Quality assurance and quality development (QA&D)
Based on LUSEM’s strategy, a robust, transparent and manageable evaluation system for education at undergraduate and masters’ level is a prerequisite for remaining competitive internationally.
LUSEM works with a quality assurance and quality development system (QA&D) consisting of four cycles that with different focus and time intervals ensures that continuous evaluation in the form of e.g. course evaluations and programme evaluations is carried out. The QA&D also ensures that information is documented in such a way that the School’s development work can be carried out in a way that characterises a learning organization.
The quality assurance and quality development system (QA&D) is presented below.
Cycle 1. Course dialogue
Cycle 1 includes routines for how discussions with students during ongoing courses can be carried out.
Cycle 1 concerns the possibility for students to be able to make comments regarding quality issues to the course management during an ongoing course. It may seem obvious, but there is a point in agreeing at the beginning of each course on how student views can best be communicated. In undergraduate courses with many students per course, some kind of ”working model” is also needed for continuous dialogue to be carried out. For courses with large numbers of students, it is reasonable that some student representatives discuss continuously with the course management
The above refers to issues where there is a general opinion among the students on a course on various issues that can be considered to concern quality issues. However, it is not a question of individual students always being able to contact teachers/course managers separately during ongoing courses for separate questions or comments, without there being specific routines.
Cycle 2. Course evaluation and course card
Cycle 2 deals with routines for course evaluations and routines for compiling course cards.
In accordance with the Higher Education Ordinance, Chapter 1, §14 applies:
The University shall give students who participate in or have completed a course an opportunity to express their experiences and views on the course through a course evaluation organised by the University. The University shall compile the course evaluations and inform about the results and any decisions regarding measures arising from the course evaluations. The results shall be made available to the students.
The views on a course that students express constitute a course outcome. This course outcome is then expected to be supplemented with comments from teachers, supervisors, course management and possibly director of studies or equivalent. This document summarizing the outcome of a completed course constitutes a course evaluation. At LUSEM, “course cards” (see below) constitute the format used for course evaluation.
The course evaluation can thus be seen as a summary of the accumulated experience generated by each course. In order to get both the processes around course evaluations and course evaluations to work continuously, commitment is required both from teachers, administrators and of course from students. In general, students who are given opportunities to give views on the structure and content during the course in accordance with cycle 1 above, become more motivated to engage in their education.
Upon completion of the course, a course card (previously referred to as a scorecard) shall be drawn up. The course card is a summary of the experiences, reflections and possible improvement measures, development ideas that can be found in the compilation of the students' perception of the course (which is shown by the completed course evaluation), the experiences of teachers, supervisors and course management and the perception of the course. The course card ought to include information on:
- key comments made by the students,
- key views expressed by teachers (especially important for courses taught by many teachers and/or team of teachers),
- description of any changes that have been implemented continuously during each course,
- proposals for changes to future courses where relevant,
- any other comments that may help to improve the quality of the course.
How well students can be considered to have achieved the learning outcomes of a course/module is reported separately in the School’s system for “assurance of learning” (AoL) which is also related to the AACSB accreditation and is not commented further in this document.
The course card is filled in accordance with the current template, and relevant parts shall be published appropriately preferably in the learning platform used (at present Canvas).
At each start of the course, the responsible teacher, preferably in collaboration with Lundaekonomerna, is expected to present the evaluation of the previous course round and explain what possible changes have been made and/or explain why certain changes will not be implemented.
Cycle 3. Programme evaluation and programme cards
Cycle 3 deals with procedures for the annual review of programmes that are primarily based on the annual programme course evaluations (CEQ’s), which are sent out to students during the end of each spring semester. The CEQ’s form the basis of the programme card that is compiled in August each year. The programme cards are presented and established by the Faculty Board at its meeting in September/October each year.
Programme evaluation is carried out annually via standardised questionnaires in the form of course experience questionnaires (CEQ). These questionnaires are sent out to students at the end of the academic year (May) and constitute very good information about how students perceive their education. Since the majority of LUSEM’s MSc-programmes run over one year, an annual CEQ-approach works well. The programmes at the undergraduate level, which run over three years, are more difficult to capture via CEQ and for these programmes the “programme councils” where programme managers, teachers, director of studies and student representatives are included are important complements to the CEQ evaluations.
On the basis of the programme evaluation, each programme manager draws up a programme card each year (formerly known as the programme scorecard). The programme cards provide an opportunity to annually keep track of comments, changes, etc. implemented in each programme. In the programme cards, course directors also present ideas for development. The programme cards document development in the programmes over time, and the programme cards thus provide an important source of organisational memory at the programme level.
The programme cards are compiled by the Vice Dean of Education at the faculty. The Faculty Board conducts an annual review of all programmes and possible revisions to the programme at its meeting in September/October each year.
Cycle 4. Programme-level business intelligence
Cycle 4 is carried out by an annual ”competitive, or business intelligence analysis” at the programme level. The programmes at the School are compared with a selection of international corresponding programmes. This analysis is called BISC (Business Intelligence SCan). The outcomes are presented and established by the Faculty Board at its meeting in September/October each year.
In addition to the continuous work carried out by programme directors to relate to changes in the external environment in connection with each programme, an annual external analysis is also carried out at the programme level called ”business intelligence scan” (BISC). The BISC report shall include a comparison at the programme level between existing programme and corresponding programmes globally. Usually, but not exclusively, a BISC consists of comparisons with programs in Europe, North America and Asia.
The BISC analyses are compiled by the Vice Dean of Education at the School. The Faculty Board conducts an annual review of all programmes and possible revisions to the programme at its meeting in September/October each year.
|Cycle||Evaluation activity||Implementation/ documentation||Responsible|
Students have opportunities to express their views on an ongoing basis related to quality.
Changes can be made during the course if the course coordinator and the director of studies agree.
Discussions/meetings with course representatives.
Discussions with students during the course
Changes in existing courses (structure, examination, etc.).
Teacher responsible for the course
Director of Studies at each department
Course evaluations should be carried out after each course has been completed.
Changes in curricula regarding e.g. structure, focus, etc.
Changes in literature
Changes are expected to be implemented the next time the course is given.
|Teacher responsible for the course in cooperation with the Director of Studies at each department. Normally, changes in syllabus must be decided by the Department Board.|
Evaluation is carried out via a programme evaluation (CEQ) in May each year.
Compilation of results from CEQ forms part of the basis for programme cards sent to the head of education at the faculty in August every year.
Changes in programme curricula.
Changes in course order within programmes.
Documentation of changes made.
Changes in degree requirements.
Changes related to faculty collaborations within LU and/or inter-national collaborations.
Programme directors in cooperation with director of studies at these departments.
The Faculty Board decides on changes in programme curricula, and establish CEQ’s and programme cards. This cannot be further delegated in the organisation.
|4||Annual business intelligence analysis and external monitoring at programme level called ”Business Intelligence Scan” (BISC).||International comparison of corresponding programmes (at least three programmes spread across Europe, North America and Asia).||
Programme directors in cooperation with director of studies at these departments.
The Faculty Board establishes the BISC’s. This cannot be further delegated in the organisation.