WQ<À)K = G COBRA. fairtradebabyplanne er. A new quality assurance method at KU Leuven kwaliteitszorgmethode aan de KU Leuven

Transcription

1 WQ<À)K = G COBRA fairtradebabyplanne er A new quality assurance method at KU Leuven kwaliteitszorgmethode aan de KU Leuven 0

2 Towards a new quality assurance method at KU Leuven Since the programme reviews are to be substituted by the institutional reviews, Flemish higher education institutions are expected to set up a strong internal quality assurance system in order to ensure the quality of their education. As a result, KU Leuven worked out a method of quality assurance that would meet the requirements of the institutional review. This method was named COBRA. This brochure should explain the COBRA model in a pleasant and concise manner, so that students and student representatives are ready to play their part in this new quality assurance story at our university. Student Council KU Leuven 1

3 Contents Introduction... 3 Basic principles... 5 The COBRA model... 7 COBRA COBRA COBRA And afterwards Students in the COBRA model Summary

4 Introduction A great change lies ahead for Higher education in Flanders. Previously, the study programmes at the Flemish institutions of higher education were inspected on their quality of education, but starting from today those programmes will no longer be investigated. From now on, the institutions themselves will be reviewed and instead of assessing the quality of education, they will evaluate the manner in which the institutions manage the quality of their institutions. We call this assessment the institutional review. In the months leading up to the institutional review, the institutions are exempted from external programme reviews. The condition for this is that institutions work on their quality assurance system. As a preparation to the institutional review, KU Leuven also executed a zero measurement in order to gauge to what extent it is ready for the institutional review. In the end, this was also of inspiration to the university in order to work on the new quality assurance system. All those evolutions combined led to the birth of COBRA. In the note where the COBRA model treated the various echelons of the university, Vice rector Pollefeyt describes it as followed: in order to guarantee the assurance of quality within study programmes and to communicate transparently about the quality of education, we present the quality assurance method COBRA in which we work cooperatively on a reflection on, and action in education and where the necessary checks and balances are incorporated. Like the COBRA artists who brought art back to its source, so does the COBRA method 3

5 desire to bring education back to her source, meaning: the adequate and integral development of individuals in a certain academic discipline. 4

6 Basic principles The COBRA model is built on a number of basic principles: The COBRA model departs from the vision on education and students of KU Leuven. This perspective assumes that qualitative education is based on addressing the students on their disciplinary future self. This self-image invites the students to give thought to who they want to become and what they would want to invest 1 in it. By addressing this future self, education triggers the student and contributes to his/her personal development. The COBRA model lays the responsibility for educational quality explicitly with the study programmes, and thus with the Programme Committee (PC). In the PC, primary actors (which are students, staff members and lecturers) come together to work on the quality of education on the basis of a dialogue. Apart from involving the primary actors, the PC also conducts the dialogue with (inter)national peers, the work field and alumni. Because the COBRA model responds to the connection of programmes with the disciplinary future self of the students and because it emphatically designs the educational quality through the PC, COBRA opens up to the diversity of all study programmes 1 More information about this vision and about the policy plan: kuleuven.be/onderwijs/visie-en-beleid/beleidsplan 5

7 at KU Leuven. By this we mean that the COBRA model takes the particularity of each programme into account at the university. The COBRA model aims to be an integral as well as a cyclic method. It departs from reflection and from thereon establishes improvement actions at every level of our university. The COBRA model deems transparency crucial. A suitable example is the quality assurance portal. On this online platform, all reports and documents that are of importance during the COBRA cycle will be made accessible. COBRA applies checks & balances. These indicators should help translating educational quality to a common language, which in its turn should enable the reflection on education at many different levels. 6

8 The COBRA model The COBRA model The COBRA model comprises three cycles of reflection and action at three levels: the study programme, the faculty and university-wide. The COBRA model departs from the PC, this Programme Committee handles the problems that can be solved at that level and identifies the issues which it cannot fix (COBRA 1), after which the PC forwards these areas of concern to the faculty level. The faculty reflects on these areas, works out improvement actions and examines which points of interest need an institution-wide approach (COBRA 2). These are subsequently upscaled to the level of the institution. The Education Council and Student Council of KU Leuven both make an analysis of the results from the faculties. Then, the Education Council formulates which matters should be dealt with by the university. The Executive Board reflects, in dialogue with the Academic 7

9 Council and the Board of Governors, on the actions which it can take in order to solve those issues (COBRA 3). The various levels determined by COBRA, have to ensure that all boundary conditions are fulfilled in order to give programmes (PC) the opportunity to provide the best form of education possible. COBRA 1: the programme level In short: In COBRA 1 we approach the so-called primary actors: students, lecturers and staff members. The input that results from the conversations with these primary actors, is discussed during the PC. The Programme Committee reflects on the quality of education and sets up the appropriate improvement plans. Students: Every year, conversations with students, who are chosen at random, take place. For the Bachelor s programmes 2 groups are invited to the discussion: one group of students from the first phase and one group of students from the second and third phase. With regards to the Master s programmes, bridging programmes and Advanced Master s programmes only one group of students is invited. These conversations are moderated by a student representative, who is sort of a one year representative. Lecturers & Staff members: Two times a year, a group of lecturers and a group of staff members, both assembled at random, are heard. A questionnaire was composed from the six questions that will be asked during each conversation. This list gauges the vision and the ESG-standards. These standards will be used by the NVAO during the 8

10 institutional review. Programmes are also allowed to add their own questions which are deemed relevant by the PC. Once a year, the PC is to discuss the results from the conversations and the quantitative data about the programme. This quantitative data is collected in the programme dashboard and includes for example the in- and outflow numbers, number of staff members and results from other questionnaires. The report on this discussion is put on the quality assurance portal. This report includes at least a table with the assessments by the PC about education quality (expressed as positive, okay or areas of concern ), a clarification of the table and the conclusions as well as improvement actions connected to these assessments. At least once every three academic years, the alumni, the work field and (minimum) one international expert are involved in the reflection on the quality of education in the PC. COBRA 2: the faculty level In short: the faculty brings the different discussions in PCs within the faculty together. Next, it examines which remarks recur regularly and therefore need the faculty s follow-up. That s why the faculty counts on improvement actions that enable programmes to improve their education quality. The faculty starts with an internal preparatory document in which it assembles the conclusions from the many different PCs. The quantitative data from the faculty dashboard are also added to this document. This will serve as a guideline for reflection on educational 9

11 quality and as an incentive for improvement actions by the board of the faculty. By running this phase every year consecutively, it should ultimately lead to a faculty-specific vision on educational quality. By June 2016, a first written version should appear on the quality assurance portal. The report by the board of the faculty, and thus the keystone of COBRA 2, consists of the following items: an overview table with assessments from the PCs, a reflection by the faculty board, an overview of the actions that the faculty will take in order to strengthen the boundary conditions so that the programmes are more able to maintain the quality of their programmes, and finally an overview of those boundary conditions that still need work, but in which the faculty has no say. COBRA 3: the level of the institution In short: In COBRA 3 everything comes together at the level of the university. During phase 1 of COBRA 3, two advisatory bodies, namely the Education Council and the Student Council KU Leuven, express their assessment. These pieces of advice are passed on to the University Board of Governors, during phase 2. They investigate how they can set up actions that cater to the concerns expressed during the two previous COBRA cycles. The Education Council collects all faculty reports in an overview document. All assessments by the faculties as well as the boundary conditions that need adjustment according to those various faculties are included in this document. 10

12 The Education Council reviews which points of interest recur in the different faculties and also the boundary conditions that should be approached by the university. The Student Council KU Leuven explains its (written) analysis about educational quality at faculty level during the discussion in the Education Council. Once again, a report is written about this conference and is put on the quality assurance portal. In this report, the Education Council should include the evaluations from the PCs, their own reflection and formulated advice on the boundary conditions that need adjustment, as well as advice on the provided information about the ESG standards. At least once every three years, a group of (inter)national experts are invited who will give advice on the functioning of the quality assurance method on the basis of all documents available in the quality assurance portal. Then, these pieces of advice are passed through the University Board of Governors. The vice rector Education policy takes these pieces of advice to the Executive Board 2 where the advice is reviewed. Next, they will provide plans of improvement that fit the current functioning of the university and they take the boundary conditions that also needed improvement upon them. The Executive Board sends these to 2 The Executive Board (GeBu) conducts the daily management of KU Leuven. It includes the Rector, Vice Rector, the chairperson of the Student Council KU Leuven, the Managing Director, the Academic Directors and the Government Commissioner. 11

13 the Academic Council 3 and the Board of Governors 4 for approval. Finally, the report on these discussions is written and put on the quality assurance portal. The report sums up the different actions to be taken in order to adjust those boundary conditions. And afterwards In order to close the circle, the actors from COBRA 3 update the questionnaire used for the discussions from COBRA 1. By doing this, the university governance can examine during a new COBRA cycle whether the improvement actions were useful. 3 The Academic Council includes the rector, vice rectors, deans, four student representatives and staff representatives. They make decisions about the most important files at KU Leuven. 4 The Board of Governors of KU Leuven brings external partners together and thinks about the policy and longterm strategy for KU Leuven. 12

14 Students in the COBRA model Studentenbetrokkenheid in het COBRA-model Throughout the whole COBRA cycle, students are part of the system. In the figure above, the manners in which they are involved are illustrated per COBRA cycle. In COBRA 1 the student appears frequently as a primary actor. They are heard during the student discussions. These conversations are discussed in the PC of each study programme and every Programme Committee basically consists of student representatives (almost 1/3 rd of the group) (with a minimum of 4 students). At a faculty level, COBRA 2, the faculty board collects the various PC reports. Students are represented by at least one student in the board of the faculty. By doing this, students are again involved in COBRA 2. 13

15 Earlier on, in COBRA 3, we already mentioned two phases. In the first phase, the advisory one, all faculty documents pass through the Education Council. Five student representatives reside there, they were elected by the Student Council KU Leuven. During the discussion of faculty documents, the Student Council introduces its analysis of faculty educational quality to the Education Council. Then, the Education Council passes some advice on to the Board of Governors after which the Executive Board works out some proposals of improvement actions. The chairperson of the Student Coucil resides in the Executive board. The improvement plans are presented by the vice rector Education Policy and sent to the Academic Council, where four students reside, for approval. Students are thus intricately involved in COBRA 3 as well. 14

16 Timing A full COBRA cycle is spread over two semesters. COBRA 1 is completed before the end of the second semester, COBRA 2 & 3 before the end of the first semester of the following academic year. Timing in a classic COBRA walkthrough During the academic year of a walkthrough test will take place. During this test COBRA 1 will already start from the beginning of the academic year. By March the COBRA model lands in the third COBRA cycle. 15

17 Too long; do read The COBRA model is a new method for internal quality assurance at KU Leuven. Its purpose is for the university to optimally manage the boundary conditions of quality education, so that the study programmes possess all the tools in order to maintain the highest quality of education possible. Indirectly, the model also serves to help KU Leuven get through the institutional review. The COBRA model relies on three phases. In COBRA 1, the study programmes are scrutinised. Students, lecturers and staff members are therefore questioned. The PC collects and discusses these inquiries. Then, the report on the PC discussion is put on the public quality assurance portal. This report both includes the issues that the PC will handle themselves and matters that should be treated by the faculty, according to the PC. The faculty board investigates the PC s reports during COBRA 2. They look for problems that they can solve by themselves as well as problems that are in need of university-wide follow-up. A list with planned actions and problems that should be solved at a university level is placed on the quality assurance portal. During COBRA 3, the Education Council formulates some pieces of advice to the Board of Governors on the basis of the faculty reports. During the meeting of the Education Council, the Student Council KU Leuven is also allowed to present their analysis. The vice rector Education policy submits the advice to the Executive Board which, in 16

18 its turn, proposes improvement actions to the Academic Council and the Board of Governors. Throughout the COBRA cycle, attention is paid to the engagement of (inter)national experts. The work field and alumni are involved in the discussion of education quality at the level of the PC. Students are involved in discussions during the entire COBRA cycle. Finally, all relevant documents from the whole the cycle are made available on the online quality assurance portal. 17