DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011

VANADZOR BRANCH OF STATE ENGINEERING UNIVERISTY OF ARMENIA (VbSEUA)

ESG Standard 1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance Quality assurance objectives / plans seem to exist at a generic level; it is nevertheless not clearly recognizable which activities are in action and which are only planned but not yet put in to practice. In particular, Quality Assurance Policy (package) is being worked out at the university, by which the university strives to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the main points of the branch strategic plan. But the quality assurance policy with its main procedures is not clearly presented. In VbSEUA a quality assurance workgroup has been formed to implement quality assurance processes, and this working group that can serve as basis for the creation of internal QA subdivision in the future. However, the responsibilities and functions of the group members are not yet established, they are still in the development phase. The university has also organized a contest to involve students in the QA body. The university was involved in some QA policies, 2003-2008 self-analysis of the activities of the branch, but for some reasons the process was interrupted. As for the feedback and evaluation tools there is no clear information about any of the mechanisms and tools in place and the university seems to be implicit in the objectives for future actions. With regard to improvement, the planning seems to reflect several areas of improvement the university aims at. 2. Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards The university does not present clear mechanisms of approval, monitoring and periodic review of its programmes and awards. It is only mentioned that the review of programmes is undertaken every 12-14 months and external stakeholders are involved in that process, but neither the tools nor the mechanisms or their role is clearly defined. There is not much information about approval and development of programmes; there seem to exist periodic reviews; not clear, if there is a systematic approach focusing on the quality of programmes (learning outcome approach is not mentioned). There is some cooperation with the industry. As for the implementation, there is no information about the approval, monitoring and periodic review mechanisms of programmes and awards. The university mentions that the programmes are expressed in learning outcomes, and they are introduced in a student guide. With regards to the feedback mechanisms and evaluation tools, there is a positive element: inclusion of external stakeholders (employers) in the review of programmes. The latter remark and give suggestions on the programmes, but the university does not present how these remarks and suggestions are considered in the above mentioned processes. Last, but not least, only little information is available that reflects needs for improvement; important would be the incorporation of the learning outcome approach to the monitoring / review of programmes. 3. Assessment of Students

DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 There seem to exist assessment criteria and procedures that are published but it remains unclear to what extent these are followed in day to day life consistently. Further, it is not clear whether the university engages in learning outcome based assessment or not. The assessment of students is done according to the university regulation, but there is no information whether the assessment mechanisms are analyzed, reviewed and improved or not. There is no information on either feedback mechanisms or evaluation tools. Nor the university is explicit about the plans targeted at improvement of the student assessment.

4. Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff It was difficult to give a mark the university gives an analysis of the challenges for their staff development which can be interpreted as a list of measures / plan. In particular, the university presents detailed description of the branch problems connected with the staff replenishment and rejuvenation. There are certain processes directed towards the solution of these problems. However, it is not clear whether these approaches are clearly formulated in any official document. It is not clear either by what mechanisms shall these processes be implemented, t.i. professional development, rejuvenation. Teaching staff assessment mechanism is presented in the form of annual report, but the stakeholder involvement in the teacher assessment process is not clear, there are teacher encouragement and firing mechanisms. There is no information on the implementation of the mentioned teacher development plans, nor is there any explicit information on the feedback mechanisms and evaluation tools for the teaching staff performance. A strong recommendation would be to include formation and training with regard to the learning outcome approach into the planned measures as well as carry out professional development of the young staff.

5. Learning Resources and Student Support It was difficult to give a mark the university gives an analysis of the challenges for their resources and learning infrastructure. This can be interpreted as a list of measures / plan. It has developed guidelines for the review of the learning resources and student support. 5-year-programme has been developed in the result of which the learning resources and student support of the branch will correspond to the needs of the students and meet the programme goals. The university plans to improve the auditoria and laboratories but this processes are not planned yet and there are no clear programmes for their implementation. As for the implementation, some chairs are involved in the rehabilitation and modernization the learning resources. But it doesn't have an organized and cyclical nature. However, there is no clear indication with regards to the feedback mechanisms and evaluation tools for the learning resources or student support services. The needs and challenges with regard to learning resources and partially to student support are described and measures to be taken are defined. 6. Information Systems 2

DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 It was difficult to give a mark - almost no information is given about quality related data gathering and the use of such data. The described plans and measures are more related to a general information system for organizational management but not clear, what this would mean for quality management. 7. Public Information The answer of the university focuses on marketing but this is not meant by the standard. The standard refers to transparency with regard to performance and quality issues. The university makes presents to quantitative and qualitative data on its activities, educational programs and the like but there is no information on the university making information on the university quality issues public.