1. Europos socialinis fondas
EUROPOS SĄJUNGA
Europos socialinis fondas
MYKOLO ROMERIO
UNIVERSITETAS
Quality Assurance in Education at TUT: from Curriculum Design to Student Feedback

2. Basis of Quality Assurance in University Education in Finland
QA in Education in Europe
Quality Audit approach
Accreditation approach
”Third” approach (combination of the previous two or something different)
Finnish line of action:
Complementing ”number 3” (Universities and Degree Programmes governed by legislation) with ”number 1” (compulsory audit of University’s quality assurance system by Finnish Higher Education Council)
Division of responsibilities over quality of education:
Publicly funded higher education instutitions are steered by the Ministry of Education.
The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) is responsible for evaluating the quality of education and other activities in higher education institutions.
The higher education institutions bear the main responsibility for the quality of their activies.

3. FINHEEC Quality Assurance System Audit (I)
Audit procedure, which
evaluates how the HEI's quality assurance system works as a quality management and improvement tool
evaluates the quality assurance system with regard to the audit criteria, to highlight strengths and best practices, to give development recommendations for improving quality assurance
decides whether the HEI passes the audit or whether the quality assurance system requires a re-audit at a later date
Evaluation based on
documentation for auditing purposes (mainly existing documentation and materials concerning the institutional aims, procedures, division of work in quality assurance: Evidence & Examples)
two or three-day site-visit by the audit group (individual and group interviews, observations, demonstrations)

4. FINHEEC Quality Assurance System Audit (II)
Auditing targets:
Objectives, overall structure and internal coherence of the QAS
Documentation and the definition of procedures, actors and responsibilities
Comprehensiveness of quality assurance:
Degree education
Research/R&D
Interaction with and impact on society, and contribution toregional development
Support and other services (such as library and information services, career and recruitment services, and international services)
Staff development
Participation of staff, students and external stakeholders in QA
Interface between the QAS and management/steering
Relevance of, and access to, QA information within the HEI
Relevance of, and access to, QA information for external stakeholders
Efficiency of QA procedures and structures and their effect on the development of activities
Use of information produced by the QAS as a tool for quality management and enhancement in education and other activities
Monitoring, evaluation and continuous development of the QAS

5. Tampere University of Technology
Established in 1965
The second largest university of technology in Finland
12,400 students (2006)
undergraduates
1 900 postgraduates
14 Degree Programmes
13 in engineering
1 in architecture
7 international Master’s Programmes

6. Quality Assurance in Tampere University of Technology (1)
Present
Future
Quality Assurance System:
Knowledge about present state and ideal state
Tools, information systems, processes, instructions and other systems supporting quality management
Activity
Optimal activity
Management
Planning

7. Quality Assurance in Tampere University of Technology (2)
No standardised quality assurance system but ”our way to operate”
Long tradition in using information technology in education and operation
Student intranet HAAVI and staff intranet TUTKA
Oinfo (electronic tools for course and exam enrollment)
HOPS (information system for constructing a personal study plan)
KAIKU (electronic tool for collecting feedback about courses)
OPSU (information system for constructing the curricula on degree, study module and course levels)
Learning platforms A&O and Moodle
In the follow up processes the emphasis is shifting gradually from quantitative to also qualitative direction
Self-assessment practices for departments (self-assessment matrix, internal audit)
Development discussions and performance evaluations for staff
 TUT passed the FINHEEC Quality Assurance System Audit in 2006

8. Quality Assurance in Education at Tampere University of Technology vs
Quality Assurance in Education at Tampere University of Technology vs. ENQA-guidelines
ENQA guideline
QA at TUT
1.1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance
Quality policies for education, research, societal interaction and support functions
1.2. Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards
Yearly approval process of degree programmes, study modules and courses with the help of OPSU system.
1.3. Assessment of students
Published assessment criteria of thesis work exists to some respect, many teachers publish their marking criteria to students. Systematic complaint procedures.
1.4. Quality assurance of teaching staff
Pedagogical training and educational support for teachers. Using of portfolios in teacher recruitment.
1.5. Learning resources and student support
Faculties have study advisors and academic study-coordinators. University has a study psychologist and three general study advisors.
1.6. Information systems
A collective report tool for collecting and presenting statistical ”on-line” information on educational matters in use since 2006.
Information system for collecting student feedback.
The collection of tools from student viewpoint (”personally tailored student portal”) coming up soon
1.7. Public information
Information about the programmes and awards is published yearly in study quides, internet and yearly reports.

9. Quality Assurance in TUT Education
Documents:
Intranets
Internet
Study guides
Information systems
Development plans & strategies
Responsibilities:
Students
Teachers
Departments
Faculties
Education council
University board
ACT
Education
PLAN
Degree programme
Study
Course
module
Tools:
Information systems
Instructions
Meetings and working groups
Assessment tools
Framework:
Legislation
Contracts
Student wellbeing
CHECK DO

10. PDCA-tools in Education: course level
PLAN DO
CHECK
ACT
Information systems, documents, tools
OPSU (IS for curriculum design)
”Departments’ handbook”
Learning platforms
Student intranet
Courses’ webpages
KAIKU (Course feedback system)
Development plans and projects
”Counter-feedback”
Measuring possibilities
Using of OPSU
Delays in grading exams
Using of KAIKU
”general grade” from students
Responsible actors
Teacher responsible for a course
Course’s teaching staff
”KAIKU-responsibe”

11. PDCA-tools in Education: module level
PLAN DO
CHECK
ACT
Information systems, documents, tools
OPSU (IS for curriculum design)
Department’s teaching philosophy
Thesis supervision process
Guide for thesis writing
KAIKU (institutional summary)
Self assessment matrix
Department’s development plans and projects
Measuring possibilities
Using of OPSU
Existence of the Department’s teaching philosophy (I/O)
Self assessment (I/O)
Summary of course feedback
Responsible actors
Head of Department
Thesis supervisors
Academic study coordinators
Department’s quality group

12. PDCA-tools in Education: degree level
PLAN DO
CHECK
ACT
Information systems, documents, tools
OPSU (IS for curriculum design)
Study guidance
Personal study plan -process
Working life feedback
Enquiry for graduates
Faculty’s or degree programme’s development plans and projects
Measuring possibilities
Using of OPSU
(Duration of studies)
Graduate satisfaction
Responsible actors
Dean
Faculty council
Academic study coordinators
Study advisors
Head of degree programme

13. PDCA-tools in Education: university level
PLAN DO
CHECK
ACT
Information systems, documents, tools
Curriculum design process
OPSU (IS for curriculum design)
Recruitment processes
Study psychology
Career councelling
Student mobility services
Study progress follow-up project
Working life feedback
Statistic repository
University’s development plans and projects
Pedagogical training for teachers
Measuring possibilities
Student satisfaction
Study progress follow-up
Participation in pedagogical training
Responsible actors
University board
Education council
Student services
Study psychologist
Quality group in education

14. PDCA-tools in Education: students’ view
PLAN DO
CHECK
ACT
Information systems, documents, tools
Personal study plan system
Student intranet
Guide for thesis writing
”Study-skills” information
Study Guides
Courses’ homepages
Assessment and evaluation from teacher and peers
Grades and feedback
Study guidance
Career councelling
Study psychology
Help and guidance available
University board
Education council
Student services
Study advisors
Teaching staff
Academic study coordinators
Study psychologist

15. Lessons learned regarding Quality Assurance
University is the primary customer of University’s QAS
The QAS has to be put up, developed and maintained so that it benefits the students and staff
People are genuinely interested in enhancing quality if they are given the means
”Check” has to be followed by an ”Act”
There’s no use for gathering information if it is not used for improvement
Making excuses is easy, making changes is much harder
Let’s stop doing things in ”passive format”
Every task has to have a person in charge
Responsibilities have to be accompanied with enthusiasm, envolvement and influence  even distribution of responsibilities and active envolvement of everybody

16. Questions and comments?
Thank you for your attention!
Questions and comments are very welcome also afterwards: