Get documents about "WG 1 Observation report template
Document Sample
ACCREDITATION PROCEDURE BY <NAME
ORGANISATION> (<COUNTRY>)
- OBSERVATION REPORT -
Date of the final report
A UTHOR (O RGANISATION , C OUNTRY )
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. GENERAL INFORMATION 3
3. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROCEDURE 3
3.1. The accreditation organisation ............................................................................................ 3
3.2. The programme and/or the institution ................................................................................. 3
4. OBSERVATIONS 4
4.1. The expert panel ................................................................................................................. 4
4.2. The procedure ..................................................................................................................... 5
5. CONCLUSION 6
Page 2 | Observation report: accreditation procedure by <name organisation>
1. INTRODUCTION
The Bologna Declaration has set Europe on the rails towards a European Higher Education
Area. One of the means to reach this goal is the promotion of European co-operation in quality
assurance with a view on developing comparable criteria and methodologies. In line with this
goal accreditation organisations that are a member of the European Consortium for
Accreditation (ECA) have initiated a project called Transparent European Accreditation
decisions and Mutual recognition agreements, the TEAM-project.
The objectives of the TEAM-project are the implementation of a tool providing information on
qualifications from accredited programmes/institutions (in the perspective of the higher
education system), the introduction of an Accreditation Supplement in English to the published
accreditation results and the dissemination of information regarding mutual recognition of
accreditation decisions, as aimed at by the members of the ECA.
This document is part of the TEAM-project. It is an observation report of an accreditation
procedure. Observation reports that are part of the TEAM project will be published with funding
by the European Commission. The frame of reference are the ECA Code of Good Practice
(standards 14-17) and the ECA Principles for the Selection of Experts. The aim of the
observation mission is to increase trust among European accreditation organisations.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION
Accreditation organisation observed: <name organisation>
Country <country>
Focus of the procedure: <programme or institution>
Accreditation procedure regarding: <name of the programme or institution>
Date(s) of the observation: <example: 1 December 2007>
3. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROCEDURE
3.1. THE ACCREDITATION ORGANISATION
<Please present a very brief introduction to the accreditation organisation here. The use of the
accreditation profile is recommended. This chapter is meant for non-expert readers from outside
ECA (who do not have access to the accreditation profiles on the ECA members website).
3.2. THE PROGRAMME AND/OR THE INSTITUTION
<Please present a very brief introduction to the programme and/or the institution here. This
chapter is meant for non-expert readers from outside ECA. The use of the information provided
by the accreditation organisation is recommended.>
Page 3 | Observation report: accreditation procedure by <name organisation>
4. OBSERVATIONS
4.1. THE EXPERT PANEL
This section of the observation report is based on the ECA Principles for the Selection of
Experts (Dublin, 2 June 2005). Here the observations concerning the selection of the experts
panel are presented.
Number of panel members <Total amount>
Gender balance <Comment on the gender balance>
In the following table the expertise appropriate to the objectives of the accreditation procedure
are shown, including their presence in the expert panel.
(The observer has judged the inclusion of the expertise in the expert panel only based on the background
and CV’s of the panel members.)
INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION PANELS
EXPERTISE INCLUDED
experience in quality assurance in higher education <Yes/No>
appropriate academic qualifications and recognised expertise in the
relevant area(s)
expertise in institutional governance and management
leadership experience in research/academic management
relevant international experience that provides a basis for making
international comparisons
knowledge on teaching and learning methods
expertise in development, design, provision and evaluation of higher
education programmes
knowledge of the country-specific system of higher education,
institutions and applicable legislation
Depending on the national context it is commendable to include in the institutional
accreditation panel:
student representatives
representatives from the labour market
a significant proportion of panel members from outside the country
PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION PANELS
EXPERTISE INCLUDED
experience in quality assurance in higher education <Yes/No>
appropriate academic qualifications and scientific or professional
reputation in the relevant area(s)
relevant international experience that provides a basis for making
international comparisons
knowledge on teaching and learning methods
expertise in development, design, provision and evaluation of higher
education programmes
knowledge of the country-specific system of higher education,
institutions and applicable legislation
Page 4 | Observation report: accreditation procedure by <name organisation>
Depending on the national context it is commendable to include in the programme
accreditation panel:
student representatives in the respective area(s)
representatives from the labour market
a significant proportion of panel members from outside the country
<Remarks/conclusions regarding the expert panels and the observations made.>
4.2. THE PROCEDURE
This section of the observation report is based on the ECA Code of Good Practice. Here the
observations concerning the ECA standards relating to the accreditation procedure and
standards are presented.
4.2.1. Standard 14
Standard 14. The accreditation procedures must include self-documentation/-evaluation
by the higher education institution and external review (as a rule on site)
Question - How is the accreditation procedure structured?
Reference Self-documentation/-evaluation and external review are part of the
points accreditation procedure
External reviews encompass on site visits at the higher education institutions
The external review team is instructed clearly about its tasks
The accreditation organisation provides specific regulations in case of ex ante-
accreditations
<Your observations (and where applicable recommendations) regarding this standard>
Conclusion
This standard <is / is not/ is not fully> met by the accreditation organisation.
4.2.2. Standard 15
Standard 15. The accreditation procedures must guarantee the independence and
competence of the external panels or teams
Question - How is the independence of external panels guaranteed?
- Are selection criteria for expert panels set up?
Reference Selection criteria for external panels/expert committees are set up and
points published by the accreditation organisation.
Selection criteria assure competence and independence of external experts
Independence of the experts is assured by a written statement
The decision about the composition of the expert team is made by the
accreditation organisation in a transparent way
<Your observations (and where applicable recommendations) regarding this standard>
Conclusion
This standard <is / is not/ is not fully> met by the accreditation organisation.
Page 5 | Observation report: accreditation procedure by <name organisation>
4.2.3. Standard 16
Standard 16. The accreditation procedures must be geared at enhancement of quality
Question - Which elements and mechanisms within the accreditation process are used to
enhance quality at the higher education institution?
Reference The accreditation process contains elements that promote quality
points development and improvement of the higher education institution
The accreditation process should respect autonomy, identity and integrity of
the higher education institutions
<Your observations (and where applicable recommendations) regarding this standard>
Conclusion
This standard <is / is not/ is not fully> met by the accreditation organisation.
4.2.4. Standard 17
Standard 17. The accreditation standards must be made public and comply with
European practices taking into account the development of agreed sets of
quality standards
Questions - Which are the quality standards and criteria used for accreditation procedures?
- Do they meet international standards?
Reference The quality standards and criteria used in the accreditation procedures
points correspond to European good practices
The quality standards and criteria are made public
The process of formulation of the quality standards and criteria is transparent
and involves all important stakeholders
<Your observations (and where applicable recommendations) regarding this standard>
Conclusion
This standard <is / is not/ is not fully> met by the accreditation organisation.
5. CONCLUSION
<Your overall observations, recommendations and conclusions.>
Page 6 | Observation report: accreditation procedure by <name organisation>
