The Quality Assurance of Study Courses (CdS) is a constituent element of the management, monitoring and measurement of the dynamics governing teaching, knowledge and know-how.
The degree courses are at the heart of the educational mission of higher education institutions. They are designed through the identification of the ideal kind(s) of graduate profile in terms of scientific, cultural and/or professional characteristics and, consistently, of the training paths leading to the acquisition of the specific knowledge and skills associated with such profiles.
Course design must involve the students and external stakeholders most appropriate to the character and objectives of the course. The external stakeholders of the degree course include all the actors, organisations and institutions potentially interested in the cultural and professional profile of its graduates (organisations representing the production of goods and services, the professions and/or - if relevant - scientific societies, research centres, academic and cultural institutions of national or international relevance, etc.). Depending on the proposed project, stakeholders may be represented by a Steering Committee, comprising a representation of the Department's faculty and representatives from the world of work, culture and research representing the stakeholders of one or more degree course.
Degree Course - Review Group - Quality Assurance Manager
For the Purposes of Quality Assurance, each Degree Course (CdS) is required to
- apply, within its own remit, the policies and general guidelines for Quality established by the governing bodies;
- carry out self-assessment and reviews of its curriculum and management based on the analyses reported in the annual report of the Joint Professor/Instructor and Student Committee (CPDS) and the data provided by ANVUR, the Evaluation Committee and the Management Control.
- promote continuous improvement and assess its effectiveness;
- implement the evaluation of teaching in accordance with the provisions of the University
- implement the the placements and laboratory activities in accordance with the procedures laid down by the degree course.
The Course Council, through its President, is also responsible for the information reported in the ANVUR documents (SUA-CdS, Annual Monitoring Form, Cyclical Review Report).
To this end, each degree course sets up a Review Group (GdR) made up of figures from within the course itself, able to contribute to the evaluation of the course from different points of view (teaching staff, technical-administrative staff, students). The Review Group is normally composed of the Course President, the Quality Assurance Manager (RAQ), a Student Representative and an Education Manager from the course department, the DADPs and representatives of the teaching staff. The Review Group has the task of guiding the course towards the goals of continually improving its results. The GdR manages the process of self-evaluation, i.e. the process by which the degree course monitors its own performance and assesses its own results, also in accordance with the guidelines established by ANVUR.
In the course of the self-assessment process, the GdR examines everything that can contribute to the analysis of the results of the degree course and, in particular:
- the annual report provided by the relevant Joint Professor/Instructor and Student Committee;
- the report of the Evaluation Committee;
- the progress of students' careers;
- the availability of contextual services (tutoring, internationalisation, guidance, internships, etc.);
- consultation with the relevant socio-economic system of (including the Steering Committee, sector studies, specific meetings with social partners;
- availability of resources (human and infrastructural);
students' opinions on teaching, on the organisation of the course and on the curriculum;
any other information provided by the RAQ, the Education Manager and the Quality Assurance Office Coordinator/Manager.
The work of the Review Group takes the form of the compilation of an Annual Monitoring Form and the drafting of the Cyclical Review Report, which is discussed within the relevant Course Council and forwarded to the University Quality Assurance Body (PQA) and the University Evaluation Committee.
Finally, the Quality Assurance Manager (RAQ) has the function of monitoring and verifying the correct implementation of the improvement actions approved by the Course Council. The RAQ is selected from among the teaching staff of the degree course.
Departmental Quality Assurance Body
In this context, the role of the departments is of paramount importance, as they are fundamental organisational structures for carrying out scientific research, teaching and training activities, as well as for the transfer of knowledge and innovation and for related or ancillary external activities. The Director and the Departmental Council represent the Departmental Governing Bodies responsible for defining the Quality Assurance Policies for Departmental Research and Teaching.
A Departmental Quality Assurance Body (PQD) is established within each department as an operational and liaison body between the department and the University Quality Assurance Body.
The PQD:
- spreads the culture of Quality;
- applies, as far as it is concerned, the policies and general guidelines for Quality established by the Governing Bodies of the University;
- assists the Course Presidents in the drafting of documents for the QA of the degree courses (SUA-CdS, Cyclic Review Report, Annual Monitoring Form);
- assists the Director in the drafting of research QA documents (SUA-RD, any Department programme documents);
- supports the Director and the Departmental Council in the definition of policies and objectives for Quality and QA of research and of the third stream; - promotes continuous improvement in Research and Teaching through self-evaluation activities and evaluates the effectiveness of the actions undertaken.
In addition, the PQD, through the Departmental Education Delegate (as provided for in the ‘Framework Regulation for the Functioning of Departments’), liaises with the Departmental Teaching Committee, a committee with the function of supporting the Director in carrying out his/her responsibilities in teaching matters (as provided for in the ‘Framework Regulation for the Functioning of Departments’), while, through the Departmental Delegate for Research Quality and Third Stream, it verifies the regular execution of the procedures for the drafting of the SUA-RD.
Joint Professor/Instructor and Student Committee
In accordance with the Statute and the University Regulations and the Framework Regulations for the functioning of the Departments, the Joint Professor/Instructor and Student Committee (CPDS) of the departments have been set up, made up of an equal number of teachers and students. The CPDS, if deemed necessary, may be subdivided into subcommittees. It is chaired by one of the tenured professors.
The CPDS is a permanent body that monitors teaching activities.
The CPDS:
- monitors the course catalogue and the educational quality, as well as the service provided to students by professors and researchers within the Department;
- expresses an opinion on the consistency between the credits assigned to educational activities and the specific educational objectives set;
- identifies and monitors indicators for the evaluation of results;
- formulates opinions on the activation and suppression of degree programmes;
- analyses data and information relating to the course catalogue and educational quality;
- it submits proposals to the Evaluation Committee for the improvement of the quality and effectiveness of teaching structures;
- it monitors the indicators that measure the degree of achievement of learning objectives at the level of individual structures.
By 31 December of each year, the CPDS draws up a report in accordance with the quality assurance regulations and forwards it to the Course Presidents attached to the Department, to the Director of the Department, to the Coordinator of the University Quality Assurance Body and to the Coordinator of the University Evaluation Committee. |
