1. Preparation of self evaluation reports in KaHo Sint-Lieven 09 October 2010 Tempus SMGR 158853-1-2009-1-BE ESABIH EU standards for accreditation of study programs on BH Universities European Commission Mieke Vanhoorne, Quality Coordinator

2. Introducing KaHo Sint-Lieven

3. KaHo Sint-Lieven - Introducing KaHo Sint-Lieven 3 KaHo Sint-Lieven KaHo Sint-Lieven is an institution with a rich tradition. The history of KaHo Sint-Lieven comes about in the histories of 8 former higher education institutions, which have merged in 1995. About 6000 students 600 staff KaHo Sint-Lieven has reorganised and grouped into 3 campuses in 3 regions in Aalst, Gent and Sint-Niklaas.

4. KaHo Sint-Lieven KaHo Sint-Lieven - Introducing KaHo Sint-Lieven 4

5. 3 Campuses KaHo Sint-Lieven - Introducing KaHo Sint-Lieven 5 Aalst Gent Sint-Niklaas Gent

6. Changing higher education in Flanders KaHo Sint-Lieven is associated with the Catholic University of Leuven (K.U.Leuven), Flanders’ largest and oldest university. On 11th July 2002 the association agreement between the K.U.Leuven and KaHo Sint-Lieven was signed. The European system of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees has also been implemented in Flanders. KaHo Sint-Lieven - Introducing KaHo Sint-Lieven 6

7. The mission statement of KaHo Sint-Lieven mentions three strategic objectives : 1.to offer qualitative higher education 2.to organize services to society 3.to carry out applied research projects KaHo Sint-Lieven - Introducing KaHo Sint-Lieven 7

8. To offer qualitative higher education 5 study fields: Industrial science and technology Teacher training Health care and nursing Business studies Biotechnology Postgraduate courses KaHo Sint-Lieven - Introducing KaHo Sint-Lieven 8

9. To offer qualitative higher education Educational programmes: 18 professional bachelor programmes (180 ECTS credits) 4 academic bachelor programmes (180 ECTS credits) 7 master courses (60 ECTS credits) 1 bachelor after bachelor course (postgraduate) International master course Food Science, Technology and Nutrition (Erasmus Mundus) KaHo Sint-Lieven - Introducing KaHo Sint-Lieven 9

10. My curriculum Engineer in electro-mechanics Quality engineer Professor for 20 years in professional bachelor degrees Co-author self-evaluation report mechanical design and production technology Quality coordinator for 2 years

11. Quality coordinator: task description Stimulating, supporting and follow up of the quality policy of the University College. Giving adive to the managing comite concering the quality policy Chairman of the comittee for the new accreditation system (NAS), KVT measuring management, KVT OOP Coordinator Quality Manual (Intranet / Policy and organisation), advisor for setting up the quality framework Supporting self-evaluation processes, visitation and accrediation processes. Managing the implementation and use of intranet as an instrument for quality Member of the steering comittee for quality at the assocation Co-chairman of the board for education and quality Coordination and follow up of the HE database Mieke Vanhoorne 11 21/06/2016

12. Giving support when making self-evaluation reports

13. Start Attuning with the head of the study programme Informing professors Setting up a core group

14. A critical view to the quality framework of the study programme PLAN –Mission –Educational vision –Strategic and operational plans –Action plans Participation of everyone involved –Educational Board of the study programme(OR) –Educational Advisory Board (OAR): students, alumni, professional sector, professors –Student Board of the study programme (OSR)

15. Do –Education –Research –Service 21/06/2016 15 Mieke Vanhoorne

16. Check Enquiries -Enquiry concerning the educational activities (lessons, labs, mentoring placements, working in groups/practical training/projects) -Study time measurements -Enquiries concerning guidance of first year students -Enquiries about placements -Student satisfaction -Staff satisfaction -Enquiry for alumni Formal and informal

17. Action Nr.SubjectItemTimingResponsi ble In coopera tion with Documents/ Results 1 2 3 4 5

18. Writing the self-evaluation report (ZER) SIX SUBJECTS –Objectives of the courses –Programme –Effort of staff –Means / Facilities –Internal quality management system –Results Accompanying ASPECTS (FACETS) –Criteria for evaluation –Self-evaluation

19. ZER: example Subject 2: programme (Curriculum) Facet 2.1: correspondence between objectives and the content of the programme (indicator 2.1) –Implementation of the objectives in the curriculum; –Level (bachelor’s, master’s) and content of the components of the study programme; –Existence of inter-disciplinary elements; –International dimension of the study programme/ integration of internationalisation in the curriculum (policy, participation rate, cooperation, international contacts, etc); –Degree to which recent advancements in education at home and abroad are integrated in the curriculum; –Procedures for curriculum revision and innovation; –Participation of relevant stakeholders in curriculum development, revision and innovation.

20. Self-evaluation with accrediation scan (HUB): questions 2.1.1 Professors are actively and systematically involved in curriculum development and revision. 2.1.2 Students are actively and systematically involved in curriculum development and revision. 2.1.3 People from outside the study programme, among who colleagues, are involved in curriculum development and revision. 2.1.4 Enquiries for alumni concerning the contents of the curriculum. 2.1.5 The required competences of the study programme are correctly transferred to learning outcomes and contents per subject.

21. Self-evaluation with accreditation scan (HUB): questions 2.1.6 The learning outcomes per subject are clearly formulated, as clear items for evaluation. 2.1.7 Professors justify the learning outcomes and content for which they are responsible for. 2.1.8 The study programme has a clear and explicit vision towards internationalisation. 2.1.9 The study progamme encourages international mobility of students (adjusted structure and preconditions) 2.1.10 The study programme focusses on the international dimension in the curriculum, also for students who are not going abroad

22. Self-evaluation: questions asked to several persons involved ProfessorsStudentsPeople from outside the study programme Alumni 15 D/2.1.1. Professors are actively and systematically involved in curriculum development and revision 16 D/2.1.2 Students are actively and systematically involved in curriculum development and revision 7 S/2.1.2 Students are actively and systematically involved in curriculum development and revision. 17 D/2.1.3. People from outside the study programme, among who colleagues, are involved in curriculum development and revision 6 E/2.1.3 People from outside the study programme, among who colleagues, are involved in curriculum development and revision. 18 D/2.1.4 Enquiries for alumni concerning the contents of the curriculum. 6 A/2.1.4 Enquiries for alumni concerning the contents of the curriculum.

23. Self-evaluation: processing “Professors are actively and systematically involved in curriculum development and revision” Don’t agree at all Completely agree No opinion

24. Self-evaluation: processing  3.5<x : OK  3<x<3.5: attention  x<3: problem 2.1: Relation between objectives and content of the programme 15 Professors are actively involved in curriculum development and revision. 16 Students are actively and systematically involved in curriculum development and revision. 17 People from outside the study programme, among who colleagues, are involved in curriculum development and revision. 18 Enquiries for alumni concerning the contents of the curriculum. 19 The required competences of the study programme are being translated correctly to learning outcomes and contents per subject. ProfessorStudent Guest professor AlumniExternal

25. Self-evaluation: analysis Strenghts Weaknesses + plan of action

26. Writing the self-evaluation report Core team Feedback –Educational Board –Educational Advisory Board –Management (head of the department, coordinator of the field of study) –Quality coordinator

27. Workshop

29. Personal assignment (15 min): Yellow post-it: - Examples good-practice Red post-it: - Reasons why this item is less good - What to do Group discussion (per university) Putting post-its on mind-maps + explanation

30. Result Point of Attention StrengthReasonWeaknessProposal for action Translation