DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
Name: SIG DLAE Tool for Assesors
Code: xxxx
Edition: 1
Date: 2005/03/31
APPLICANT IDENTIFICATION
Institution Name
Application Code
ANNEXES
Annex Number Pages
Identification
Score: Objective evaluation of the criteria, with possible values:
0 - Criteria not taken into account by institution
1 - Criteria not fullfiled (less than 30 %) or not enough evidences
2 - Criteria poorly fullfiled (beween 30 %-50 %), partial results or evidences
3 - Criteria partially accomplished (more than 50 %),most results and evidence available
4 - Criteria usually accomplished (more than 80 %), possibility for enhancements, all evidence available
5 - Criteria always accomplished (100%), all results and evidence available
Evidence and Results: Percentage of evidence and results collected in relation to total cases reviewed during assesors
evaluation
NOTE to discuss:
Accreditation MUST be the result of an objective evaluation, so criteria must be specified in a way that allows
measurement (i.e. exists a Quality Plan? Yes, here it is, any other answer (like not really, but we have stablished
procedures ... or the like) is No)
Then, to assess accreditation, we can set a minimum rating for each criteria, for example, at least a 4 in all non-distance
criteria, and a 5 required for distance specific criteria.
F1101 Section
Related
Questions / What to look for
Forms
/
Documents
2.1
Pedagogical
Design
2.1.2 Requirements
2.1.3
Objectives
Didactic F2101
2.1.4
Didactic F2102
Environment
The programme should be relevant for
the professional needs
the programme should be appropriate
in respect to the learning target
The educational objectives are clearly
stated.
The educational objectives are arranged
in a hierarchy.
They are to be measurable.
The programme should be appropriate
with respect to the learning objectives
At a general level the programme
should specify:
Total duration of curriculum (eg.
Master’s degree)
the number of hours of didactical
activities in virtual or face to face
sessions
the percentage of lessons to be
managed on-line
the hours of asynchronous activities
Evidence and Criteria
Results (%)
Score Comments
%
working
alummni/enrolle
d students of that
promotions
drop out rate
The educational
objectives
are
clearly stated and
are measurable
(indicators exist).
From the form
information , the
evaluation
is
subjective (i.e,
what
is
"appropriate" for
a given course?).
The
assesor
should be an
expert
SIG DLAE Tool for Assesors
Page 1 of 5
2.1.5 Communication F2103
Issues
2.2
Technical
Facilities
2.2.2
Technological
Features map
2.3 Monitoring and
Evaluation
2.3.2 Fullfilment of F2301
requirements
F2302
F2303
2.3.3 Monitoring and Indicators
Evaluation of learning
(excluding self-study)
any requirements for project work
and/or placements or internships
The
programme
must
provide
information about the learning target,
the target group, implementation, the
support system, verification of learning
success, and the diploma delivered.
The contents should take into account
the latest research and trends in that
field of knowledge
The methodologies selected must be
appropriate
The programme should provide
satisfactory educational services
The levels of assistance and response
time to queries should be established
The Applicant must give a complete
and honest description of the course
The programme should describe the
roles and the responsibilities of the staff
involved in the pedagogical process
and in particular in monitoring
activities,
assessment
activities,
provision and management of teaching
tools and support activities.
The communication strategy is
explicitly declared by the Applicant
body
the choices pursued are coherent with
the didactical aim of the course
the communication flows are effective
the system is flexible in response to the
users’ needs
Define Indicators
(see
3.1.3,
F3121)
The technical and support equipment
must be appropriate and effective in to
the didactic aims of the course
The functions offered by the platform
must be appropriate and effective
As in 2.1, the
evaluation
is
subjective,
however,
effectivity
indicators could
be defined
Clearly stated educational objectives.
Quality of the curriculum (to be
defined).
Ability to Implement the curriculum
Appropriateness of the curriculum.
Demonstrate course relevance to
professional needs and environments
Evaluation of fulfilment of professional
objectives
Indicators about
success and drop
out
rates,
employed
alumni, surveys
from companies
employing
alummni
and
students
(as
"grantees").
Is
there
a
monitoring and
evaluation
policy?
Indicator
and
action
records
(measurement
and
effectiveness)
Evaluation process: getting of a
minimum standard of results in each
didactic area
corrective actions taken with students
whose performance is weak.
Monitoring of activities: an on-line
tracking system for recording and
reviewing activities and results
acquired by each student for each
didactic objective
Verification of learning success:
knowledge, skills and competences
Evidence of the students’ performances
Final exams in a face to face situation.
SIG DLAE Tool for Assesors
Page 2 of 5
2.3.4 Monitoring and Indicators
Evaluation of student
satisfaction
2.3.5 Monitoring and
Evaluation of didactic
usefulness of learning
tools
Indicators,
user
(students
and
staff)
surveys
3.1 Organisation of the
Education
3.1.2
Mission F3101
statement
F3102
3.1.3 Communication
services
3.1.4 Admission and
certification services
3.1.5 Contractual and
legal issues
3.1.6 Relationships to
Firms
Ratio between hours of face to face
activity and distance sessions
Percentage of lessons managed on-line
Hours of asynchronous activities
Presence of project work and/or
internship
The
course
must
provide
satisfactory educational services
for the students
Regular monitoring of the
students has to be required
- The levels of assistance and response
time for queries are established. The
relationships with tutors must be
positive.
- Students must be allowed to express
their ideas and feelings about didactic
process and comment on the personal
level of satisfaction
- Demonstration of ample student
success and satisfaction.
- Drop out rate of students
User-friendliness of interface.
Ease of use.
Does it exist
Is it publicly available
Does it clearly state the aims of the
institution
Does it clearly state the certificates the
institution issues, and its "legal value"
Is the institution financially sound, able
to deliver high quality educational
services
F3120
Is communication "controlled" in some
F3121
way, is there a Communication policy
F3122
Is it sistematic
Are its effects measured, if so is it
efficient and effective
Admission
Is there an admission policy
policy
Is it public
Are the results of admission requests
public
What certification the institution issues
Are they of legal value (i.e useful to get
a job)
Are they publicly recognised (i.e,
useful to get a better job)
Enrollment
Has the institution legal suport or
Contract
advise
Is there a "common contract" available
before signing in
Does exist a refund policy
Does the institution support or provide
grants
Is the institution profitable (if it is for
profit)
Collaboratio Does the institution collaborate with
n
the real business world
Agreements, Are there agreements to provide
student
students with real work experience
grants
before graduation
documents, Are there contacts or collaborations
companies
between academic staff and enterprises,
Is
there
a
monitoring and
evaluation
policy?
Indicator
and
action
records
(measurement
and
effectiveness)
As in 2.2, the
evaluation
is
subjective, but
indicators from
surveys can be
extracted
Does exist a
clear statement
of the aims of the
institution
Does exist a
formal
Communication
Policy,
Does exist a
public admission
policy
Is the certificate
issued
recognised
(either
legally
or/and
as
a
reference)
Is
there
a
"common
contract"
available before
signing in
Are
there
agreements
to
provide students
with real work
experience
before
graduation
SIG DLAE Tool for Assesors
Page 3 of 5
evaluation
of students
3.1.7 Quality plan
Documented
Quality plan
Procedures
Improvemen
t
actions
records
3.2 Human resources
3.2.2
Management F3102
staff suitability for European
education programme CVs
is that kind of collaboration promoted
If applicable, is the institution involved
in research activities
Does exist a quality policy
Is it explicit (ie, public quality policies
and procedures, iso-certification)
Are all the activities covered
(management and educational)
Does it include improvement activities,
for programmes, courses, staff
How does it compare with a standard
(we will have to find or define one!)
Are they qualifications available
Are they involved in educational
activities
Do they have a deciding "vote" on the
educational side (i.e, economic issues
more important than learning service,
for example)
Does exist some kind of collaboration
with external, expert staff
3.2.3 Academic staff European
suitability
for CV
education programme Student
surveys
about
teachers
Teacher
surveys
about
institution
Are
they
independent
from
management issues
Are they involved in management
activities
Do they participate in managing the
programmes and courses they are
involved in (i.e. who has the last word)
Do they collaborate with external
institutions
Do they have the resources needed to
provide the expected education at the
expected level
3.2.4 Academic staff Training
training
and plans
development
Do they have training plans to improve
and keep up-to-date their courses and
programmes
3.2.5 Academic staff European
CVs
CV
3.2.Administrative and
service staff
3.3 Physical resources
3.3.2 Availability of F3301
hw and sw resources
3.3.1 Security of hw F3310
and sw resources
Do they have improvement goals
Are they qualifications available, and
are suitable for the matters they teach
Do they have the training needed for
their support activities
Does exist specific training for them
Do they receive specific training to
support the services they provide in
relation to education
Is there a policy to manage educational
resources
Are they adequate to offer the expected
quality as per the institution mission
statement and polices
Are they renewed periodically, and its
status controlled
Are they available for the students
Are they provided for a fee or included
in the enrolment costs
Are there agreements with providers to
support students, staff
Is there a security policy to control
resources, access to them, and their
physical protection, and is it recorded
in some way
Does exist a
"working"
quality policy ?
Evaluation can
be
subjective,
but
indicators
from surveys can
be extracted. A
minimum
number of years
of experience in
management
could be an
objective criteria
As in 2.2, the
evaluation
is
subjective, but
indicators from
surveys and can
be extracted A
minimum
number of years
of experience in
teaching (in the
mode they do
their
courses)
could be an
objective criteria
Does exist a
training plan?
Are
there
training records
available?
Does exist a
training plan?
Are
there
training records
available?
Invoices
for
equipment, sw
licenses, support
contracts
Does exist a
security policy?
SIG DLAE Tool for Assesors
Page 4 of 5
SIG DLAE Tool for Assesors
Page 5 of 5