¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ

The University of Antwerp monitors the quality of its study programmes via a six-year quality assurance cycle. This cycle is based on the university's existing internal quality assurance processes.

The principles underlying programme evaluation are:

• confidence in and appreciation of the quality of the programmes;
• a clear focus on continuous improvement;
• an independent and critical perspective in every programme assessment;
• building on the existing quality assurance and quality culture within the institution.

The programme evaluation meets the requirements of the

The quality assurance cycle consists of three components within a six-year period:

1. Systematic care of educational development is maintained throughout the cycle.
2. Internal process monitoring and guidance in year 4 of the cycle.
3. Self-reflection with peer review in year 6 of the cycle.

Each programme is scheduled within this cycle and progresses through it continuously. shows the six-year cycle of the programmes.

Systematic care of educational development

During the six-year quality cycle, study programmes and faculties continuously monitor and improve their education. For that purpose, various sources of information are collected and analysed, including student surveys, study time measurements, discussions with alumni and the professional sector, evaluations of the programme as a whole and data on intake, progression and drop-out rates. Each programme's education committee coordinates this quality process, supported by the faculty’s CIKO (Cell for Innovation and Quality Assurance in Education). All processes, results and improvement actions are recorded in the digital education portfolio, ensuring that quality assurance is transparent, consistent and firmly embedded within the university.

Quality assurance is based on the ¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ vision of education, which defines high-quality programmes based on two key quality aspects:

1. Core competences, congruence and assessment
2. The final level of the programme.

In the education portfolio, each programme's education committee documents the basic information regarding these quality aspects, as well as how it addresses them. The basic documentation includes current core competencies, a consistent curriculum and assessment policy, and evidence that each quality aspect is discussed in detail at least once every six years by the education committee. In this way, the portfolio demonstrates what the programme offers and how it ensures quality systematically.

Internal process monitoring and guidance (IPS)

The IPS focuses on quality assurance processes within each study programme, initially drawing on documentation from the education portfolio. Following a document analysis, the Department of Education identifies the programme's strengths and challenges relating to its two key quality aspects. Where relevant, faculty documents are also considered (e.g. faculty assessment policy, CIKO activities).

The key question is: to what extent is sufficient and high-quality systematic care for educational development ensured within the Education Committee (OC) of the programme? Three key points are central to this:

• Does the OC monitor and discuss the key quality aspects? How has the programme developed over the past six years?
• How are quality assurance tools, processes and faculty policy utilised?
• What is the status of the development plan since the previous peer review?

Following an exploration of the portfolio (in consultation with the CIKO), the Department of Education will discuss the findings with the Vice-Rector for Education and Student Affairs. This is followed by a co-creation meeting with the programme coordinators and CIKO, during which the programme's strengths and challenges are identified, as well as any support needed by institutional policy. The outcome is a report for the education committee of the programme, which is also shared by the CIKO and the Education Council.

Although the IPS is not designed for direct preparation for the peer review, it is the first step in that process. During the co-creation meeting, themes or areas of focus may emerge that could later inform the self-reflection process preparing the peer review. To facilitate this, the IPS takes place in year 4 of the quality cycle, two years before the peer review.

Self-reflection with peer review

Every six years, each study programme spends a considerable amount of time reflecting on its quality and future plans. In a self-reflection report, the programme describes its aims, how it intends to achieve them, areas for improvement and the actions it is taking to improve and innovate further.

This report is the basis for a site visit by a peer review team comprising internal and external experts, as well as a student from another faculty. Rather than monitoring compliance with standards, this team acts as a committed discussion partner, critically and constructively questioning the programme on the basis of its self-reflection.

During the site visit, the team identifies strengths, suggestions and areas for improvement for the programme, and provides an assessment of its quality and future-oriented approach. If the outcome is positive, confidence in the programme is confirmed. If necessary, the programme may be given a recovery period to implement targeted improvements.

Following the visit, the programme will draw up a development plan setting out how it will act on the feedback. Together, the peer review report and the development plan form the integrated report.

Public Reporting and Quality Assurance Decision

Two public reports are produced based on the integrated report: a short summary aimed at prospective students, and a more detailed report. This detailed public report explains how the assessment was carried out to make the process transparent. The Programme Evaluation Board validates both public reports and the integrated report. This means that the Board checks whether the peer review procedure has been correctly followed, whether the peer review team's final judgement is sufficiently substantiated, and whether the public reports accurately reflect the review report and the integrated report. The Board consists of six members: three academic members from the three scientific fields who are recognised for their expertise and experience in education and quality assurance, the head of the education department, a student member and an external chair.

The composition of the Programme Evaluation Board is as follows:

• Dirk Fransaer, senior consultant (external chair)
• Peter Bursens, Full Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences
• Els Laenens, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Sciences
• Bart Van Rompaey, Professor, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
• Luc Van de Poele, Head of the Department of Education
• Student representative appointed by the ¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ Student Council

Following validation by the Programme Evaluation Board, the integrated and public reports are submitted to the Education Board and the Board of Governors of ¶¶Òõ¶ÌÊÓƵ. Once the Board of Governors has taken note of these reports, the institution’s governing body will determine the quality of the programme and assume responsibility for it. The Board of Governors will then take the quality assurance decision.

The public report on the programme's quality can be found on the quality assurance page of its website. Use this page to find the programme you are looking for.