ABCDEHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
INTERNAL REVIEW OF SELF EVALUATION REPORT
KEHUTANAN
2
3
ASIIN 5 CRITERIA
4
5
1. The Degree Programme: Concept, content & implementation
GUIDING QUESTIONS
Comments based on Evidence and Guiding Questions
6
7
Criterion 1.1 Objectives and learning outcomes of a degree programme (intended qualifications profile)
8
The objectives and learning outcomes (the intended competence profile) of the degree programme as a whole are described briefly and concisely. They are transparently anchored and published and thus are available to students, lecturers and interested third parties.
The objectives and learning outcomes reflect the targeted academic qualification level, are feasible and equivalent to the relevant exemplary learning outcomes specified in the applicable SSC (academic classification).
With the intended competence profile, a professional activity corresponding to the level of qualification (according to the European Qualifications Framework ) can be taken up (professional classification).
The relevance of the objectives and learning outcomes for both the labour market and society is regularly reviewed in a process that involves the relevant stakeholders (in par-ticular from higher education and professional practice) and, if necessary, the objectives are revised accordingly.		• Are the learning outcomes described in a consistent manner across all official documents, websites and marketing material?
• How has the intended competence profile of the degree programme been developed (regarding launch of the process, procedure, participants?
• How does the higher education institution correlate the competence profile with the sample learning outcomes from the, in their opinion, (most) relevant Subject-Specific Criteria (SSC)?
(Notice: Please use the empty Objectives-Module-Matrix).
• Where do the responsible persons see possible differences to the relevant Sub-ject-Specific Criteria (SSC)? How can they be explained?
• For interdisciplinary degree programmes: How does the defined competence pro-file take into account the specifications of the interdisciplinary character?
(Notice: Please use the empty Objectives-Module-Matrix)
• Do the defined competence objectives for graduates of the degree programme find the approval of the students and the teaching staff?
• Have the learning outcomes of the degree programme been verified within the last few years? If so, for what reasons were adjustments made?
• How does the intended competence profile comply with specific areas of the pro-fession?
• Are there any peculiarities within in qualitative or quantitative data/information of the higher education institution with regard to the acceptance of the competence profile on the labour market?		1. Pengertian PLO dan Graduate Profile perlu dibedakan - lihat definisi PLO yang seharusnya diukur setelah lulusan bekerja beberapa tahun (tracer study pada TS-4 sd TS-2).
2. CPL ada 6 buah, namun belum clear perbedaan antara Knowledge dan Skills yang diharapkan dari lulusan.
3. Guiding questions perlu dicek kembali, mana yang belum terjawab..
9
2
10
Criterion 1.2 Name of the degree programme
11
The title of the degree programme reflects the intended objectives and learning out-comes as well as the teaching and learning content and, in principle also the teaching lan-guage of the programme.
The designation (both in the original language and in English) is used consistently in all relevant documents.		• What are the reasons for the name of the degree programme?
• Does the name of the degree programme correspond with the terminology used by the subject-specific community?
• Are the names of the degree programmes justified by their contents and the in-tended profile of the graduates?
• Have any misunderstandings or wrong expectations by students or by employers occurred which might be due to the name? If so, how was the reaction?		apakah bisa disebutkan mengenai "misunderstanding" terkait nama yang pernah terjadi ???
12
13
Criterion 1.3 Curriculum
14
Content
The curriculum enables students to achieve the intended learning outcomes.
Learning outcomes are defined for each module, which, in total, enable the achievement of the overarching programme objectives.
If an internship is included in the programme, it is well-integrated into the curriculum. The higher education institution assumes responsibility for the quality of the internship in terms of its content and structure. To this end, the university coordinates with the partic-ipating companies and supervises the students during the internship.
Structure of the programme
Each module represents a well-matched unit of teaching and learning.
It becomes clear which knowledge, skills and competences the students acquire in each module.
The order of the modules ensures that the learning outcomes can be achieved and that the programme can be completed within the standard period of study.
The programme is organised in a way that allows for individual focal points and courses of study.
Student mobility
The higher education institution promotes (international) student mobility through an appropriate framework (structural design of the degree programme, recognition of quali-fications and support services).
Periodic Review of the Curriculum
The curriculum is periodically reviewed with regard to the implementation of the pro-gramme objectives; curricular changes are documented. This review also includes wheth-er the order of modules enables students to graduate within the standard period of study.		• From the viewpoint of the responsible persons and participants of the degree programme, how does the curriculum/ how do the single modules (the structure and content) contribute towards achieving the intended competence profile?
• In the course of matching the intended competence profile with the curriculum has there been any need for adjustments within the last few years? What were the reasons? What was the reaction?
• How were the results of internship / practice interval assessed? Were there any problems with the organization or the quality of the working practice intervals of the students? If yes, what was done? Do the possibly necessary working practice intervals of the degree programme fulfil the expectations with regard to the in-tended learning outcomes?
Structure of the programme
• How is it ensured that the modules are consistent within themselves, are matched against each other and, where applicable, build upon each other? How do those responsible for the degree programme react if single modules do not fit (any-more) into the general concept of the degree programme?
• How do those responsible for the degree programme recognize that the modules of a degree programme viewed all together support the intended academic level?
• In what way do the offered election options within the degree programme pro-mote the achievement of the intended competence profile?
Student mobility
• To what extent are the students able to implement individual windows of mobili-ty? What problems are there? How was the reaction towards them?
• Were there any problems with regard to the intended graduation time during the last few years? If yes, what problems? How were they dealt with?
Periodic Review of the Curriculum
• How the implementation of the programme objectives in the curriculum is evalu-ated?
• How it is evaluated whether the order of modules enables students to graduate within the standard period of study		Deskripsi kurikulum perlu diperjelas, mencakup aspek Content, Structure, student mobility and periodic review ??
15
16
Criterion 1.4 Admission requirements
17
The admission requirements and procedures are binding and transparent. They ensure that students are in principle able to successfully graduate from the programme.
In case of possible compensation for missing admission requirements, respective rules are defined. In such a case, appropriate courses to acquire the necessary competences should be offered. Compensation for missing prior knowledge must not decrease the qualification level of the degree programme.
Rules for the recognition of qualifications achieved externally (e.g. at other higher educa-tion institutions or outside the higher education sector) are clearly defined. They facilitate the transition between higher education institutions and with non-university places of learning without jeopardising the achievement of learning outcomes at the desired level. They are based on the principles of the Lisbon Convention.
It is regularly evaluated whether the regulations ensure sufficient (subject-related) prior knowledge of the students.		• What are the admission requirements for national and international students? What are the differences?
• How do the responsible persons recognize that the (formal and subject-specific) admission requirements promote the achievement of the intended competence profiles?
• If applicable: What was the reaction if the admission requirements did not fulfil this objective from the point of view of those responsible?
• How is evaluated whether the admission regulation ensure that applicants have sufficient prior knowledge to study successfully? 		Beberapa questions belum terjawab, seperti requirements untuk international students serta apakah the admission regulation ensure that applicants have sufficient prior knowledge to study successfully
18
19
Criterion 1.5 Work load and credits
20
A credit system is based on the student workload is implemented. The workload includes contact hours and self-study time. All compulsory components of the study programme are included. Credits are awarded for every module based on the respective workload.
Bachelor's degree programmes have a total student workload of at least 180 ECTS credits; master's degree programmes have a total student workload of at least 60 ECTS credits. As a rule, 300 ECTS credits are achieved by the time a master's degree is awarded.
The estimated workload is realistic and well-founded, so that the study programme can be completed in the standard period of study. Structural peaks in the workload are avoid-ed.
It is regularly monitored whether the credits awarded for each module correspond to the actual student workload and whether the distribution of the workload across all semes-ters enables graduation within the standard period of study. Students are involved in these processes. If adjustments are made, they are well documented.		• By which process is student workload corroborated?
• On what basis (of calculation) are credit points allocated to single modules?
• Are all mandatory parts of the degree programme (including working practice in-tervals) awarded with credits? If not, why?
• How is evaluated whether the credits awarded for each module correspond to the actual student workload?
• How do those responsible for the degree programme and other stakeholders - in-cluding the students - rate the student workload? What problems do occur? What is done to solve them?		1. perjelas bagaimana SKS ditentukan untuk setiap modul
2. bagaimana pendapat stakeholders tentang workload ??
21
Criterion 1.6 Didactics and Teaching Methodology
22
A variety of teaching methods and didactic means are used to promote achieving the learning outcomes and support student-centred learning and teaching. It must be con-sidered that digital and face-to-face teaching and working infrastructures are equally im-portant and mutually enrich each other.
The degree programme contains an adequate balance of contact hours and self-study time.
Introducing students to independent scientific work is an integral part of the study pro-gramme.
It is regularly reviewed whether the utilised learning and teaching methods support the achievement of the programme objectives		• How do the teaching staff and those responsible for the degree programme rec-ognize that didactical instruments and methods promote the achievement of the intended learning outcomes of the degree programme?
• Are all members of the teaching staff able to apply the didactical instruments and methods most ideal in their opinion? If not, why?
• What elements support the independent scientific work of the students?		Bagaimana bisa dijelaskan kesesuaian antara metode pembelajaran dengan ILO yang ditargetkan ? Untuk AUN, ada matriks hubungan teaching method dengan ELO yang disampaikan
23
24
2. Exams: System, Concept & Organisation
25
26
Criterion 2 Exams: System, concept and organisation
27
Exams assess the extent to which the defined learning objectives have been achieved.
Exams relate to specific modules. They provide students with feedback on the compe-tencies that they have acquired.
The study programme includes a final thesis or final project. It demonstrates that the students are able to work independently on a task at the intended level of the degree programme.
Types of exams (with possible alternatives) are specified for each module. Students are informed about the conditions for completing the module (coursework, exams etc.) lat-est at the beginning of the module. There are transparent rules for make-up exams, non-attendance, cases of illness as well as compensation of disadvantages in the case of stu-dents with disabilities or special needs (e.g. pregnancy, childcare, caring for relatives) etc.
The number and distribution of exams ensure an adequate workload as well as sufficient time for preparation. The organisation of the exams ensures a smooth study process.
Examinations are marked according to transparent criteria. Students have the opportuni-ty to consult their lecturers about the results of their exams.
In the event that final theses or projects are carried out outside the higher education in-stitution, the institution assumes responsibility for their content and favourable struc-tural conditions.
It is regularly reviewed whether the exams can adequately determine the achievement of the learning objectives, whether the requirements are appropriate to the level of the de-gree programme and whether students have sufficient time for preparing and conducting the exams.		• Which of the used forms of examination are considered by the teaching staff and the people responsible for the degree programme to be particularly suited to veri-fy the achieved learning outcomes?
• Which consequences for the feasibility of the degree programme do the existing regulations on possible re-sits, disability compensation for handicapped students, absence because of illness etc., have?
• Were there any cases where the specific exam management (e.g. date of exam, correction time) had negative effects on the study progress? If yes, what conclu-sions were drawn?
• How are the assessment criteria made transparent for the students and teaching staff?
• What experiences have been made with student assignments completed outside the institution with respect to quality assurance and level of compliance with the quality expectations?
• What is the University’s policy on fraud, plagiarism and academic integrity?
• How is evaluated whether the exams can adequately determine the achievement of the learning objectives by students?
• How is evaluated whether students have sufficient time for preparing and con-ducting the exams.
28
29
3 Resources
30
31
Criterion 3.1 Staff and Staff Development
32
The composition, professional orientation and qualification of the teaching staff are suit-able for successfully executing the degree programme.
The research and development of the teaching staff contributes to the desired level of education.
Lecturers have the opportunity to further develop their professional and didactic skills and are supported in using corresponding offers.
It is regularly reviewed whether the subject-specific and didactic qualifications of the lec-turers contribute adequately to the delivery of the degree programme.		• How do those responsible for the degree programme recognise that the number of staff members for teaching, supervision and support of students is sufficient?
• How do those responsible for the programme ensure that the academic qualifica-tion of the teaching staff are sufficient?
• How satisfied are those involved in the degree programme with the amount of re-sources available for teaching, supervision and administration?
• In what way do the research and development activities carried out by the teach-ing staff support the development of the degree programme?
• Who is responsible for the academic and didactic development of the teaching staff?
• How do the responsible persons recognize that professional development measures are wanted or necessary?
• How is evaluated whether the subject-specific and didactic qualifications of the lecturers
• How do those responsible for the degree programme react on occurring problems and bottlenecks?
• What constitutes the quality of possibly employed visiting lecturers and how is this measured?
33
Criterion 3.2 Student Support and Student Services
34
Sufficient human resources and organisational structures are available for
- individual subject-specific and general counselling, supervision and support of students
- administrative and technical tasks.
The allocated advice and guidance (both technical and general) on offer assist the stu-dents in achieving the learning outcomes and in completing the course within the sched-uled time.		Guiding Questions
• Which of the existing advice and support on offer for students are deemed by those involved in the degree programme – including students – to be the most ef-fective with respect to the academic success?
• How is support provided at different stages? (ex: admissions, studies, career…)
• What advice and support on offer for students are missed by the stakeholders in-cluding the students? Why are they not put into practice?
35
Criterion 3.3 Funds and equipment
36
The financial resources and the available equipment constitute a sustainable basis for delivering the degree programme. This includes
- secure funding and reliable financial planning,
- sufficient infrastructure in terms of both quantity and quality
- binding regulation of internal and external cooperation		• How satisfied are the participants of the degree programme with its equipment and facilities?
• How do the people responsible for the degree programme react to bottlenecks in equipment and facilities?
• Do the higher education institutions internal and external cooperations work suc-cessfully from the point of view of those responsible?
37
38
4. Transparency and Documentation
39
40
Criterion 4.1 Module descriptions
41
The module descriptions are accessible to all students and teaching staff and contain the following:
- module title
- person(s) responsible for each module
- teaching method(s)
- credits and work load
- intended learning outcomes
- module content
- admission and examination requirements
- form(s) of exams and details explaining how the module mark is calculated
- recommended literature
- date of last amendment		• Do the module descriptions cover all the items listed in the criterion?
• Are the module descriptions published in a location where students would expect them to be published?
42
Criterion 4.2 Diploma and Diploma Supplement
43
Shortly after graduation, a diploma (degree certificate) is issued together with a diploma supplement. The latter must be provided in English.
These documents provide information on the student's qualifications profile and individ-ual performance as well as the classification of the degree programme with regard to the respective education system.
The marks of individual modules are presented and the way in which the final mark is calculated is explained. In addition to the final mark, statistical data as set forth in the ECTS sers’ Guide is included to allow readers to assess the individual mark.		• Have any problems occurred with awarding the graduation certificates and Diplo-ma Supplements to the students? If yes, what was the reaction?
44
45
Criterion 4.3 Relevant rules
46
The rights and duties of both the higher education institution and students are clearly defined and binding (guidelines, statutes etc.). All relevant course-related information is available in the language of the degree programme and accessible to anyone involved.• How is it ensured that domestic and foreign students know their rights and du-ties?
• Who is responsible for taking decisions about which documents?
47
48
5. Quality Management: Quality Assessment and Development
49
50
Criterion 5. Quality management: quality assessment and development
51
The study programme is subject to periodical internal quality assurance which includes all stakeholders. The results of these processes are incorporated into the continuous devel-opment of the programme. Processes and responsibilities are defined for the further de-velopment of the programme.
The results and any measures derived from the various quality assurance instruments used (various survey formats, student statistics, etc.) are communicated to the students		• What measures for the improvement of the quality of the degree programmes have been taken within the last few years?
• Which elements of the internal quality assessment have been especially useful for the continuous improvement of the degree programmes?
• To what extent is the aspect of “learning outcome orientation” taken into consid-eration in the conception and the practical use of the instruments of quality as-surance of a degree programme?
• How do the students evaluate the internal quality assessment and development of their degree programmes with respect to their participation and to the consequences on their studies?
• How do the teaching staff and executive level evaluate the internal quality as-sessment and development of their degree programmes with respect to their participation and to the support at solving problems and the improvement of teaching?
52
53
54
D. Additional Criteria for Structured Doctoral Programmes
55
56
Criterion D 1 Research
57
The core component of doctoral training is the advancement of knowledge through original research.
Graduates acquire advanced, cutting-edge knowledge and are able to demonstrate, on the level of internationally recognised scientific research, a deep and comprehensive un-derstanding of their research field. They demonstrate the ability to design and carry out an original research project at the forefront of the discipline, contribute to the advance-ment of science, and are able to adequately present the results to different audiences.
58
59
Criterion D 2 Duration and Credits
60
Structured doctoral programmes operate within an appropriate time duration.
Applying the credit point system (e.g. ECTS) developed for cohorts of students in the first and second cycles is not a necessary condition for structured doctoral programmes.
61
Criterion D 3 Soft Skills and Mobility
62
Doctoral candidates are offered a wide range of opportunities for their personal and pro-fessional development and take advantage of institutional support for career develop-ment and mobility. This includes support structures for professional development, train-ing in transferable skills, and preparation for career choices.
Doctoral candidates are provided with opportunities for academic mobility and interna-tional collaboration within an integrated framework of cooperation between universities and other partners.
63
64
Criterion D 4 Supervision and Assessment
65
A transparent contractual framework of shared responsibilities between doctoral candi-dates, supervisors, the institution (and where appropriate including other partners) is in place and continuous support by their supervisors is provided. Assessment rules are clearly formulated and binding.
66
Criterion D 5 Infrastructure
67
Doctoral candidates are provided with an adequate research environment that allows them to appropriately carry out their research projects
68
69
Criterion D 6 Funding
70
Structured doctoral programmes need to have adequate and sustainable funding.
71
72
Criterion D 7 Quality Assurance
73
The faculty/HEIs offering the structured doctoral programme has passed regulations doc-umenting the rights and duties of the doctoral candidates as well as relevant organiza-tional arrangements.
Rules of good scientific practice are followed.
The faculty collects data related to individual progression, net research time, completion rate, dissemination of research results, and career tracking and uses this data to continu-ously assess the quality of the structured doctoral programme.
74
ASIIN typically applies two sets of criteria to each submitted degree programme:
• the general ASIIN Criteria
• the Subject-Specific Criteria (SSC).
In the self-assessment, we ask that your institution describes and provides evidence on how it complies with both.
75
76
The general ASIIN criteria (“Criteria for the Accreditation of Degree Programmes – ASIIN Seal”) are based on the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for the European High-er Education Area. Their primary focus lies on whether a degree programme is conceptu-ally sound, i.e. whether it is organised in a manner which supports students in achieving the intended learning outcomes.
To demonstrate alignment with the ASIIN criteria, your institution’s self-assessment must describe the relationship between
• the overall intended learning outcomes, i.e. the knowledge, skills and competenc-es which the degree programme aims to impart, and
• the contribution made by each individual module/course and the programme’s components and characteristics (admission criteria, teaching methods, etc.) to-wards achieving these outcomes.
The structure of the general ASIIN criteria reflects this approach. The ASIIN SAR template (included in this document) leads you through the ASIIN criteria, one by one. Each section of the template (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.) corresponds to one specific criterion. The template begins by asking the institution to provide an analysis of the degree programme’s intend-ed learning outcomes; in the subsequent sections, it must demonstrate how the various components and characteristics of the programme contribute to their achievement.
77
78
In addition to the general accreditation criteria, ASIIN together with its grand alliance of national and international members and stakeholders have defined learning outcomes and competence frameworks, the so-called Subject-Specific Criteria (SSC), on the Bache-lor and Master level for the different STEM disciplines. The SSC are the result of regular assessments carried out by ASIIN and summarise good higher-education practices in a variety of disciplines, while taking into consideration labour market demands. By nam-ing the abilities, skills and competences regarded as "state of the art" in the respective subject area, the SSC provide an orientation for the subject-specific design of degree pro-grammes. The SSC also contribute to the comparability of national and international ac-creditation procedures, by ensuring that similar programmes are assessed according to the same subject-specific parameters.
For your self-assessment, please download the corresponding SSC from the ASIIN web-site. Within your SAR, alignment with the SSC should be referred to in your description of the Learning Outcomes and Curriculum. As supporting evidence, the institution can sub-mit an Objectives-Module Matrix.
79
80
Subject Specific Criteria exist for the following subject areas: Mechanical Engineering/Process Engineering; Electrical Engineering/Information Technology; Civil Engineering, Geodesy and Architecture; Informatics/Computer Science; Physical Technologies, Materials and Processes; Engineering and Management, Economics; Business Informatics/Information Systems; Agriculture, Nutritional Sciences and Landscape Architecture; Chemistry, Pharmacy; Life Sciences; Geosciences; Mathematics; Physics; Medicine. To down-load the respective criteria, please visit the ASIIN website.
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
• How does the higher education institution correlate the competence profile with the sample learning outcomes from the, in their opinion, (most) relevant Subject-Specific Criteria (SSC)? (Notice: Please use the empty Objectives-Module-Matrix).
• Where do the responsible persons see possible differences to the relevant Sub-ject-Specific Criteria (SSC)? How can they be explained?
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100