decentralised, the frameworks are worked out in year plans containing qualitative and quantitative targets that form the basis for degree programme plans. The profile pillars in these plans are translated to programme level and functionally used to achieve the educational targets. The decentralised contents of policy lead to differences in accents and approaches among Schools and programmes. PBL is the central policy line in working out the educational vision. Research is clearly embedded in the education and is also used to raise the level. The contribution of Professors of Applied Sciences is lucid and logical. The panel considers it credible that each student is substantially confronted with both PBL and research. The programmes give shape to Internationalisation policy in different ways and implement it at different paces. The Executive Board aims to provide the opportunity to do so and accepts that different subjects are temporarily given more priority, within the frameworks of the year plans. According to the panel, however, it will require a convergent policy impulse to achieve the internationalisation ambition in the longer term as well. The Executive Board is sufficiently aware of the need for further policy efforts in this area. The panel is therefore of the opinion that the ambition in this pillar is also within reach. The panel does not see the ambitious policy agenda structurally supported by a clear and unambiguous staffing plan. The focus of the staff plan is on professionalisation and academisation. The targets are indeed specific, but are not set out systematically in policy memoranda. During the trails the panel was, however, able to establish that the practice in this aspect is ahead of the policy set out in memoranda. The professionalisation agenda is so strongly embedded in the organisation that it has been put in place even without memoranda and is being implemented. The panel advises formalising the staffing plan and setting it out more clearly. Moreover, the panel advises further development of the staff policy in relation to internationalisation. The procedures relating to accessibility and feasibility for students with a disability are properly in place. But suggestions for improvement from students with a disability are not adequately reaching the institution at present. The panel advises asking students with a disability structurally about their experiences and integrating the results into the regular quality cycle. All things considered, the panel is of the opinion that the institution s quality assurance system satisfies Standard 2, Policy Standard 3 Results The institution systematically and frequently measures the quality of programmes at its stakeholders. In addition, it expressly uses informal channels for finding the truth and measures progress on targets by way of trial reviews, midterm audits and theme audits. The institution gives students a prominent role in the quality assurance process. According to the panel, the institution has been able to strike a good balance between formal and informal sources to collect information on quality. NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/7

8 Schools report their progress on the targets every four months to the Executive Board. These reports contain, among other things, a scorecard with indicators for education, research and business operations. The panel advises adding more quantitative indicators for internationalisation to the scorecard so that progress on this can be monitored. Schools report their progress on the targets every four months to the Executive Board. These reports contain, among other things, a scorecard with indicators for education, research and business operations. The panel advises adding more quantitative indicators for internationalisation to the scorecard so that progress on this can be monitored. Schools have reflection on information structurally on their agendas. Results are reported to the Executive Board on a regular basis. The panel is of the opinion that the Executive Board has an adequate picture of progress on the policy objectives. The panel is of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 3, Results. Standard 4 Improvement Policy The institution is working very systematically on improvements that directly benefit the quality of education. Different movements can be observed in Stenden s improvement policy. The most structured is the centrally determined improvement policy, whereby the Executive Board steers improvement priorities by way of management letters. Decentralised, staff are actively stimulated to think along about quality improvement and an attempt is made to involve all ranks. This also gives rise to a feeling of urgency. In addition, the panel has observed horizontal improvement initiatives among Schools. There is strong leadership, which guarantees coordination and gearing of the various initiatives and movements. The panel has found much and coherent improvement policy in the vertical trails in the subjects education, research and exit level. The results of improvement actions are still visible to a limited extent at present in the results. Discussion partners on all levels are nevertheless convinced that an improvement of results cannot be avoided, given the path taken and improvements made. The Executive Board has a clear view of progress and improvements and holds discussions with Heads of Schools on results achieved, both firmly and constructively. The panel is of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 4, Improvement Policy. Standard 5 Organisational and decision-making structure The panel is of the opinion that Stenden has a clear decision-making structure that is sufficient to identify and tackle possible problems. The organisation is clearly structured as education driven. Responsibilities for the quality of education are set out in their entirety in the Schools. The services (Clusters) have only a supporting role in this. Positions within the Schools distinguish themselves sufficiently for a clear division of roles and responsibilities are clearly set out. Examination committees are sometimes rather close to the management, but there is adequate internal reflection on this. Various consultations and bodies have been formed for participation in decision-making that function formally. Participation by students is strong and forms impulses for improvement. The panel is of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 5, Organisational and decision-making structure. Advice of the panel Based on the foregoing, the panel is of the opinion that Stenden University is in control. The institution s quality assurance system satisfies the five standards. The panel therefore advises the NVAO to issue a positive assessment of the application for the institutional audit of quality assurance of Stenden University. The Hague, 12 February 2014 On behalf of the panel for the assessment of Stenden University of Applied Sciences, Prof Dr Harry Martens (Chairman) drs. Suzanne den Tuinder (Secretary) NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/8

9 NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/9

10 Section 2 Explanation NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/10

11 2.1/ Composition of the Audit Panel The Audit Panel is composed as follows: Prof Dr Harry Martens, Chairman; Prof Dr Maurits van Rooijen, member; Drs. Bart van Bergen, member; Els Verhoef (MCM), member; Joren Selleslaghs, student member; The panel was supported by: Drs. Suzanne den Tuinder, Secretary; Dr Thomas de Bruijn, NVAO Process Coordinator. The CVs of the panel members are included In Annex / Working method of the Panel During the preparation of the institutional audit, the NVAO and the institution agreed that this assessment applies only to the education that Stenden University provides in the Netherlands. This includes the non-degree courses offered. Regarding the foreign campuses of Stenden, it was agreed that only the institution s efforts to monitor the quality of the education would be examined and not the organisation of quality assurance on these campuses. This limitation of the assignment was communicated to the panel in the Instructions to the panel on the use of international education and non-degree courses in the institutional audit (ITK) of Stenden University. The chairman of the panel and the process coordinator of the NVAO met on 5 September 2013 for exploratory consultations. They discussed critical self-reflection, as well as the programme of the first audit. They also determined which additional documentation would be requested from the institution. The proposals to that effect were sent to the entire panel and later sent to the institution. Because the time between the first and second audit was limited, a proposal had already been worked out for a trail to the policy relating to internationalisation in the programmes of Stenden. This proposal was also communicated to the institution. The panel paid two visits to the institution for five days in total. The first, exploratory visit took place on 17 and 18 October 2013 and started with a preparatory meeting of the panel. At that meeting, the panel had the Critical Selfreflection of Stenden University at its disposal. During the preliminary consultations, the panel discussed these documents and exchanged their initial impressions. Immediately following the preliminary consultations, an open consultation hour was on the agenda, for which one could apply to the panel secretary in advance. Finally, on this first day the panel spoke to representatives of the Supervisory Board. During the second day of the exploratory visit, the panel held discussions with the Executive Board, the Heads of Schools, several Academic Deans, team leaders, staff officers, Professors of Applied Sciences, lecturers and students. The panel paid a second, more in-depth, visit to the institution on 11, 12 and 13 November During this visit, the panel conducted two vertical audit trails and two horizontal trails. The vertical trails concerned the programmes: Education in Primary Schools Programme provided in the School of Education Marketing Programme provided in the School of Commerce In these vertical trails, the central question was how the PDCA cycle in the programme works with respect to increasing the exit qualifications obtained by students. The horizontal trails concerned: Studying with a disability. In this trail, the focus was on what the institution s policy is on this matter, how it is implemented, what the opinion of the Examination Committee is and how formal complaints are handled. Internal use of profiling on internationalisation. This trail focused on the way in which the institution gives internal shape to internationalisation as a profile-determining element in all its programmes. The trail examined programmes in the School of Media & Entertainment Management and Technology and the School of Business. NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/11

12 Prior to the second visit, Stenden University delivered additional documentation to the panel. A list of documents delivered is included in Annex 3. After the end of the discussions of the more in-depth visit, the panel formulated its grounds and assessments. Afterwards, the chairman gave feedback on behalf of the panel to discussion partners, including the Executive Board. Based on the findings and grounds of the panel, the secretary drew up a draft report and presented it to the panel members for comments. The secretary incorporated the comments of the members. The final report made in this way was made available to the NVAO on 10 January The NVAO presented this report to the institution on 20 January 2014 for verification of factual details. The institution responded to this on 7 February As a result of this, the secretary adjusted parts of the report and presented it once again to the members of the panel. The final report was drafted on 12 February / Structure of the Advisory Report and layout of the sections Section 3 contains general information about Stenden University plus a number of key figures. Subsequently, in Section 4, the panel gives its assessment of the institution s quality assurance per standard of the assessment framework. The findings are listed for each standard and subsequently the grounds of the panel are given. In this context, the findings resulting from the audit trails serve as casuistic evidence of the way in which the quality assurance system as a whole functions within Stenden University. The point is therefore not an assessment of the degree programmes or curricula involved in the audit trails, but certain aspects of them on the basis of which the panel has been able to check whether the institution is in control. Recommendations to improve the quality assurance system are included in Section 5. The report concludes with a table in which the assessments of the institution s quality assurance are summarised. The report also contains four annexes with: (1) information on the composition of the panel, (2) the programme of the visits to the location, (3) an overview of the studied documents and (4) a list of abbreviations. Section 3 contains general information about Stenden University plus a number of key figures. Subsequently, in Section 4, the panel gives its assessment of the institution s quality assurance per standard of the assessment framework. The findings are listed for each standard and subsequently the grounds of the panel are given. In this context, the findings resulting from the audit trails serve as casuistic evidence of the way in which the quality assurance system as a whole functions within Stenden University. The point is therefore not an assessment of the degree programmes or curricula involved in the audit trails, but certain aspects of them on the basis of which the panel has been able to check whether the institution is in control. Recommendations to improve the quality assurance system are included in Section 5. The report concludes with a table in which the assessments of the institution s quality assurance are summarised. The report also contains four annexes with: 1. information on the composition of the panel 2. the programme of the visits to the location 3. an overview of the studied documents and 4. a list of abbreviations. NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/12

13 Section 3 Description of the Institution NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/13

14 3.1/ General Information Country the Netherlands Institution Stenden University of Applied Sciences Locations Leeuwarden, Emmen, Groningen, Meppel, Assen Status of the institution government-funded Programmes 20 bachelor s degree programmes, 5 master s degree programmes and 6 associate degree programmes 3.2/ Profile of the institution Stenden University is a government-funded institution under the competent authority of the Board of the Stichting Stenden Hogeschool in Leeuwarden. Stenden was created in its present form after the organisational merger in 2008 between the Christelijke Hogeschool Nederland (CHN) and the Hogeschool Drenthe (HD). Stenden sees it as its mission to appeal to the curiosity of students and bring out the best in them. Not only for the benefit of the students themselves, but mainly for the benefit of society. The development of personal and lasting leadership is first and foremost, so that students learn to connect people, profit, planet and passion. The teaching is provided in seven Schools: School of Business School of Commerce School of Education Stenden Hotel Management School School of Leisure and Tourism Management School of Media & Entertainment Management and Technology School of Social Work and Arts Therapies Stenden University has campuses in Leeuwarden, Meppel, Assen and Emmen. In addition, it provides programmes at the foreign sites Bali (Badung), Thailand (Bangkok), Qatar (Doha) and South Africa (Port Alfred). Students can take part of their programme there (the Grand Tour). After taking part of their programmes in the Netherlands, foreign students at these sites can also obtain a degree from Stenden. Furthermore, the university provides several post-graduate programmes and non-degree courses for foreign students. 3.3/ Key figures as at The information below was taken from the critical self-reflection and the annual report 2012 of the institution and indicates the state of affairs as at 1 September Numbers of students Total number of students (2012) BA students (2012) MA students (2012) Of which international students (2012) Programmes Total number of programmes Bach. Degree programmes (2012) In English only Master s Degree programmes (2012) In English only Degrees awarded BA (2011) MA (2011) AD (2011) BA (2012) MA ( NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/14

15 AD (2012) 106 Staff Total (2012) Professors of Applied Sciences (2012) 701 FTE 17 Finances Total budget (2012) 86,361 k NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/15

16 Section 4 Assessment per Standard NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/16

17 4.1/ Standard 1: Vision of the quality of education The institution has a widely supported vision of the quality of its education and of the development of a quality culture. A. Findings During its audit on the basis of this standard, the panel particularly examined Stenden University s vision of the quality of education and the quality culture in line with it. Vision of the quality of education Stenden University has set out its vision in the institutional plan Stenden Wereldwijs, Onderwijs en Onderzoek, de koers van Stenden [ Stenden World-wise, Education and Research, Stenden s compass for ]. In it, it summarises its vision of education as serving to make a better world. It has defined its mission as unleashing potential in our students, staff and surrounding communities. Central to the profile is the conviction that the graduates who are curious, have problem-solving ability, can think internationally and have an inquisitive attitude towards their work can make a difference and are able to adjust to constantly changing circumstances. In the institutional plan it elaborates on this profile in three pillars: Problem-based Learning (PBL), Internationalisation and Research. The university aims to use PBL to put its social-constructivist vision into practice. In the institutional plan, internationalisation is elaborated upon in three main elements: internationalisation@home, internationalisation mobility and internationalisation abroad. In relation to research it chooses the integration of (applied) research and education, whereby research must be meaningful to students, staff, the field of work and society. The panel concludes that the pillars in the elaboration are clearly connected. The panel exchanged thoughts on this vision with various groups of stakeholders and concludes that the broad consultations have been held at the institution on the foundations for this. The three trial pillars have been endorsed within the whole organisation. The institution clearly pursues an increasingly intensive policy to involve everyone in the objectives. The panel asked the Executive Board the question whether the objectives of the trial pillars were perhaps defined very ambitiously, in view of, among other things, the recent merger and the problems of relatively low pass rates and disappointing NSE scores that are facing the institution. The Board is of the opinion that the objectives are realistic and that they function simultaneously as a dot on the horizon. The Board recognises the difference in pace among Schools and expressly wants to give them the opportunity for this, in order to keep everyone involved. According to the Board, this means that several Schools will indeed initially give priority to matters such as pass rates and final projects. According to the Board, progressive insight will have to show whether there is a need to adjust the ambitions institution-wide in the course of time; for the time being, priority is given to fixed policy. During the vertical audit trails the panel concluded that the priorities do indeed differ per School. The School of Education focuses primarily on developing a new curriculum and increasing pass rates. At the School of Commerce there is a discussion of final projects and the focus is on optimising the graduation process. The panel concluded during these trails that although the trial pillars are not given the highest priority everywhere, they are clearly on the policy agenda everywhere. Vision of the development of a quality culture The panel concludes that a clear awareness of quality is present among the different discussion partners and that this is also put into operation. Lecturers speak of inspiration, involvement and increasing quality. During these trails the culture is summarised as a culture in which everyone looks critically at his or her own work and dares to look at that of someone else and dares to discuss this with each other. Lecturers look along? with one another. Thesis assessments are discussed amongst them. Stakeholders experience the Executive Board as easily approachable. The panel spoke to very motivated people who are convinced of the need for and effectiveness of the course taken. At process level, they hold one another accountable for agreements, but the small-scale of the context results in this not always being set out explicitly in memoranda. NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/17

18 B. Grounds The panel concludes that Stenden University has set out a robust and ambitious vision. In the context of the wish to keep merger partners together, to go further on the path taken earlier and to be in line with the wishes of the surroundings, the panel considers the vision relevant. According to it, this is well in line with the conditions this context sets. The vision forms a connecting guideline for the development of education and for what one understands to be good education. The pillars under the vision are clear and have a clear mutual connection. The panel is of the opinion that these pillars are meaningful to the objectives that Stenden pursues as an institution. The panel appreciates the institution s high ambition and sees this as a powerful way to get the institution moving and make people enthusiastic. The development of a common, ambitious vision is an effective way of giving the quality culture an impetus. At the same time, the institution is faced with the reality of a recent merger and challenges at hand sometimes require a more operational setting of priorities. With that, according to the panel, the institution has not made things easy for itself. According to the panel, the tension between the different objectives has led to a multi-track approach in practice. The panel distinguishes on the one hand the vision for which more ideologically orientated and identity-forming targets are set in the longer term. This is the vision presented to the panel in the documentation, the dot on the horizon. In addition, there is a more operational track aimed at the shorter cycle of quality management, in which meeting (external) requirements takes a central place. These two tracks lie next to each other, regarding which the panel has determined in the vertical trails that the short cycles in which the priorities are mainly on pass rates and graduation projects have priority at present at the audited Schools. At the same time, the panel finds that the different discussion partners are indeed very aware of the profile pillars from the vision. They all attempt to implement them in their own activities. The panel considers it a matter of course that in certain aspects the institution gives priority at present to the challenges at hand, but advises providing more clarity about the different tracks. Moreover, it advises keeping a close eye on the tension between the ambitions and feasibility of the objectives in the medium term, both internally and towards the outside world. The panel appreciates that the institution is aware that in spite of all systems it is nevertheless difficult to get to the heart of the quality. The panel considers this awareness, which is expressed for example in the critical content of the self-reflection, a positive element of the culture of the management. The panel has found a strong quality culture in all levels of the organisation. The institution could take this strong culture as a starting point in the further development of the quality structure. The quality culture can feed the quality structure from a decentralised perspective. C. Assessment According to the panel, the vision is defined very ambitiously. It sees, however, that in the context in which Stenden operates, this can give a positive impetus to the quality culture and quality of education. It has become clear to the panel that the Executive Board is aware of balance and that the Board pays attention to this. The panel assesses the quality culture as strong. The panel is therefore of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 1, Vision of the quality of education. 4.2/ Standard 2: Policy The institution has adequate policy at its disposal to achieve the vision of the quality of its education. This includes in any case: policy in the areas of education, staff, facilities, accessibility and feasibility for students with a disability, embedment of research in the education, as well as the interrelatedness of education and the (international) professional field and field of study. A. Findings Stenden s current vision of education is worked out centrally in frameworks that form the substantive, educational profile of the institution. The Executive Board gives content and guidance to the achievement of the vision by way of annual management letters. Schools give decentralised shape to this by way of year plans containing qualitative and quantitative policy objectives. Programmes then translate this into a teaching plan, the course document, in which the teaching and assessment policy of the programme is described. The panel finds that the institution attempts to use the profile pillars functionally in order to achieve the educational objectives. NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/18

19 In the discussions, the panel did not notice the reluctance to take action that is referred to in the critical selfreflection in relation to giving centralised versus decentralised shape to policy. The panel concludes, however, that giving decentralised shape to policy leads to differences in accents and approaches among Schools and programmes. Problem-based Learning The panel finds that Problem-based Learning (PBL) is clearly the central policy line in working out the vision of education in frameworks. PBL has a modular structure and forms a thematic multidisciplinary whole. It uses the starting point for each programme: 12 students per PBL group and at least 12 contact hours per week. During the various rounds of discussions, it was confirmed that this is achieved in practice. Various students told the panel that they had chosen Stenden partly because of PBL, as according to them this implies a small-scale approach. The panel concludes that the importance of the embedment of research in education is acknowledged at all levels in the organisation. Professors of Applied Sciences are intensively involved in the teaching and curriculum and regularly teach courses themselves.. Research has its place in the curriculum of every student. It became clear in the discussions that within the Schools and programmes, one is very deliberately occupied with research and intertwining it in the curriculum. There is limited experience with research available among the present lecturers, but the institution is well aware of this. One strives to give lecturers an active role in studies by the Professorships of Applied Sciences in order to enhance the qualification level of the lecturers. Internationalisation Stenden is developing internationalisation in the programmes via three main elements: internationalisation@home, internationalisation mobility and internationalisation abroad. Internationalisation@home concerns the creation of an international working and learning climate in the Netherlands, with intercultural meetings and an international curriculum in an intercultural environment as its core. The institution encourages international mobility with the Grand Tour concept, which offers students the possibility to take modules or study abroad for one semester at one of the foreign sites of Stenden. For internationalisation abroad Stenden provides education abroad at its branch sites. The panel concludes that in addition, internationalisation policy is coloured locally and regionally, inspired by, inter alia, requests from the professional field. According to the panel, the internationalisation objective is achieved in different ways within the various programmes. The motives and angles of approach vary. The Executive Board explained that Schools and programmes place different accents in internationalisation policy based on different traditions. In setting policy objectives, the starting point is the feasibility per School and this is diversified according to School, depending on the situation and stage of development. The number of international students and participation in the Grand Tour show rather a lot of differentiation at present according to programme. The panel has noticed that there is a difference in pace among Schools in working out and implementing internationalisation policy. According to the Board, there are indeed different speeds at which people join and it wants to give them some opportunity to do so. It surprises the panel nevertheless that a module such as intercultural communications is not yet included in every curriculum and that not every international student is offered this course. Nine programmes have recently started to implement MINT (Mapping Internationalisation), a program of Nuffic by which self-evaluation, mutual comparison and benchmarking are mapped out in relation to internationalisation. The panel concludes that this is not a subject of discussion amongst programmes. The panel is of the opinion that the institution s ambition to create possibilities for synergy among the main elements of internationalisation is clearly worded. At the same time, its effect is still in an early stage. This is spoken about in terms of results yet to be achieved and to be expected. Furthermore, the panel notices that policy has been worked out for students who want to internationalise, but that specific policy is lacking for the students who do not do so on their own initiative, whereas the institution does indeed consider this desirable or necessary. Staff The institution s HRM policy is described in the strategic HRM memorandum Met Talent naar de Top [ With Talent to the Top ] from December According to the Board, the Schools will translate this in the coming NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/19

20 period into year plans, in so far as this has not already been done. The panel is surprised that a strategic memorandum from three years ago has not yet found its way into all year plans. The panel concludes that the focus in HRM policy is on raising the level of lecturers. Academisation and professionalisation are vigorously pursued. According to the HRM memorandum, Stenden is striving for 90% Master s educated lecturers and at least 10% with doctoral degrees in Central to policy formation is the discussion cycle in which agreements are made on results, development and preconditions. In that cycle, according to the critical self-reflection, attention is paid explicitly to educational level, wishes for development, behaviour, core values, career advancement possibilities and results. The panel gathers from the discussion rounds that these matters are recurrent subjects in this discussion cycle. In case of consistent failure to achieve the agreed goals, financial and/or task-specific measures are taken. Lecturers are given the possibility to equip themselves for internationalisation, inter alia through the wide accessibility of Cambridge English courses. The institution offers PBL trainings for all its tutors. Several Professors of Applied Sciences are actively facilitating the expertise of lecturers, for example by giving lessons in research skills for lecturers. The panel notices that no policy has been found for the international recruitment of staff. Lecturers feel supported in their professionalisation and enhancement of expertise. The panel has found specific policy on this subject, but has not seen this documented, or only in drafts that have not yet been finally adopted. Facilities The panel finds that the facilities are properly in place, and that they are functional in the light of Stenden s vision of education. Areas have been organised to facilitate PBL. During the guided tour, the panel observed that not more than 12 students can be accommodated in PBL areas. In the accommodation plan, Stenden formulated the mission for accommodation as follows: Stenden provides a contemporary, functional, well-maintained and hospitable learning and working environment based on a sustainable perspective. Accessibility and feasibility for students with a disability During its trail to students with a disability, the panel concluded that this receives attention from Stenden. Each student with a disability has a study coach assigned, after which they draw up a study contract together in which agreements are made on necessary adjustments. The coach evaluates this study contract and feeds this back to the student counselling service. If necessary, the student counsellor consults with the Examination Committee about the agreements in the contract. One can, for example, be given additional time for exams or additional contact hours. In the event of changes to the curriculum, the student counsellor and Examination Committee consult with each other on how this can be resolved for the students in question. The panel concludes that these procedures function properly. Internationalisation is included in the scheme and industrial placement coordinators apply standards that have been set for all programmes. Students may, for example work fewer hours, work only during the daytime or share a shift. In the design of the new website, account is taken of accessibility for students with a disability. Students say that information on this is easy to find on the site. During the implementation of Blackboard the study + disability Expertise Centre gave advice on the organisation. Students with a disability told the panel that their problems are taken seriously. They do, however, encounter matters regarding which they seem not to know very well where they can broach them. A student with dyslexia said that he needed several possibilities for adjustments and said that only a separate examination room does not suffice, but that the large amount of compulsory literature is also a problem. Several students told the panel that they experienced it as awkward that lecturers are not aware of the study contracts and that students themselves must take the initiative to mention this. The panel finds that these suggestions do not adequately reach the institution. In relation to students with a disability, no internal, systematic questioning takes place of the students concerned, nor is consultation amongst these students facilitated. Interrelatedness of education and the (international) professional field and field of study Stenden University has various skills labs where students learn according to the PBL concept on the basis of tasks that reflect future professional practice. The most recognisable of these is the Stenden University Hotel. NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/20

21 Other connections with fields of work are made via industrial placement companies, knowledge centres and the Professorships of Applied Sciences. All programmes have an Advisory Council that is regularly consulted and of which the panel has inspected reports. The chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the Advisory Councils consult annually with the Board, the Heads of School and support services. B. Grounds In its vision of the quality of education, Stenden has given a central place to the profile pillars PBL, research and internationalisation. According to the panel, these pillars are clearly translated into policy at the level of Schools and programmes. According to the panel, the institution has proved to be able to have the pillars PBL and research penetrate the curriculum of each individual student. The panel considers it credible that each graduate has been substantially confronted with research and PBL. The panel is of the opinion that research is well integrated into the programmes. Research has a clear connection with raising the level and the contribution of Professors of Applied Sciences to this is lucid and logical, according to the panel. It appreciates the active involvement of Professors of Applied Sciences in developing curricula and teaching. In addition, the university expects a lot of internationalisation as a contribution to the quality of education. The panel endorses the objective as far as the local and regional interpretation of internationalisation is concerned. The panel considers it premature at present to assess the possible contribution of the worldwide interpretation (the foreign sites) to the quality of education. The panel is of the opinion that at present the institution cannot substantiate that internationalisation has a place in the professional and competency profiles of each student. The panel finds that there is a difference in balance between the ambition of internationalisation set out in the vision and the implementation thereof that is possible in practice, in the context of the Schools. The speed of the developments in the field of internationalisation is therefore running behind the pace that would be expected on the basis of the vision. The panel is convinced that the vision is within reach, but specific policy efforts are still necessary to achieve this. The panel has intensively exchanged ideas with the Executive Board about this and is convinced that the Board also realises this and will include it in the adjustment of the policy. Staff policy It is not completely clear to the panel how the ambitious policy agenda is supported by a strategic staffing plan. The panel is of the opinion that the fact that not all Schools have translated the HR memorandum from 2010 into year plans yet does not indicate very decisive progress in the staff policy. Objectives are specific where professionalisation policy is concerned. The memoranda on staff policy are not as strong as the policy the panel was able to determine in practice during the discussions. According to the panel, the professionalisation agenda is so strongly interwoven in the organisation that it has indeed ended up in the organisation without policy memoranda and is being implemented as well. The institution is, however, very dependent on lecturers to get the policy off paper. It is faced with a variety of quality and motivation of lecturers in this area. Consequently, the panel advises working out the staff policy better and formalising it. Students with a disability The panel concludes that the procedures concerning studying with a disability are properly in place. It surprises the panel, however, that students are not structurally questioned. Because of this, the institution is less in line with the practice of the students, which results in problems not always being identified, and the policy is not integrated into the quality cycle. C. Assessment The decentralised policy room leads to differences in accents and approaches among Schools and programmes, particularly in the profile pillar internationalisation. PBL and research are, however, well integrated into the programmes and the main elements of central policy are represented in all policy agendas. The panel is therefore of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 2, Policy. NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/21

22 4.3/ Standard 3: Results The institution has a view of the extent to which its vision of the quality of its education is being achieved, and regularly measures and evaluates the quality of its programmes among students, staff, alumni and representatives of the professional field. A. Findings The institution uses a set of measurement instruments with which it systematically monitors the quality of its programmes. It measures the opinions and experiences of students, staff, relevant contacts (professional field, supplying schools and businesses), alumni, society and the government in a structured manner, by way of, among other things, teaching evaluations, industrial placement surveys, surveys in the professional fields and panel discussions with students. Besides these programme-specific evaluations the institution conducts various surveys throughout the organisation, such as an entry and exit survey, and participates in the National Student Survey (NSE), the higher education monitor and the connecting monitor Secondary Education-Higher Education (VO-HBO). The information that the programmes obtain from regular consultations with the programme panels, curriculum panels, Advisory Councils and Student Councils is more qualitative in nature. In addition, the panel established during the discussions that there is much informal consultation with students. They are asked for their opinions on diverse matters and in different ways. Many lecturers are also study coaches and in that capacity hear about matters that may not be brought up during a formal evaluation. This is discussed among lecturers. The panel is impressed by the way in which the institution formally and informally includes the opinions of students in the measurement process. Also important In measuring progress on the objectives are trial reviews, midterm audits and theme audits. In trial reviews, an external review is simulated. A midterm audit assesses whether processes and documents are correct. Theme audits are conducted for all of Stenden, on the instructions of the Executive Board. To date, two internal theme audits have been conducted, of the contents of student files and of thesis assessment. The Quality Assurance (QA) staff department has put together an audit pool of employees who conduct the internal audits. These internal auditors can be found at all levels of the organisation, from lecturer to Head of School. In addition, an external audit was conducted twice of all teaching and examination regulations (TERs) and external assessors are used occasionally to analyse problems, for example in relation to the quality of final projects. Every four months, each School draws up a T-report. In it, a quantitative and qualitative state of affairs is presented, with a scorecard for indicators in relation to teaching, research and business operations. Based on the T-reports per School, a consolidated T-report is compiled that is discussed with the Supervisory Board. In this consolidated T-report developments are closely followed and it is examined among other things per cohort which objectives (for example pass rate) have already been achieved and what the maximum feasible result of this cohort still is. The panel appreciates the fact that this gives a view of the results to be expected. Such transparency is lacking, however in the policy area of internationalisation. According to the institution, the formation of Schools several years ago has resulted in a more horizontally structured organisation, with connections and flexibility among Schools, among Clusters (staff departments) and between Schools and Clusters. It became clear in the discussions that the number of possibilities is being increased at decentralised level to enter into discussion about achievements, for example by way of intervision meetings. The panel has observed in the discussions that more exchanges take place in intervision-like situations than appeared from the documentation. B. Grounds The panel concludes that stakeholders are questioned extensively and frequently. The institution makes use in a good way of the possibilities offered by a relatively small-scale organisation by expressly using informal channels as well. The panel assesses the relationship between finding the truth formally and informally and the way in which the opinions of students are involved in the quality assurance process as positive. It sees the team of auditors as meaningful and well organised. In relation to internationalisation, however, the measurements are less relevant and the instruments are not always transparent to the panel. The view is not always clear regarding the progress made in this area and the causes of the lack of results on ambitions. If one wants to monitor achievement of the ambition of NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/22

23 internationalisation, albeit per School at its own pace, this will have to be well mapped out. The panel advises adding several quantitative indicators for internationalisation and its subaspects, so that the progress of internationalisation can be monitored. Schools structurally have reflection on results on their agendas. Results are reported to the Executive Board on a regular basis and the Executive Board conducts a dialogue about them with the Schools. The panel is of the opinion that the Board has an adequate picture of the progress made within the Schools on the ambitions as formulated in the mission. The management information is largely driven by the Board s management agenda. This, however, results in fewer cross-connections being made among Schools. The panel sees that the institution is giving decentralised impetus to that effect, among other things by using intervision. It advises the Board to stimulate this centrally as well and use the strongly developed quality culture in doing so, as described under Standard 1. C. Assessment The panel is of the opinion that the formal and informal information systems relating to the quality of education function properly. Information and instruments are well in line with the management agenda. The panel is therefore of the opinion that Stenden University satisfies Standard 3, Results. 4.4/ Standard 4: Improvement policy The institution can demonstrate that it systematically improves the quality of its programmes where necessary. A. Findings The institution reflects annually on the quality measurements and reports in the Kwestie van Kwaliteit [ Matter of Quality ], a consolidated report in which attention is paid to quality assurance in relation to education and research. Based on the conclusions from this Matter, the Executive Board identified points for attention and improvement actions for all of Stenden University for the coming year, which it describes in a management letter. At programme level, the management teams of the Schools reflect on this in an Annual Quality Report (AQR). In this report, they state what the contribution of the School is to the improvement of the points for attention formulated in the management letter. These improvements are included in the year plans of the Schools. The panel concludes that these AQRs are descriptions of findings; no direct link is made to improvement processes or progress on previously started processes. The panel sees different movements in the improvement policy. The most structured of them is top-down improvement policy by way of the above-mentioned formalised process. In addition, during the audit trails the panel observed bottom-up movements. Staff are actively stimulated to think along about improving quality. In the School of Education, for example, for the development of a new curriculum, small, fast, thematic teams were formed. These teams were given the assignment to work out three scenarios in which different themes (including industrial placement and assessment) were given a place in the new curriculum. The Academic Deans provided for the substantive connections among the teams. According to the panel, this resulted in supported and conscious choices being made. At the School of Commerce, in the summer holiday, lecturers were asked the question what they themselves could do to raise the NSE score. According to the discussion partners, the implementation of ideas arising from this was facilitated where possible, within the framework of the year plans. The panel also found horizontal connections in the improvement policy. External assessment of theses in the School of Education was the direct reason to take various improvement measures in the School concerning the final projects. At present, the Head of School is in discussion with other Schools to check whether these measures can be rolled out there as well. During the first exploratory visit, the panel had the impression that the discussion partners had a tendency to suppress sensitivity to problems. Moreover, the urgency in tackling self-mentioned problems was not immediately clear to the panel from the documents. During the trails the panel experienced the discussions as more candid and it was able to conclude that there was indeed awareness of problems in the organisation. It sees strong leadership in placing problems on the agenda and implementing improvements. During the audit trails the panel concluded that the School of Education (SoE) is confronted by considerable challenges, but that they are being tackled effectively. In 2011, according to the panel, a very sound master plan was drafted to place the different branches under one School. Although this plan was not always systematically followed during NVAO Advisory Report Stenden University/23