Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Quality Assurance in internationalisation
Introduction
• UGent: - Decentralised institution
- Very active international actor
- Important role for individual academic staff member
- 530 Erasmus partners
• 2011: Growing need for central guidance
• Strategic Plan: “Create quality assessment system for international agreements”
- > Aim to make choices based on facts: structural use of data
- > Need for data
Data?
Data?
• Huge amounts of data is generated every minute, hour, day…
• Overload of data
• Majority of all data is unstructured
• Data sources are traditional and digital
• Data is generated within and without the organization
• Data scientist are sexy
– Data scientist will be the hottest job of the 21st century
– Data experts will be a scarce, valuable commodity
• But we need to be careful with our conclusions: “in 2009 in Belgium an average family counts 2,31 persons, but I still need to meet the first family with 2,31 persons!”
Data?
• 5 important questions need to be asked
– What kind of information are we looking for?
– Which sources do we have to our disposal?
– What data do we use?
– Quantity vs. Quality?
– How will we make our data attractive and easy to use?
Data?
• Quantitative analysis: % of graduates with international experience
– 2011-2012: 4555 graduates (at MA level), 716 of them had an international experience (at BA or MA level): 15,7%
– 2012-2013: 4746 graduates (at MA level), 855 of them had an international experience (at BA or MA level): 18%
Be careful: don’t use the combination of mobility's and graduates for a given academic year
Data?
• Quantitative analysis: Exchange numbers - outgoing
0 200 400 600 800 1000
88-89
…
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
Erasmus
Erasmus Belgica
Erasmus Placement
Institutional Bilateral Agreements
Other programmes
Data?
• Quantitative analysis: Exchange numbers - incoming
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
Erasmus Erasmus Belgica Erasmus Placement Erasmus Mundus Action 2 Individual Contacts IAESTE Institutional Bilateral Agreements Other programmes
Data?
• Quantitative analysis: Exchange Balance
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Outgoing students Incoming students
Data?
• Quantitative analysis: International Students
0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140 160 180
Exchange Degree Phd
Country Average credits/day*
Average study succes** Reference group
Denmark 0,17 94% 12 Germany 0,15 78,18% 100 Finland 0,15 70,7% 34 France 0,17 74,11% 81 Italy 0,15 58,82% 174 Lithuania 0,16 87,85% 39 Norway 0,16 73,5% 6 Austria 0,16 65,83% 11 Poland 0,16 77,45% 117 Portugal 0,18 71,14% 50 Spain 0,16 78,91% 354
*30 credits/sem = +/- 0,2 credits/day
**UGent average = 80% Exchange average = 70%
Data?
Data?
• Qualitative analysis: Erasmus Student Survey
36.38%
55.25%
43.67%
73.08%
68.13%
54.87%
83.58%
64.87%
21.37%
32.84%
36.16%
41.33%
54.81%
61.12%
73.63%
81.46%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
the reception/welcome
culture and society of host country
preparatory language courses
the host institution
the Learning Agreement and grade transfers
study programme and academic calander
administrative obligations
housing and accomodation
what did you wanted to know before departure? wat did you know before departure?
Data?
• Qualitative analysis: Erasmus Student Survey
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
new scientific and academic knowledge
new course content
new learning and teaching methods
During your Erasmus exchange you were confronted with
Excellent Good Sufficient Insufficient Unappliquable
Data?
• Qualitative analysis: Internal Quality Assessment Survey
19% 30% 27% 16% 8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
MA
Item 8: You felt stimulated to undertake an international experience
strongly disagree disagree neutral agree strongly agree
8% 21% 21% 38% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
MA
Item 15: During your studies you were confronted with international staff and students
strongly disagree disagree neutral agree stronly agree
Data?
• Qualitative analysis: Internal Quality Assessment Survey
6% 18% 39% 28% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
MA
Item 21: International contacts and content are an added value for your study programme
strongly disagree disagree neutral agree stronly agree
Data?
• Qualitative analysis: Student Surveys: incoming students
How to use these data…
• How to use all this information for our quality assessment system for international agreements?
• What is quality in international cooperation?
• What makes a good partner good?
• On what data do we base our judgment?
Structural Partner Analysis
Quality Assessment Tool for International Cooperation (QuATIC) • Measuring quality of cooperation
• Based on limited indicators but maximum information
• With low work load for the staff involved
Structural Partner Analysis
Critical success factors • Grasping the complex concept of ‘quality’
• Grasping the diversity in internationalisation
• Grasping the decentralised character of UGent
• Minimal administrative workload for staff
• Based on objective criteria
Structural partner analysis
Quality of international cooperation Quality of the partners
involved
Impact of the cooperation Quality of the information exchange
What is quality in International Cooperation?
Structural partner analysis
Which indicators • Parameters for choice of indicators -> limited number!
- Relevance
- Availability
- Measurability
- Unique source of information
- No Matthew Effect?
• The data
• From data to a score
Structural partner analysis
Which indicators • Cluster 1: Quality of the partners
• C1I1: International Rankings ONLINE
• C1I2: Quality of incoming students OASIS
• C1I3: Support for outgoing students AEQ
• C1I4: Quality of the education AEQ
• Cluster 2: Quality of the information exchange • C2I1: Communication NEW
• C2I2: Availability of Information AEQ
• Cluster 3: Impact of the cooperation • C3I1: Involvement MoveOn
• C3I2: Mobility Rate MoveOn
• C3I3: Research Cooperation ReDeDa
• C3I4: Education Cooperation MoveOn
Structural partner analysis
Cluster 1: Quality of partner – International Rankings ONLINE
• Shanghai • THE • QS
- Quality of incoming students OASIS
• Study load per day • Study success
- Support for outgoing students AEQ
• Student satisfaction concerning academic support • Student satisfaction concerning administrative support
- Quality of the education AEQ
• Broadening of scientific or professional knowledge • Getting acquainted with new content • Getting acquainted with new pedagogical methods and tools
Structural partner analysis
Cluster 2: Quality of information exchange - Communication with the partner NEW
• Administrative (selection, nomination…) • Academic (offer, results…)
- Availability of information for students AEQ • Housing • Administrative obligations • Study Programme
Structural partner analysis
Cluster 3: Impact of the cooperation - Involvement MOVEON
• Number of faculties involved • Number of departments involved
- Mobility rate MOVEON • Activity level: annual mobility of students and staff? • Balance in student exchange
- Research cooperation ReDeDa • Joint PhDs • Joint Research Projects • Joint Publications (not available yet)
- Educational cooperation MOVEON • Joint programmes • Joint projects
Result: QuATIC
Quality Assessment Tool for International Cooperation • List of partners
• A score per partner per indicator
• Reports per partner with strengths and/or weaknesses in the cooperation
Result: QuATIC
Resultaat
Result: QuATIC
0
2
4
6
8
10 C1I1 - Ranking
C1I2 - Incoming Students
C1I3 - Student Support
C1I4 - Academic Value
C2I2 - Information Availability C3I1 - Involvement
C3I2 - Mobility Rate
C3I3 - Research Collaboration
C3C4 - Educational Collaboration
NL GRONING01
Result: QuATIC
Result: QuATIC
Next on the agenda
Towards an online peer assessment tool – External funding
– As many user institutions as possible
– Based on data sets that are available
– Delivering indicators that are relevant
– Peer quality assessment trough structural data exchange
