Transcript Assessment of Higher Education in Russia

QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM IN THE
RUSSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION
Seminar 21.11.2013
HSE – Saint Petersburg
QUALITY ASSURANCE (LEGAL DEFINITION):
Conformity to the educational standards and
federal requirements;
 Achievement of the expected results of the
educational program.

Federal Law
«On education in the RF»
(article 2)
WHO PARTICIPATES IN THE EVALUATION
PROCESS?
Special university units (QA centers);
 Government bodies (Rosobrnadzor – the
Russian Agency for Supervision in the Field of
Education http://www.obrnadzor.gov.ru/;
National Accreditation Agency
http://www.nica.ru/documents/accred/;
 Academic community;
 Students;
 Independent experts.

TYPES OF QA EVALUATION
Internal
External
STUDENT SURVEYS (CRITERIA)
Audience’s feedback;
 Opportunity for the contact outside of the
classroom;
 The clarity of the course requirements for
students;
 The clarity and consistency of presentation of
teaching materials.

STRUCTURE OF A SELF-EVALUATION REPORT
1. Legal documentation in the field of
educational activity.
2. Organization of the educational process.
3. Organization of the methodical support,
review of teaching methods.
4. Research activities.
5. Cooperation with another research institutions
and international cooperation.
6. Material base.
7. Conclusions
and recommendations.
8. Attachments.
PHASES OF SELF-EVALUATION
1. Establishment of special commission.
2. Data collection.
3. Data analysis.
4. Report preparation.
5. Consultation with University staff.
6. Approval by the university Senate.
7. Publication on the university web-site.
http://spb.hse.ru/umuspb/info-accreditation
PHASES OF EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Application to the Rosobrnadzor
Off-site evaluation
On-site evaluation
COMMISSION CONCLUSION
GROUNDS FOR THE ROSOBRNADZOR’S
NEGATIVE ASSESSMENT
1. Identification of wrong or false information in
the university documentation.
2. Negative conclusion of a ministerial
commission or individual experts.
CONCLUSION: MAIN SHORTCOMINGS OF
RUSSIAN SYSTEM
The procedure is too bureaucratic.
 Too formalistic, ignores the content of training
programs (including competences and skills
acquired during the learning process).
 Does not use the benchmark approach.
 The system is not transparent.
 It’s difficult to compare work-load of different
courses.

Bridging the gap!