National component Netherlands

From ECApedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Assessment criteria

In order to asses criterion 6c regarding the achievement of learning outcomes, the assessment panel is required to look at students’ work which, according to the joint programme (and indicated in the self-evaluation report), demonstrate that their graduates achieve the intended learning outcomes. Students’ work can here refer to a final thesis but also to other products (work of art, portfolio, etc.). The assessment panel should select, randomly and differentiated by marks achieved, fifteen students from a list of graduates for the last two completed academic years. For each student selected, the panel examines the meaningful students’ work, including the completed and signed assessment forms. These documents will be supplied by the programme prior to the site visit. The assessment panel includes in the report which students work it has evaluated as a basis to establish whether the learning outcomes are achieved in the programme.

Assessment procedure

The assessment panel needs to come to a general conclusion regarding the joint programme. This general conclusion is either unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good or excellent and needs to be weighted and substantiated. The assessment is based on the following definition of generic quality: the quality that can reasonably be expected in an international perspective from a bachelor’s or master’s programme. Below, each conclusion is defined and illustrated with a number of examples to assist in its operationalisation.

Unsatisfactory

The programme does not offer generic quality and shows serious shortcomings in several areas. This judgement could be operationalised as follows:

  • The level and/or orientation of the learning outcomes do not fit within the (inter)national qualification frameworks and have not been concretised into subject- or programme-specific performance levels.
  • The aggregate of curriculum, staff, services and facilities does not constitute an environment conducive to learning.
  • The programme lacks a programme-wide, transparent and coherent assessment policy.
  • The intended learning outcomes are not being achieved.
  • Quality assurance in the programme is not pursued in a systematic manner, which translates into a lack of improvement policy.

Satisfactory

The programme does offer generic quality standards and demonstrates an acceptable level across its entire spectrum. This judgement could be operationalised as follows:

  • The level and/or orientation of the learning outcomes fit within the (inter)national qualification frameworks and have been concretised into subject- or programme-specific performance levels.
  • The aggregate of curriculum, staff, services and facilities constitutes an environment conducive to learning which enables students to achieve the learning outcomes.
  • The programme has developed a programme-wide, transparent and coherent assessment policy, which, however, is not yet pursued by all parties involved.
  • The intended learning outcomes are achieved.
  • Quality assurance in the programme is pursued in a systematic manner, which translates into a consistent improvement policy.

Good

The programme systematically exceeds generic quality across its entire spectrum. This judgement could be operationalised as follows:

  • The level and/or orientation of the learning outcomes fit within the (inter)national qualification frameworks and have been concretised into subject- or programme-specific performance levels. These are given a specific interpretation based on the programme’s explicit views.
  • The aggregate of curriculum, staff, services and facilities constitutes a challenging learning environment.
  • The programme has developed a programme-wide, transparent and coherent assessment policy, which is pursued by all parties involved.
  • The learning outcomes achieved translate into products that are systematically above average.
  • Quality assurance in the programme is pursued in a systematic manner, which translates into a consistent improvement policy that is reflected in a growing quality culture.

Excellent

The programme remarkably exceeds generic quality. It does this systematically and across its entire spectrum and is regarded as an (inter)national example. This judgement could be operationalised as follows:

  • The level and/or orientation of the learning outcomes fit within the (inter)national qualification frameworks and have been concretised into subject- or programme-specific performance levels. These are given a specific interpretation based on the programme’s explicit and unique views. The programme serves as an example both nationally and internationally.
  • The aggregate of curriculum, staff, services and facilities constitutes an innovative, original learning environment.
  • The learning outcomes achieved are of excellent quality and translate into awards and (inter)national publications.
  • Quality assurance in the programme is pursued in a systematic manner, which translates into a consistent improvement policy and a strong ability for self-reflection. This is reflected in a robust quality culture.