(Original Swedish post published 25 October, English version published 8 November.)
Today I took a decision adopting Uppsala University’s model for educational evaluation, guidelines and financing. Many people have paved the way for this decision over a period of several years. For instance, the CrED panel, which proposed it back in 2012, and the working group I appointed on 14 March 2015 with instructions to present proposals on a model for systematic educational evaluation at Uppsala University. The working group, led by Vice-Rector Torsten Svensson, submitted its proposals to the Vice-Chancellor on 1 March 2016. These proposals were then circulated for comment to disciplinary domain boards/faculty boards, student unions, the University Library and the University Administration, which all contributed constructive proposals on improvements.
The Quality Council, led by Deputy Vice-Chancellor Anders Malmberg, has shepherded the proposal through to today’s decision, with Åsa Kettis and Maria Wolters giving expert guidance all along the way. One of the reasons we are now taking this step is that the Swedish Higher Education Authority has changed its evaluations and in future will examine quality assurance work at higher education institutions rather than evaluating programmes as it used to do. To facilitate implementation, I have also decided that close to SEK 12 million will be set aside to finance the work of the disciplinary domains on the model for educational evaluation. Initially, in 2017, the disciplinary domains will start out with pilot projects and within a period of six years all programmes are planned to have undergone systematic quality assurance and quality enhancement.
You’ll have to excuse me, I simply have to present the whole decision.
Today I, as Vice-Chancellor, decided:
To establish guidelines for Uppsala University’s model for educational evaluation.
That domain/faculty boards are to:
– develop modes and routines for systematic quality assurance and quality enhancement of the domain’s or the faculty’s education from an all-round perspective, including annual follow-up and educational evaluation;
– conduct and report on at least one educational evaluation pilot project per disciplinary domain in 2017 (see the decision Pilot round of educational evaluations 2017);
– evaluate all education in the domain/faculty over a six-year cycle (2017–2022);
– actively contribute to experience and knowledge exchange on quality assurance and enhancement across faculty and domain boundaries (contribute evaluators to other faculties/domains and to organised and informal experience exchange);
– submit to the Vice-Chancellor by 16 June 2017 a provisional plan for all educational evaluations in the six-year cycle 2017–2022;
– report to the Vice-Chancellor by 28 February 2018 the domain’s or faculty’s modes and routines for educational evaluation and annual follow-up;
– submit to the Vice-Chancellor by 20 February 2018 a detailed description of the domain’s or faculty’s modes and routines for quality assurance and quality enhancement in education. These descriptions will be incorporated in the quality assurance and enhancement programme when it is revised;
– conduct, during the first half of 2020, a simplified evaluation of (i) quality assurance and enhancement efforts in the domain/faculty, with a focus on modes and routines for annual follow-up and educational evaluation, and (ii) university-wide support, so that routines and methods can be improved even in the course of the current six-year cycle. The evaluation is to cover the perspectives of all concerned (domain/faculty board, other persons responsible for education, teachers and other staff involved in education, and students). Results and proposed measures are to be presented in brief to the Vice-Chancellor by 30 June 2020.
That the above evaluation within domains/faculties is to be followed by revision of the university-wide guidelines if necessary.
That central university support will be evaluated by at least two external colleagues and at least one internal colleague from each disciplinary domain within the framework of the six-year cycle.
That the University Director is to ensure appropriate central university support, including: knowledge support in the design of evaluations and follow-up (including written recommendations); implementation of student barometer surveys and an annual conference; compilation of a quality report; and development of key indicators as a basis for educational follow-up.