DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011

GYUMRI STATE PEDAGOGICAL INSTITUTE (GSPI)

ESG Standard 1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance There seem to exist somehow "unconscious" procedures regarding quality in teaching and learning but no systematic approach; the installment of a special QA center is not a condition sine qua no for effective quality management; QM processes and structures can also be embedded in existing units and procedures; it remains unclear if there is strategic planning with regard to quality enhancement or if there are consistent or and explicit quality policies. As it is stated the quality assurance policy and procedures are not defined yet. Currently the activities of development and establishment of internal quality assurance system according to ESG are underway. For this purpose a working group is formed. Considering the fact that the quality assurance establishment is still in its inception phase no information with regards to evaluation and feedback mechanisms as well as improvement of the activities in stated. However, specialized staff seems to be in action for designing a internal QA-system. 2. Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards Academic programme development, approval, monitoring and review mechanisms are in place. But the institution lacks programme review and evaluation mechanisms. In regard with programme descriptions, expected learning outcomes, appropriate teaching and learning methods, the benchmarking process is missing. Traditionally used planning procedures for educational programmes seem to be in place but not linked to a cyclic QA-approach. feedback and evaluation do not take place systematically as stated in the self assessment. The regular evaluation mechanisms of programmes and awards are not developed; nevertheless the mentioned benchmarking is not an indispensable instrument for effective QM; GSPI should define what quality related information is needed and then decide the appropriate instrument for collecting this information. No information available if and what improvement is planned for. 3. Assessment of Students No information available if and what improvement is planned for. Students participate in reviewing the assessment process. No indication of other feedback mechanisms. The regular review of assessment process takes place but there is no indication on mechanisms for further activities. It remains unclear to what extent assessment of students is evaluated referring to quality expectations (i. e. orientation towards learning outcomes in the assessment of students); nevertheless the mentioned benchmarking is not an indispensable instrument for effective QM; GSPI should define what quality related information is needed and then decide the appropriate instrument for collecting this information. 4. Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff No information is available if there exists staff development planning related to quality of teaching; GSPU complains not to have a coherent approach to quality of teaching staff. The institution lacks teaching staff 1

DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 recruitment, assessment, professional development, encouragement policy and procedures defined. In regard with quality assurance provision of teaching staff, regular professional development activities are carried out. The assessment of the staff is implemented through student opinion surveys. However, there is no indication of the improvement mechanisms. There seem to take place staff performance assessments but it is not clear what scope and focus these assessments have. Students' opinions are expressed through the regular process of teaching staff assessment. There is no indication of other feedback mechanisms. Feedback mechanisms are mentioned that involve students' opinion. There is no indication of other evaluation mechanisms for quality assurance of teaching staff. No information available if and what improvement is planned for. 5. Learning Resources and Student Support The institution possesses the major learning resources essential for achieving the intended learning outcomes. It also provides student support in the form of consultations. However, there is no evaluation and review mechanism of this process that would lead to improvement of student support provision. No information is available whether there exist traditional planning procedures with regard to resources and student support. The feedback mechanisms seem not to exist, quality of learning resources an student support does not seem to be quality checked systematically. No information is available if and what improvement is planned for. 6. Information Systems The ESG seem to be understood differently that we would understand them here: GSPI complains not to have procedures/criteria assuring quality of the information management itself rather than describing how quality related data are collected and stored and made available to stakeholder. There are no developed information management mechanisms, assessment standards, and tools. 7. Public Information The ESG seem to be understood differently that we would understand them here: GSPI complains not to have procedures/criteria assuring quality of the public information approach itself rather than explaining how the public is informed about the findings of the internal QA; there seem to exist public information mechanisms but it remains unclear if the public is informed about quality matters in teaching and learning. The institution lacks defined policy and procedures, as well as the assessment procedures and tools of public information provision. The evaluation and review mechanisms of public information are not stated.