Workshop on Feedback and Survey
Implementation, Feb. 11 – 12, 2013
Sèvres, France
Summary and Results
Tempus project PICQA
Lisa Bydanova, project manager, CIEP
1, avenue Léon-Journault
92318 Sèvres - France

2 days : February 11 to 12, 2013

15 participants from Georgian and Armenian accreditation agencies and universities

Objective: to support A&G accreditation agencies and universities on the following
specific topics
– The implementation of surveys to collect feedback from stakeholders in order to
improve the implementation of internal and external QA.
– The relationships between QA agencies and stakeholders; and The importance
of a high level of communication between all stakeholders;

French experience and also Belgian one
–
–
–
–
Mr. Jean-Pierre Caliste, professor at Université Technologique de Compiègne, in charge of the Master
"Normalisation, Qualité, Certification et Essais" and "Management de la Qualité";
Mrs. Caty Duykaerts, Head of Executive Unit at AEQES, the QA agency responsible for the external
evaluation of the quality of higher education in the French Community in Belgium;
Mr. Quentin Deforge, Student in economics and sociology, specialized in qualitative and quantitative studies.
Member of the French Bologna experts’ team;
Mr. Robert Fouquet, University professor at Université Jean Monnet Saint Etienne and Scientific advisor at
Agence d'Evaluation de la Recherche et de l'Enseignement Supérieur (AERES, France).
© CIEP
Main conclusions

Surveys and feedback collection let receive information in order
to improve the proccess of assessment

BUT, it is also a tool for building relationships with
stakeholders

There are no rules, only practices or best practices.
– The objective of the seminar was to learn from each other.
© CIEP
surveying
and adjustments
surveying
communication
IQA
Presentation by Caty Duykaerts, AEQES, Feb. 11 – 12,
2013, Sèvres
What is important for the agency is to develop
well the quality of the relationship with its
stakeholders and its environment in general
Presentation by Bruno Curvale, CIEP,
February 2013
5
AEQES
expected impact
and challenges
Overall quality enhancement
Development of purposeful QA systems
Collaborative work between HEIs and other stakeholders
Implementation of shared values
Handle diversity across higher education
Fight bureaucracy and help spread quality culture
Communicate (results) in the best manner
Presentation by Caty Duykaerts, AEQES, Feb. 11 – 12, 2013, Sèvres
It is important to put the feedback loop and the
surveys in the wider context of the external
communication strategy of the agency
Then…
To design fit for purpose and usable surveys
To analyse surveys samples and data already
collected
Presentation by Bruno Curvale, CIEP,
February 2013
7
The AERES environment relationship tools
The different tools:
- The AERES board
- The website
- The expert training sessions
- The feedback process
The AERES board (25 members):
- Nine qualified members (some of them work in private research)
- Fourteen members who are researchers, engineers or professors of public
higher education, research institutions and research organizations
- Two parliamentary members
- No student
- Role of the board : set the evaluation methods and procedures
Presentation by Robert Fouquet, AERES, Feb. 11 – 12, 2013, Sèvres
The AERES environment relationship tools
The website:
- Main public communication tool
- Published documents:
 Evaluation methodology
 Evaluation reports: institutions, research units, programmes
 Evaluation campaign results and analysis
The expert training sessions :
- One training session each year for the experts of different committees
- Training contents:
 Procedure description
 New process analysis
 Conference on a specific theme (finance analysis, techniques of
interview, changes in higher education and research …..)
 Sequences of working group
The AERES environment relationship tools
The experience feedback process:
- Three working directions:
 Ministries
 Heads of institutions
 Experts
The different stages
Four stages concerning experience feedback for heads of institution :
- Analysis of institution observations included in the final reports
- A questionnaire sent to each head of institution
- A meeting with the heads of institution
- A experience feedback public report
The analysis of institution observations
The analysis method :
- Identification and count of the individual positive and negative observations
- The analysis process of the observations:
 grouping together similar observations
 and count occurrence number
- Comparison with previous year and progress analysis
The questionnaire features:
- Anonymous questionnaire
- A possibility of free comments for each part of the questionnaire
Clarification of objectives is crucial for the agency
and for the stakeholders
- What do we want to know
- Why do we want to know
- Who can answer our questions?
-
Questionnaires should be focused
-
The formulation of the questions should be
adapted
Presentation by Bruno Curvale, CIEP,
February 2013
13