1

Foreword*

The Internal Evaluation process is a periodical, participatory process, which lasts for two consecutive semesters and is repeated at the latest every four years.

The aim of Internal Evaluation is to allow the Academic unit to form and to state a critical view regarding the quality of its work based on objective criteria and generally accepted, consensual indicators, with the following objectives:

  • The documentedhighlighting of the Academic unit's achievements
  • To point out elements that need improvement
  • To specify actions for improvement
  • To take initiatives for independent actions within the Academic unit, whenever feasible
  • To make decisions for independent actions within the Academic unit, whenever feasible.

It is actually a self-evaluation process, which defines the Academic unit's identity per se, as it captures and puts forth both the positive and negative characteristics of its operation and documents its ambitions. More specifically, during the Internal Evaluation process, the most important findings that derive from the synthesis of all individual elements, which have been gathered with the cooperation of the Academic unit's members and concern the existing and the desirable level of quality and the ways in which it can be achieved,are documented. Such elements, mainly quantitative, are recorded each year in the Academic unit's Annual Internal Report, which is essentially just data collection, but provides a brief and updated picture of the operation of each of the Institution’s Academic units to theInstitution’s Administration.

The Internal Evaluation procedure is concluded with the drafting of the Internal Evaluation Report (IER), which is approved by the Academic unit and then forwarded to theHQA, throughthe QAU, in order for the External Evaluation process to commence. The body in charge of the drafting of the Internal Evaluation Report isthe Internal Evaluation Group (IEG) which is appointed by the Academic unitfor the duration of the Internal and External Evaluation processes.

As mentioned above, the Internal Evaluation Report (IER) is based on data that theAcademic Unit has collected and included in its Annual Internal Reports.However, the Internal Evaluation Report should not be exhausted with thesimple presentation of data, but should critically analyse and evaluate it, in order to draw useful conclusions and recommendations which shall lead to improvements in the quality of the Academic Unit. This is because, according to Law 3374/2005, "The internal evaluation report is taken into account by the bodies in charge when making decisions, at all operational levels of the Academic Unit or the Institution. Decision making at State level normally requires the next level, that of the External Evaluation”.

*The text of the Foreword should not be included in the Internal Evaluation Report of the Academic unit.

For detailed information and instructions regarding to the External Evaluation procedure, please see the relevant documents available on the H.Q.A. website

What follows is the "Model Format" depicting the structure and the content required for the drafting of the Internal Evaluation Report. Its structure fully corresponds to the main sets of criteria, as these are presented in the HQA document titled “Analysis of the Academic InstitutionQuality Assurance criteria”:

  • Curriculum,
  • Teaching,
  • Research,
  • Strategy of academic development,
  • Relations with social, cultural and productive bodies,
  • Administrativeservicesandinfrastructure

Foreachofthesebasiccriteria,definedbyLaw3475/2005, theInternal Evaluation Report (IER)will provide answers to the following questions:

(a) What are the main strengths and the main weaknesses of the Academic Unit from the point of view of the Academic Unit, as regards the corresponding criterion?

(b) What are the opportunities for exploiting the strengths and which are the potential risks in relation to weaknesses, does the Academic Unitdiscern, as regards the corresponding criterion?

Moreover, theInternal Evaluation Report (IER)should include:

  • A brief description and evaluation of the internal evaluation process itself within the Academic unit, as well as
  • Conclusions and plans for improving the Academic unit's quality.

From the above, it can be deducted that the drafting of the Internal Evaluation Report in accordance to the proposed Model Format and the completion of the accompanying Tables (see. below,p. 39etseq.) requires:

  • (a) the composition of the data collected and recorded by every Academic unit's members in the special data collection forms (see "Semester CourseData Collection Form " and " Personal Data Collection Form of Member of the Education Staff"), and
  • (b)the use of the answers to the questions raised in the "Analysis of the Academic Institution Quality Assurance criteria” issue.

All the aforementioned forms as well as instructions for their completion or utilization are published on the HQAwebsite (

The H.Q.A.’s requirementthat the "Model Format" for the Internal Evaluation Reports be used by all Academic Unitsarises from the need to deduct data and conclusions on each Academic unit

  • (a) at the Institutional level (University, T.E.I) and
  • (b) atstatelevel.

However, it is noted that the academic units may add, modify or specialize criteria and indicators that reflect theirindividual specific characteristics, whilst providing clarifications in any case, regarding the content (what and how) and the logic (why) for potential modifications.

Especially during this, the first implementation of the quality assurance system, it is acceptable that all the parts of the report may not be fully covered. In any case, it is desirable that the Academic unit make every effort as to adequately cover as many parts of the reportas possible.

The HQA, aware of its role as an aid to the Academic units in their efforts for quality assurance and improvement, is at the disposal of all interested parties, as required.

Internal Evaluation Report (Model Format)Version 2.0 October 2011

1

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ
Α.ΔΙ.Π.
ΑΡΧΗ ΔΙΑΣΦΑΛΙΣΗΣ KAIΠΙΣΤΟΠΟΙΗΣΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ
ΣΤΗΝ ΑΝΩΤΑΤΗ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ / HELLENIC REPUBLIC
H.Q.A.
HELLENIC QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION AGENCY

Internal Evaluation Report

(Model Format)

University/ΤΕΙ
Faculty
Academic unit
Academic year
Place
Date

Version 2.0

October 2011

ΛΕΩΦΟΡΟΣ ΣΥΓΓΡΟΥ 44 - 117 42 ΑΘΗΝΑ
Τηλ. 210 9220944
Ηλ. Ταχ.: / 44 SYΝGROU AVENUE – 11742 ATHENS, GREECE
Tel. 30 210 9220944
e-mail :

Internal Evaluation Report (Model Format)Version 2.0 October 2011

1

Table of Contents

1. The internal evaluation process
2. Presentation of the Academic unit
3. Programmes of Study
3.1 Programme of undergraduate studies
3.2. Programme of postgraduate studies
3.3. Programme of HD studies
4. Teaching
5. Research
6. Relations with social, cultural and productive bodies (SCP)
7. Academic development strategy
8. Administrative services and infrastructure
9. Conclusions
10. Improvement plans
11. Tables
12. Appendix
Α. List of scientific publications in the last 5 years
Β.
C.
D. (at the Academic unit's discretion)

The "Model Format"structure proposed by HQA, for drafting the Internal Evaluation Report, meets the requirements of Law 3374/2005, as analysed in the H.Q.A.’s issue "Criteria Analysis". Theissues and the questionsraisedin each fields mustbeanswered byall theAcademic units, as we believe that theyillustrate thegeneraloutline of the issues that must be developed and commented on by all the Academic Units in the Internal Evaluation Report. A brief explanation should be provided in case that some questions are not answered.

However it is acceptable that:

  • The extent of theirresponsesis notlimited tothe shape orform of themodel.The fields canbe modified at will.
  • Aside from the issues included in the Model Format, every Academic unit can and should add – in the relevant chapter or field – any additional information or comments it deems useful for the best possible individual presentation of the Academic Unit.

Introduction

1. Internal Evaluation Process

This Section includes a brief description, analysis and a critical evaluation of the internal evaluation process which was implemented atthe Academic unit, as well as any suggestions related to plans for its improvement.

1.1. Description and analysis of the Academic unit's internal evaluation process.

  • What was the composition of the IEG?
  • With whom and how did the IEG cooperate for the drafting of the report?
  • Whatsourcesandprocedures were usedto obtain information
  • How and to what extent was the report discussed inside the Academic unit?

1.2. Analysis of the positive elementsand the difficulties that aroseduring the internal evaluation process.

1.3. Academic unit's recommendations for the improvement of the process

2. Presentation of the Academic unit

This Section presents an overview of the academic unit and its key operating parameters.

2.1. Geographicallocationof the academic unit (i.e.capital, largecity,small town, centralized,distributedwithin a city, etc.)

2.2. Historyof the evolutionof the Academic unit.

2.2.1.Staffingof the Academic unit withteaching, administrativeandlaboratory personnelin the lastfive years (quantitative data).[*]Comment.
2.2.2.Number and distribution of the students based on their level of studies (undergraduate, postgraduate, PHD) during the last five years.[†] Comment.

2.3. Purpose and objectives of the Academic unit

2.3.1.Whatis the purpose and what are the objectives of the Academic unit according to the GGcontaining its establishment;
2.3.2.How doestoday's academic communityof the academic unit perceive these aims and objectives?
2.3.3.Is there a divergence between the officially formulated objectives (stated in the GG of its establishment) of the Academic unit and the ones that it considers it should pursue at present?
2.3.4.Are the objectives that the academic unit considers it should presently pursue achieved? If not, what factors serveas a deterrent or dissuasivelyto this effort?
2.3.5.Do you think that a review of the officially formulated (in the GG containing its establishment) objectives of the Academic unit is appropriate?

2.4. Management of the Academic unit

2.4.1.Which committees are institutionalized and operate within the Academic unit?

2.4.2.Which internal regulations (i.e. Postgraduate Studies internal regulation) are used by the Academic unit?

2.4.3.Is the Academic unit structured into Sections? Which sections? Is that structure in accordance with the current understanding of the Academic unit's mission?

3. Programmes of Study

In this section, the Academic unit is requested to critically analyze and evaluate the quality of the programmes of study (undergraduate, postgraduate and PHD), answering a series of questions that correspond exactly to the criteria described in the"Analysis of Academic Unit Quality Assurance Criteria" document
For each question, at least the following points should be answered and commented on:
(a)Which, in the Academic unit’s opinion, are its main strengths and weaknesses as regards the corresponding criterion?
(b) What opportunities are there for the utilization ofits strengths and which are the potential risks deriving fromits weaknesses that the academic unit discerns as regards the corresponding criterion?

3.1. Programme of Undergraduate Studies

3.1.1.How do you assess the correspondence of the Programme of Undergraduate Studies to the objectives of the Academic unit and to the demands of society?
  • Is there a procedure to check this correspondence? How effectively is it implemented?
  • Are there any evaluation and revision procedures of the Programme os Studies in place? How effectively are they implemented?
  • How is the Programme of Studies publicized?
  • Is there an effective process for monitoring the career development of the graduates? How are its results used?
3.1.2.How do you judge the structure, consistency and functionality of the Programme of Undergraduate Studies?[‡]
  • What is the percentage of core/specialization/concentration courses among all courses?
  • How many free elective courses are offered?
  • What is the percentage of compulsory/compulsory elective/free elective coursesamong all courses?
  • What is the ratio between background courses, scientific area courses, general knowledge courses and skill development courses among all courses?
  • How is time allocated between theoretical teaching, exercises, laboratories and other activities?
  • How is the curriculum organized and coordinated among courses? Is there a curriculum overlap between courses? Are there gaps in the curriculum? Is the length of the curricula rational? Is there a process to readjust and to update the course's curriculum?
  • Is a system of prerequisite courses implemented? Is it functional? What is the percentage of courses included in that system?
  • How many courses are offered by and how many toother Programmes of Study? Which are they?
  • Which foreign languages are taught at the Academic unit? Are the courses compulsory?

3.1.3What is your opinion of the examination system;
  • Aremultipleways (in time and kind) of student evaluation implemented and to what extent? Can you specifically describe them?
  • How do you ensure the transparency of the student evaluation system?
  • Is there an evaluation procedure of the examination system and which is it?
  • How transparent is the procedure for the assignment and the examination of the dissertation/thesis?
  • Are there quality specifications regarding the dissertation/thesis? Which are they?

3.1.4What is your opinion on the international dimension of the Programme of Undergraduate Studies?
  • Do teachers from abroad participate? In what percentage?
  • Do students from abroad participate (cardinal number and percentage)?
  • How many and which courses are taught in a foreign language (as well)?
  • In how many (and which) international educational cooperation programmes (i.e.ERASMUS, LEONARDO, TEMPUS, ALPHA), on the undergraduate studies level, does the academic unit participate in?
  • Are there any agreements of bilateral cooperation with institutions and bodies from abroad in place? Which ones?
  • Has the Programme of Undergraduate Studiesbeen awarded with any international distinctions? Which are they?
  • Do you implement the ECTS system?
  • Are any leaflets regarding the ECTS system distributed?

3.1.5What is your opinion regarding student Internships;
  • Are internships available for students? Are they compulsory for all students?
  • If internships are not compulsory, what is the percentage of students who choose to complete one? How are the students motivated to do so?
  • If an internship is compulsory, how do you cultivate the students’ interest in it?
  • How are the academic unit's internships organized? What is their duration? Is there a relevant Internal Regulation?
  • What are the difficulties that the academic unit has to deal with in organizing student internships?
  • What abilities to apply knowledge are internships aimed at? How successful do you find the results? How successful is the familiarization of the students with the environment of the agency providing the internship?
  • Is there a connection between the work provided during the internship and writing the dissertation/thesis?
  • Does the internship develop opportunities for the future employment of students?
  • Is there a network between the academic unit and social, cultural and productive bodies aimed at providing internship for the students?
  • What initiatives does the Academic unit take in order to createjobs for the students? (at the local, national and European level)?
  • Isthere close cooperation and communication between the Academic unit’s teachers/supervisors and the representatives of the bodies providing the internships?
  • Are there specific prerequisites and demands for the cooperation of the Academic unit with the bodies providing the internship? What are they?
  • How are the interning students supervised and supported?

3.2.Programme of Postgraduate Studies[§]

3.2.1Title of the Programme of Postgraduate Studies
3.2.2Academic units and Institutions that participate in the Programme od Postgraduate Studies.[**]
3.2.3How do you assess the correspondence of the Programme of Postgraduate Studies to the objectives of the Academic unit and to the demands of society?
  • Is there a procedure to check this correspondence? How effectively is it implemented?
  • Are there any evaluation and revision procedures of the Programme of Studies? How effectively are they implemented?
  • How is the Programme of Studies publicized;
  • Is there an effective process for monitoring the career development of the graduates that were awarded a Postgraduate Degree from the Academic unit?

3.2.4What is your opinion of the structure, consistency and functionality of the Programme of Postgraduate Studies?[††]
  • What is the percentage of core/specialization/concentration courses among all courses;
  • How many elective courses are offered;
  • What is the percentage of compulsory/compulsory elective/ free elective course among all courses;
  • What is the ratio between basic courses, scientific area courses, general knowledge courses and skill development courses among all courses?
  • How is time allocated between theoretical teaching, exercises, laboratories and other activities?
  • How is the curriculum organized and coordinated among courses? Is there a curriculum overlap between courses? Are there gaps in the curriculum? Is the length of the curricula rational? Is there a process aimed atreviewing, readjusting and updating the courses’ curriculum?
  • Is a system of prerequisite courses implemented? How functional is it?

3.2.5What is your opinion of the examination system?
  • Are multiple ways (in kind and time) of evaluating the students implemented and to what extent? Can you specifically describe them?
  • How do you ensure the transparency of the examination system?
  • Is there an evaluation procedure of the examination system and which is it?
  • How transparent are the procedures of assignment and examination of the postgraduate thesis?
  • Are quality specifications concerning the postgraduate thesis in place?

3.2.6What is your opinion regarding the funding of the Programme of Postgraduate Studies?
  • What are the funding sources of the Programme of Postgraduate Studies?
  • How is the sustainability of the Programme of Postgraduate Studies ensured?
  • How are the sources allocated to the Programme of Postgraduate Studies used?

3.2.7What is your opinion of the selection process of postgraduate students?[‡‡]
  • What is the specific selection procedure of postgraduate students?
  • Based on what criteria are the postgraduate students selected?
  • What is the percentage of admittance of prospective postgraduate students?[§§]
  • How is the process, the criteria and the results of the student selection procedure publicised?
  • How are the effectiveness and the transparency of the students’ selection proceduresensured?

3.2.8What is your opinion on the international dimension of the Programme of Postgraduate Studies?
  • Do teachers from abroad participate? In what percentage?
  • Do students from abroad participate (cardinal number and percentage?
  • How many and which courses are taught in a foreign language (as well)?
  • Are any cooperation agreementswith foreign institutions in place?
  • Has the Programme of Postgraduate Studies been awardedwith any international distinctions? Which are they?

3.3. Programme of PHD Studies

3.3.1.How do you assess the correspondence of the Programme of PHD Studies to the objectives of the Academic unit and to the demands of society?

  • Is there a procedure to check this correspondence? How effectively is it implemented?
  • Are there any evaluation and revision procedures of the Programme of Studies? How effectively are they implemented?
  • How is the Programme of PHD Studies publicized?
  • Is there an effective process for monitoring the career development of the graduates?

3.3.2.What is your opinion on the structure of the Programme of PHDStudies;

  • Are PHD cycle courses offered? Which are they?
  • Are research methodology courses offered? Whicharethey?

3.3.3.What is your opinion of the examination system?

  • Do scientists of relevant scientific fields from other AEIs or research Institutions participate in the 7-member or the 3-member committees?
  • How are the performance and progress of PHD candidates monitored?
  • How is the transparency of the PHD candidate’s evaluation process ensured?
  • Are common (among teaching staff)evaluation procedures of the PHD candidates implemented?
  • How is the evaluation procedure of the doctoral candidates evaluated?
  • How transparent is the process of assigning and examining a doctoral thesis?
  • Are there specific quality assurance requirements for the doctoral thesis? Whicharethey?

3.3.4.What is your opinion on the process of PHD candidate selection?[***]