Transcript An Evaluation Process of the University Engineering Degrees: the Portuguese Case Carlos Sá Furtado ICEMS Coimbra – Departamento de Engenharia Electrotécnica e de Computadores, LTMEU, Universidade.

An Evaluation Process of the
University Engineering
Degrees: the Portuguese Case
Carlos Sá Furtado
ICEMS Coimbra – Departamento de Engenharia
Electrotécnica e de Computadores, LTMEU,
Universidade de Coimbra, Pólo 2, 3030-290
Coimbra, Portugal, [email protected]
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
Introduction
Portuguese university engineering courses called licenciaturas
Reasons for the Evaluation/Assessment
The Published Legislation
Principles and Objectives of the Quality Assessment
The Process of Evaluation
Criticisms at the Evaluation Process
Some General Conclusions and Recommendations
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
Reasons for the Evaluation/ Assessment
1290 University of Coimbra
1911 Universities of Lisbon and Oporto
1930 Technical University of Lisbon
1970’s eleven public universities, more than twenty polytechnic
institutes and dozens of private Higher Education schools
The Revolution of the 25th April 1974:
• Centralised and autocratic regime to a democratic and rooted
participated system;
• Traditional authoritarian rules at the University by a modern
representative democracy.
• Number of students increased exponentially
• Middle and working classes eroded the exclusive character of
university education
• This explosion not duly prepared, organised, and accompanied
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
• 1980s: adequate legislation has been passed
• 1st Cycle of Evaluation Public Universitary Licenciaturas
Assessment started in 1994. Foundation of the Portuguese
Universities ( Fundação das Universidades Portuguesas)– FUP
• 2nd Cycle Evaluation : National Council for the Evaluation of Higher
Education ( Conselho Nacional de Avaliação do Ensino SuperiorCNAVES).Public and private universities and public and private
polytechnics.
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
The Published Legislation
– Law of the Bases of the Educational System, Law nr. 46/86, of
14th October
– Law of the Autonomy of the Universities, Law nr. 108/88, of 24th
September
– Law of Higher Education Evaluation, Law nr. 38/94, of 21st
November
-- Protocol signed on the 19th June 1995 between the Ministry of
Education, CRUP, and FUP
– Decree-Law nr. 204/98, of 11th July, regulates Law nr.38/94, and
creates CNAVES
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
Principles and Objectives of
the Quality Assessment
Main principles of Quality Assessment:
• The Higher Education Quality Assessment System is unitary
• Independent and impartial character of the Evaluating Agency
• Mechanisms and procedures lead to impartial and independent
judgements and conclusions
• Regular periodicity
• Permanent information through selected and appropriate indicators
• Encourage the Self- Evaluation
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
System set on the following principles:
• The institutions own the evaluation system
• Based on self-assessment and peer review
• Cyclical
• Nationwide
• Teaching and research are evaluated separately
• Reports of the expert commissions are made public
• Faculties/Departments nothing to say about external evaluation
committees
• No link with funding.
Objectives of the Quality Assessment System:
• Promote and improve quality of teaching and research
• Stimulate self-regulation based on quality
• Inform Portuguese society on the performance of each Institution
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
The Process of Evaluation
Process established by CNAVES with the agreement of all the Institutions
• Internal and external stage
• Self- evaluation of strengths, weaknesses and future prospects
• External stage peer review includes a site visit and an external report
• Contradictory hearing of the assessed institution
• CNAVES announces evaluation in the following year
• Faculties prepare Self-Evaluation Report ( Relatório de Auto-Avaliação )
• Report distributed among the members of the EEC
• A 2-3 days site visit; Visiting Committee- 3-5 members
• Preliminary comments at end of visit; afterwards, an interim report
•EEC approves final report
• Contradictory arguing
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
The self-evaluation report contains the following chapters:
a) Genesis and evolution of the programme;
b) Structure and content of the programme;
c) Curriculum organisation;
d) Learning and teaching environment;
e) Intake;
f) Success rates;
g) Quality of the graduates;
h) Effectiveness of organisation and staff qualities;
i) The facilities;
j) Internationalisation and external contacts; and
k) Internal quality assessment.
Guidebook, issued by CNAVES, helps the Visiting Committee: terms of
reference and external report
Basically, the Committee has:
• Form an opinion based on supplied information and discussions
• Make suggestions on quality improvement
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
Criticisms at the Evaluation
Process
• Evaluation reports made more visible and known
• Some parameters clarified with assignment of minimum values
• Lack of indicators and parameters
• Need for an effective articulation between evaluation and inspection
• Need to clarify the relations between the evaluation conclusions and the
Portuguese Association of Engineers (Ordem dos Engenheiros)
• Rationalization and increase of financial resources/ foreign experts
• Consideration of market/ Respect to the independence and creativity of the
Institutions
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
Some General Conclusions
and Recommendations
All the University Courses of Engineering evaluated
General conclusions:
• Large majority of these courses got a good appreciation
• Lack of experience on themes related to the enterprises
• Insufficient attention to ethical and deontological areas and integrated
evaluation of students´ competence
• Great retention of students in two initial years
• Lecturers find difficulties to deal with great number of badly prepared and
little motivated students
• Professors besides teaching and research must have professional practice
• Too long time to Final Work of the Course
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
Some general recommendations have been identified:
• Government must be aware of the increasing financial constraints
• Improvement of the preparation obtained at the Secondary School
• Promotion of a dynamic interaction between University and Enterprises
• More lecturers with involvement in engineering projects
• Improvement by the Institutions of a Self-Quality System
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland
Conclusions
• Main objectives have on the whole been achieved
• Universities have improved
ICEE 2005
July 25-29, 2005, Gliwice, Poland