Developing appropriate quality assurance: Policies and tools Quality Assurance and Evaluation

Mission and Aims Mission: The University of Vienna’s Quality Assurance aims to ensure that permanent orientation towards quality and international standards becomes standard practice. Aims: To analyse the quality of research, teaching and administrative support which these require To promote academic creativity and innovation To develop ways to help make decisions regarding medium- and long-term planning To provide public accountability

Organisation of Quality Assurance (QA): Senate and Rectorate Scientific Evaluation Board Department of Quality Assurance

Organisation of Quality Assurance (QA): Senate: Adoption of the Statute Rectorate: Evaluation Plan Scientific Evaluation Board (SEB): “Special institutions shall be institutions of the University, being subordinated to an independent, internationally tied expert direction.” (Organisation Plan): »Prof. Dr. John Brennan, The Open University »Prof. Dr. Hans-Dieter Daniel, Universität Zürich »Dr. Dorothee Dzwonnek, DFG

Department of Quality Assurance (QA): The University of Vienna’s department of Quality Assurance (QA) is responsible for the organisation of quality management in the following areas: Research Teaching Management and service provision

Comprehensive, peer-review-based evaluation Performance in research, teaching and the supporting management and service provision of these are submitted to a common quality analysis at the institutional level (faculty or centre).

Comprehensive, peer-review-based evaluation Statute and Evaluation Plan: Faculties 2008 (5 years cycle): Faculty of Computer Science Faculty of Philosophy and Educational Sciences Faculty of Social Sciences Faculty of Physics Service Units 2008 (7 years cycle): Research Services and International Relations

Evaluation Interval t-5t-4t-3t-2t-1tt+1t+2t+3t+4 5 years ex-ante5 years ex-post

Two stage process: Informed Peers Data, Analysis, Indicators (quantitativ) Self Assessement Report of the Faculty / Centre stage 1 stage 2 Peers´ Site Visit Peers´ Report Faculty´s Statements Follow-up Questions (qualitativ)

Peer evaluation Procedure Data, Analysis and Questions Self Evaluation Report External Evaluation: Site Visit and Report write-up Follow Up

Data and Analysis (faculty specific): Research data and scientometric analysis of the publication output Further data (people etc.) Data concerning teaching and results of the students´ assessment Data, Analysis and Questions Self Evaluation Report Questions 1. Structure and Strategy 2. Research 3. Study and teaching 4. Human Resource Management 5. Budget, Infrastructure and Administration

Self Evaluation Report 1) Faculty 2) Institute 3) Study program(s) 4) Persons Mission, Goals, Strategies  Data  Activities  Analysis - SWOT Analysis - Measures Faculty can formulate own questions Language is English (exceptions possible)

External Evaluation: The Peers 1.Selection of Peers The faculty/centre has the right to suggest peers. The following criteria should be observed: –Excellent international professional reputation –Expertise in providing structured support to young scientists –Knowledge in field of curriculum development –Management experience in large academic facilities –Experience with evaluations Appointment of peers is made by the head of the QA, who is not bound to the suggestions made by the head of the unit undergoing evaluation (Regulations § 5, para. 3). 2.Site visit personal assessment of conditions on-site personal discussions with the representatives of the faculty/centre First draft of the report

Follow-up Follow-up discussions with the Rector and responsible Vice Rectors –Catalogue of measures proposed by the department of quality assurance –Agreement between faculty and rectorate on the catalogue and on the implementation of outcomes of evaluation Start of a circle of quality Establishment of timelines Current evaluation process is completed Monitoring process begins

assessment of courses by the students The assessement of courses is supposed to prompt the course instructors to reflect about the format and the content of their courses aid in planning academic programs for the entire university give an input into the self evaluation report of the faculty in the framework of the peer evaluation

Assessement of courses Cycle: Courses are to be evaluated at least every three semesters (about courses/semester). Furthermore, it is possible to participate in course evaluations on a voluntary basis.