1. Composition of panels Training of experts Consistency External Communication IQA seminar ENQA – The Hague 15 and 16 June 2009

2. Internal Quality Assurance NVAO | 2 Motivation of this break out session Exchange of knowledge, mutual learning, experience and good practice is an important goal of this two days Discussing on concrete themes is in every bodies interest results can be used tomorrow Themes derived from the primary process are most recognizable and interesting

3. Internal Quality Assurance NVAO | 3 Motivation of chosen themes Key elements in the review process and the process of evaluation / accreditation Improvement of these elements contribute immediately to the quality of reviews and evaluation News ideas that could help to ensure and improve the fulfilment of the European Standards and Guidelines by the agencies. Composition of panels Training of experts Consistency in evaluation External Communication

4. | 4 Composition of panels The judgements of experts have in general a great impact in the results of the evaluations. Quality Assurance Agencies: have the responsibility to organise the external panel reviews, that means not only to select by far the best experts, but also to choose the best equilibrium in the composition. need to demonstrate their independence in the nomination and appointment of external experts.

5. What is the difference in panel composition assessing academic or professional programs? What should be the requirements for the student or the representative of the professional field? Should agencies exchange their own internal experts (policy advisors?) in order to share knowledge and experience? Can institutions propose panel members? How many years should an expert be independent from the program or the institution? Should these criteria be the same for all the Agencies? Composition of panels

6. Training of experts The success and the quality of an assessment depends to a large extend on the knowledge and experience of the experts. Usually the internal selection processes of panel members assure a good level of panel members. Nevertheless, it is always necessary to assure the knowledge of the program and guides to assess it. As a consequence Agencies should train their experts.

7. Should experts receive a specific training for each evaluation? In this case: Which training methods show good results and which are less successful? Does your agency use on-line training? Or do you prefer face-to-face training? When and how often should the agencies organise the training sessions: only before the assessment or should experts participate in continuous sessions during the year? Training of experts

8. Internal Quality Assurance NVAO | 8 Consistency in evaluation and decision making Plays a role on several moments and different levels during the review and evaluation process, e.g.: The foundation of the panel report should be solid and consistent The panel process must be structured, transparent and consistent The evaluation procedure of panel reports applied by the quality assurance agency should meet the same mentioned requirements (solid, transparent and consistent)

9. Consistency in evaluation and decision making What kind of practices could be used by a panel and the quality assurance agency in order to ensure that an assessment procedure leads to a legitimate and well- founded panel report? Which measures could be introduced in the internal processes of the quality assurance agency to guarantee a sufficient level of consistency in assessment procedures and in their outcomes?

10. Internal Quality Assurance NVAO | 10 External Communication The results of external quality assurance (EQA) in higher education are not often topic of public debate. Proposition More public awareness and debate about the results of EQA is an incentive for the external quality assurance and the internal quality assurance of institutions.

11. The impact of (negative) accreditation decisions is strongly related to the public awareness of these decisions. What measures can be taken by Quality assurance agencies to inform Stakeholders better about accreditation decisions? Should Quality assurance agencies cooperate in a more active way with e.g. press agencies to improve the public awareness of (negative) accreditation decisions? Should this be done for good or best practice examples as well? External Communication