ARTESNET EUROPE - Elia

ARTESNET EUROPE
STRAND TWO
QUALITY ASSURANCE &
ENHANCEMENT

Overarching Objectives OF ARTESNET EUROPE
To support all arts institutions in Europe (including students,
management, teaching, technical and administrative staff) to
gain expertise on self-evaluation evaluation as an institutional
responsibility, linking internal quality issues with external
requirements with a special focus on institutions in the new
member states and candidate countries.
To consolidate and further develop a shared body of
knowledge within the European higher arts education
community on quality issues, that could lead to an
independent European quality assurance network as a
voluntary partnership for higher arts education.

To contribute to the ongoing process of convergence and
transparency in higher arts education by establishing
European reference points for the first, second and third
cycles, and for recruitment, learning, teaching and
assessment.
To capitalise on, and to transfer good practice by linking
higher arts education institutes with local and regional
communities, professional practice, and cultural and
professional organisations.
To value and preserve cultural, artistic, and pedagogical
diversity.
To ensure a co-ordinated, ordinated, bottom-up approach to all
implications of the Bologna process for the arts.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES & FOCUS
To support institutions to better understand self-evaluation evaluation as
an effective way to assess internal quality and how self-
evaluation relates to external standards and procedures.
To address subject-based based as well as institutional review,
looking at self-evaluation evaluation as an institutional responsibility to
enhance the quality in art schools, rather than focusing on the
bureaucratic and controlling aspects of quality assurance.
To develop an independent institutional evaluation
programme linked to a European accreditation network for
higher arts education (sustainability strategy).

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
move to student-centred, outcomes based learning.
involves student participation.
based on a set of common and shared principles underpinning
quality assurance irrespective of differing national approaches.
based on peer review.
involves participation of professional bodies.
emphasis on the development and use of transparent explicit
criteria and processes.
process is open to external scrutiny.
national quality assurance agencies are established.

transparency of procedures through the inclusion of a
range of external and international reference points.
need for ‘comparability’ – European framework.
emphasis on enhancement of quality.
has formal status and outcomes are publicly available.
increased emphasis on the stakeholders (student and
employer) in programme planning.
greater transparency about qualifications and standards
– European framework providing reference points to
establish comparability.

Working method
To establish and train a panel of experts in European Quality
Assurance & Enhancement in higher arts education – two x 3
day sessions in Birmingham training 18 experts (critical
friends).
To pilot 5 x Institutional Review visits: University of Art &
Design Cluj-Napoca, Rumania; National Academy Theatre,
Film & Television Sofia, Bulgaria; Lithuania Academy of
Theatre & Film, Vilnius, Lithuania; University of Technology
Brno, Czech Republic and Akdeniz University, Antalya,
Turkey.
To carry out 5 x Regional Workshops: Budapest, Hungary;
Athens, Greece; Stuttgart, Germany; Porto, Portugal and
Ankara, Turkey – to disseminate the outcomes and share
experiences.

Preliminary visit
Principle objectives are:
• to gain a clearer understanding of the specific national,
regional and local contexts impacting on the institution
(autonomy)
• to gain a clearer understanding of the existing management
operations of the institution
• to discuss the self evaluation process and the institution’s
SER
• to gain greater understanding of the institution’s s QME
processes
• to identify and request any missing information from the SER
Main visit
The ET’s s main objective is to arrive at a well substantiated view of the
strategic management of quality management and enhancement in
the institution at both institutional and subject discipline level.
el.
Where the preliminary visit focus was on understanding what is
specific about that institution, the main visit is about finding out
whether, how and with what results the institution’s s strategic and
internal quality policies and procedures are implemented throughout
out
all levels of the institution.

Impact on the higher arts education community in
Europe
An increasingly shared understanding of the value and meaning of
the three cycles in higher arts education in Europe and their
relevance to cultural, social and economical development.
The development of a common understanding of terminology.
Informative profiles describing core learning outcomes/competences
for the three cycles in arts disciplines, agreed in interaction with the
professional field.
Shared visions and insights on recruitment, learning, teaching and a
assessment developed in arts disciplines.

All higher arts education institutes, including new member
states and the candidate countries are able to realise self-
evaluation as an institutional responsibility.
Students have become central to the process and key
contributors in the development of the European higher arts
education sector.
The quality of an external evaluation is directly dependent on
the preparation and implementation of a continuous rigorous
internal evaluation process and the institution’s s willingness for
open, honest critical self-evaluation.
evaluation.
The institution has to work to promote a fuller understanding
of learning outcomes as a means of both shaping and
assessing the student learning experience, ensuring that an
appropriate value is placed on the process of student
learning.

The higher arts education community at large feels informed about
relevant Bologna developments and fears about European
standardisation and uniformity have substantially diminished.
The enhancement of respect and good reputation among other
faculties/departments of the institution, and the creation of the
potential for stronger integration within the institution.
A more thorough focus on the graduate profile, the inter-connection
of the learning process and practical professional activities, and a
collaboration with employers and professional organisations.
National QA Agencies have been established and operating
international review panels for institutional review and accreditation
(e.g. Sweden & Lithuania) – experts have been invited to participate
and chair panels.
There remains a significant divergence in national approaches to the
third cycle PhD research in the Arts – retention of scientific
methodologies in many countries; no PhDs/Professors in Technical
Universities.

External Stakeholders
Employers
Student Destination
& Achievement
Galleries
Educational Institutions
Internal Stakeholders
Students
Academic Staff
Administrative Staff
Ancillary Staff
External/Institutional
Stakeholders
External Examiners
Consultants
National Agencies

ROLE OF THE EVALUATION TEAM (ET)
We see the role of the team as a critical friend:
• to analyse the institution’s s existing and intended quality management
and enhancement capacity and procedures
• to make recommendations to the institution on how to improve
quality management and enhancement (QME) capacity and
procedures
• to identify good practice
To carry out these tasks the ET will act as:
• representatives – to reflect current good practices in quality
management and enhancement
• evaluators – to analyse the institutions existing management and
enhancement practices
• advisors – to make recommendations to develop these practices
All team members share equal responsibility for and contribute fully f
to the process. Each will make notes, chair meetings, discuss
findings and contribute to the final report.

INSTITUTIONAL QA&E REVIEW
Evaluation teams (ET) focus on the following evidence:
Internal QA reviews and their outcomes
Review/validation of programmes
Use of external reference points in course construction
Internal systems for the management of information
Development and use of programme specifications
Academic standards expected from students
Progression, retention and achievement data
The experience of students as learners
Management of teaching staff – appointments, appraisal
etc

EVIDENCE COLLECTED
Self evaluation reports (SER’s)
Information presented by and gathered from
students.
Student achievement, progression, etc.
Recent review reports
Information acquired during the visit

STUDENTS
Students are central to the process of review
The audit will examine:
Information available to students
How learning is facilitated
Academic standards they are expected to achieve, and
achieve in practice

INSTITUTIONAL
SELF EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
The self evaluation report is intended to
address four questions:
What is the institution trying to do?
How is the institution trying to do it?
How does the institution know if it works?
How does the institution change in order to
improve?

Institutional SER Content
What is the institution trying to do?
Mission statement - broad institutional philosophy/aims
Distinctive features - what it is recognised for
Governance, organisation and management
Learning, teaching and assessment
Research and scholarship
Relationship to external agencies, professional bodies,
industry and society
Major developments, changes over last 4 years

Institutional SER Content
How is the institution trying to do it?
Analysis of strengths and areas for improvement
Academic activities
- research and educational approaches
- education programme design and organisation
- evaluation of how these programmes reflect institutional
mission
Academically related activities
- analysis of external links, regional and community service
- analysis of student support services
- evaluation how these programmes reflect the mission
Management and administrative systems and activities
- communication

Institutional SER Content
How does the institution know that it works?
Institution quality monitoring processes for:
- appointment of staff
- creating new courses
- external examiners
- learning support services
- learning, teaching and assessment
- research
- review and approval of existing courses
- staff development
- student involvement and feedback in quality assurance
process
- student progression, retention and achievement
- student support and guidance.

Institutional SER Content (cont)
How does the institution know it works?
Framework for management of quality and academic standards
- policy
- key features
- aims
- key documents
Committee and management structures
- overview and structure
- institution
- department/faculty
- management responsibilities
Feedback by key stakeholders: students, graduates, employers s and
professional bodies

Institutional SER Content
How does the institution change in order to improve?
Strategic management and capacity for change
Analysis of the role of quality management to implement and
support change
Identify and respond to internal and external demand
and opportunities
How are internal and external representatives involved
in strategic management?
What role does quality monitoring and management
play in these developments?
What changes do you envisage due to these
influences?

DISCIPLINE REVIEW (DR)
To verify that the institutions QA mechanisms are
working at course/programme level
A window to view student achievement and effectiveness
of support for learning
A means to check claims made by the institution

Comprises five elements:
DISCIPLINE REVIEW
Short self evaluation report
Discussion between team and staff and students about how
QA policies are implemented
Scrutiny of the accuracy of information (prospectus,
website, programme specifications, etc)
Observation of the relation between programmes and
intended learning outcomes (sample of assessed work,
progression, achievement, external examiners reports etc)
The QA team can request additional information

DISCIPLINE SELF EVALUATION REPORT
The report is an objective, critical self-evaluation evaluation of the
course/programme by the course/programme team including
programme specification and addressing the following:
Maximum 3,000 words
Educational philosophy and aims of the provision
Description of the learning outcomes
Curricula and assessment
Quality of learning opportunities
Learning and teaching policy and strategy
Student admission and progression (including
statistics)
Learning resources
Process for maintenance and enhancement of
standards and quality

EVALUATION REPORT
Relies on the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness
of the information provided by the institution and offers:
Recommendations
and highlights Good Practice