Current State of the Institutional Quality Assurance Management at the University of Split

byProfessor Ivan SlapnicarVicedeanFESB, University of Split

Dubrovnik, October 11, 2003

Croatia

GovernmentParliament

Ntnl. Council for Higher Education

Ministry of Science & Technology

Universities(Osijek, Rijeka, Split, Zagreb)

Faculties

Rectors’ Conference

Scientific Expert Boards

Evaluation and accreditation of Study Programmes and Institutions

Promotions of Professors

Advice

University of Split Founded 1974, faculties in 1960-ties 15,000 students, 1,200 employees,

650 faculty and teaching staff Additionally 5,600 students in 2-year

vocational programmes 13 faculties and 2 departments No Strategic Plan yet, no QA

Agency All programmes accredited

Teaching indicator

Teachers and Students

Professors Teaching Staff

Total Teachers

Students Students / Teachers

Split 343 305 648 12,000 18.5

Zagreb 2,023 1,037 3,060 51,000 16.6

U. Helsinki 2,383 3,469 5,852 37,000 6.3

TU Helsinki 232 270 570 14,000 24.5

Scientific Indicator

Current Contents Data Base from 1993 to 2003

University of Split (Split.in) 787

University of Zagreb (Zagreb.in) 8,926

University of Helsinki and Technical University of Helsinki (Helsinki.in)

35,277

Analysed Faculties

FESB, http://www.fesb.hr, 1,503 students EF, http://www.efst.hr, 2,283 students MF, http://www.mefst.hr, 334 students NAT, http://www.pmfst.hr, 652 students These account for 40% university

students in Split.

Management structure (FESB)

Dean and 3 Vicedeans 6 departments (Heads) Chairs Collegium = Dean + Vicedeans +

Heads (weekly meetings) Faculty Council = 52 Professors and 5

students (monthly meetings)

Student Evaluations University: provisions in the Statute,

questionnaire defined. FESB

each semester 40% of the students general results on the web average marks: 3.8 (FESB), 4.03

Professors, 4.10 TAs own set of questions

Student Evaluations EF

last year, no statistical analysis intentions to continue – development of

more suitable set of questions MF

after each session 90%-100% of students average marks 3.5-4.0 clear actions to be taken (Chairs)

Student Evaluations

NAT recently started 50% of the students involved planned each semester University questionnaire average marks good actions to be taken by Heads

Information Systems

FESB: own high quality system with all statistical data – developed over 20 years

Ministry: offers ISVU system – not yet widely adopted

NAT: none

Quality Improvement

Vary within the university Mid-term exams: FESB and others Up-to-date equipment including

Teleconferencing Publishing textbooks (FESB), similar

incentives EF Introducing ECTS in new studies

Improvement of Teaching Practices

No University Education Center Use of equipment left to teachers

(80% at EF) CARNet offers some courses MF: specialised teacher courses EF: sends younger staff to MS or PhD

abroad (TEMPUS)

Following Graduates

FESB – informal contacts EF – strong Alumni Association MF – close contacts with the hospital NAT – close contacts with schools

Participation of students

Insufficient Tends to improve

Recommendations Strategic Plan Quality assurance agency or board Incentives to improve teaching University-wide Information System University-wide student evaluations + statistics Evaluations of faculties and programmes public SWAT analysis + act upon it Higher international standards for faculty

promotions

Chicken or egg?

Or: are improvements possible in current (economic) situation?

Croatia vs. Germany Split vs. Zagreb