Education Quality Assurance Manual

The purpose of this Education Quality Assurance Manual is to show in a simplified and clear way how education quality assurance work is carried out in practice at the University of Borås.

Our education quality assurance work is mainly based on fourteen identified activities that together develop and make our systematic quality assurance work visible. These activities are largely based on long-established processes at the university and are partly regulated by various types of policy documents, guidelines, and procedures. For each activity, the following is shown:

what the purpose of the activity is
who or which persons is/are responsible for its implementation
how the activity is carried out
how dialogue, action, and feedback are implemented
a timeline, communication channels, and main stakeholders
related policy documents and templates (which can be found in Finn)

Bakground and purpose

The University of Borås has to show that students who have been awarded a degree achieve the national qualitative targets of the respective degree.

The primary tools for ensuring that the targets are met and that the scholarly level is maintained are the programme syllabi and general syllabi for third-cycle programmes (ASP for the Swedish term, allmänna studieplaner) adopted by the university. Progression descriptions, various forms of target matrices and individual syllabi for third-cycle studies (ISP for the Swedish term, individuella studieplaner) are key working tools.

Areas of responsibility

Decision and review: The relevant Research and Education Board and the Education Committees

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department

Implementation: Programme Co-ordinators and Course Directors

Implementation

Basic components:

Establishment of educational programmes
Establishment of programme syllabi
Establishment of course syllabi
Establishment of target matrices showing the relationship between the national qualitative targets (programme objectives) and the courses (learning objectives) included in the programme.

Programme syllabi and course syllabi are established by the relevant Research and Education Board or the Education Committees which are composed of university employees. External experts advise in the development of new courses and/or programmes. Educational partnerships that are intended to lead to a degree also have specifically decided guidelines to adhere to.

The structure of the programme is to be outlined and systematically presented in the programme syllabus. In addition to the qualitative targets expressed in the Higher Education Ordinance, the programmes must also meet the specific requirements that may be set by the university. The achievement of objectives is specifically monitored in the local programme evaluation activity [Activity 7a].

The implementation of the programme, together with its selected forms of examination, is to support the student's knowledge development and active learning and give the student good opportunities to achieve the set goals. When establishing course syllabi, it must be clear which teaching methods have been chosen to support student learning and support good goal achievement. This is specifically followed up in the course evaluation activity [Activity 2]. The implementation of the programme is to ensure the student's connection to a learning and research environment. The research basis is specifically monitored in the course evaluation [Activity 2] and programme evaluation [Activity 4] activities.

For each programme, a degree target matrix is established that shows the relationship between the national qualitative targets (programme objectives) and the courses (learning objectives) included in the programme. For more information on the achievement of objectives, see the activities: Local programme evaluation with external reviewers [Activity 7a] and National programme evaluation through external review (UKÄ) [Activity 8].

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The Education Committees monitor whether and how completed course and programme evaluations, and where applicable local programme evaluations, are reflected in course and programme syllabi.

An exchange of experience is arranged annually, in accordance with an established annual cycle, by the artistic Research and Education Board and the Research and Education Board and its Education Committees. The Vice-Chancellor’s Management and Quality Council is informed by the board chairs on the outcome of the experience exchange.

Timetable

Before each course or programme is given.

Communication channels

Course and programme syllabi are made available via the website and via the university's virtual learning environment.

Student influence

Students have the opportunity to be represented on boards and committees.

Main stakeholders

Heads of Department, Assistant Heads of Department, Programme Co-ordinators, Course Directors, examiners, external experts

Bakground och purpose

The University of Borås has to show that students who have been awarded a degree achieve the national qualitative targets of the respective degree.

The primary tools for ensuring that the targets are met and that the scholarly level is maintained are the programme syllabi and general syllabus for third-cycle programmes (ASP for the Swedish term, allmänna studieplaner) adopted by the university. Progression descriptions, various forms of target matrices and individual syllabi for third-cycle studies (ISP) are key working tools. There is a specific procedure for educational partnerships that are intended to lead to a degree.

Areas of responsibility

Decision and review: The relevant Research and Education Board and the Education Committees

Follow-up/checks: Director of Studies for doctoral studies

Implementation: Course examiner, supervisors, and examiners

Implementation

External experts are engaged for quality assurance when establishing a new doctoral studies subject area with an associated general syllabus for third-cycle programmes (ASP). The ASP should outline the different parts of the programme in its structure and implementation and be linked to the degree’s qualitative targets.

An individual study plan for third-cycle studies (ISP) and a learning objectives matrix are also drawn up for each doctoral student. The ISP must state what work the doctoral student intends to carry out during the year for which the plan applies and what has already been carried out. The learning objectives matrix clarifies the link between the activities in the doctoral programme and the degree objectives in the general syllabus for third-cycle programmes and shows how the national and local qualitative targets are met. The ASP and ISP are determined by the relevant Research and Education Board or the Research Education Committees which are composed of university employees.

For more information on the achievement of objectives, see the activities: Local educational evaluation with external reviewers [Activity 7b] and National educational evaluation through external review (UKÄ) [Activity 8].

Dialogue, activities and feedback

Qualitative targets for doctoral education degrees are followed up via ISP and through the procedures that apply to the public defence. The ISP is reported to and approved by the relevant Research Education Committee at least once a year. The research Education Committees monitor that and how completed programme evaluations and other evaluations or studies relevant to doctoral education are applied in the general syllabus for third-cycle programmes.

Timetable

ASP – follow-up after completion of the evaluation

ISP – annual follow-up at the individual level

Communication channels

The general syllabus for third-cycle programmes are available on the university website.

Student influence

Doctoral students have the opportunity to be represented on the Research and Education Boards and the Research Education committees.

Main stakeholders

Examiners, supervisors, Course Directors, Directors of Studies, doctoral students, external experts

Bakground and purpose

The University of Borås is to develop learning environments based on current research. Education at all levels must be research-based. Students are to be given ample opportunities to influence and take responsibility for their own learning.

The purpose of course evaluation is to:

enable students to exercise influence and take responsibility for their own learning
provide a basis for systematic and continuous development of educational programmes
provide input for programme evaluations and both local and national education evaluations

The focus of this activity is the monitoring of student learning.

Areas of responsibility

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department
Implementation: Course Director

Implementation

Course evaluation is carried out in such a way that the stakeholders of the course, including students, teachers and other actors, can all contribute to and see the conclusions and the experience gained in the course. The evaluation also includes quantitative data, past course reports, and actions taken.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The course evaluation is compiled in a course report [Activity 3].

Timetable

Course evaluation is carried out during the course or close to the end of the course.

Communication channels

The course reports are made available on the existing course area in the virtual learning environment and shared with relevant stakeholders the next time the course is offered.

Student influence

Students evaluate the course via course evaluation.

Main stakeholders

Teachers of the course, students/doctoral students, Heads of Department, Directors of Studies for doctoral programmes.

Bakground and purpose

The course report summarises the information and presents the analysis carried out in the course evaluation activity. The report aims to identify the development needs of the course.

Areas of responsibility

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department
Implementation: Course director

Implementation

The report should be based on an analysis of the development needs of the course based on the course evaluation [Activity 2] that has been carried out.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The Course Director is responsible for feedback to students in both the evaluated course and students in the next course. Results should be communicated and made available in such a way that quality development is transparent. It is the responsibility of the responsible manager to review course reports and ensure that necessary changes are made.

Course reports at the doctoral level are submitted to the relevant Research and Education Board or the relevant Research Education Committee.

Timetable

Course reports must be submitted within 3 months of the end of the course.

Communication channels

Course reports are made available on the course page of the virtual learning environment.

Student influence

The course report is partly based on the students' course evaluation.

Main stakeholders

Teachers linked to the course, students/doctoral students, Education committees, Directors of Studies for doctoral programmes, Assistant Heads of Department.

Bakground and purpose

The University of Borås is to develop learning environments based on current research. Education at all levels should be research-based. Students should be given ample opportunities to influence and take responsibility for their own learning.

The purpose of programme evaluation is to:

enable students to exercise influence and take responsibility for their own learning
provide a basis for systematic and continuous development of educational programmes
provide a basis for local and national educational programme evaluations

The focus of this activity is to monitor student progression and the learning environment.

Areas of responsibility

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department
Implementation: Programme Co-ordinator

Implementation

Programme evaluation is carried out in such a way that the stakeholders of the programme, including students, teachers and other actors, can provide feedback on the educational programme. The evaluation also includes quantitative data, meeting notes from Programme Councils [Activity 6] and previous course and programme reports [Activity 3 and Activity 5].

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The programme evaluation is compiled in a programme report [Activity 5].

Timetable

Programme evaluation should be done for each completed educational programme. If admission to the programme occurs both in autumn and spring, programme evaluation can be coordinated so it occurs once a year.

Communication channels

The programme reports are to be made available on the university's website [Activity 5].

Student influence

Students are involved in evaluating the programme via programme evaluation.

Main stakeholders

Teachers linked to the programme, Programme Council, Assistant Heads of Department, students.

Bakground and purpose

The Programme report summarises the information and presents the analysis carried out in the programme evaluation activity [Activity 4]. The report aims to identify the development needs of the programme.

Areas of responsibility

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department
Implementation: Programme Co-ordinator

Implementation

The report will be based on an analysis of the programme's development needs based on the programme evaluation [Activity 4] that has been carried out.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The Programme Co-ordinator is responsible for feedback to students in the evaluated programme and future programme students and is to be made available in such a way that the quality development is transparent. The programme report is submitted to the Programme Council [Activity 6] where identified development needs are discussed.

It is the responsibility of the responsible manager to take note of the programme report and ensure that the necessary changes are made. The Faculties provide feedback and summarise all completed programme evaluations annually in connection with the Managers' Forum (Swedish: Chefsforum).

Timetable

The programme report must be available no later than 3 months after the end of the programme.

Communication channels

The programme reports are made available on the university's website.
The Managers' Forum (Swedish: Chefsforum) is a discussion forum.

Student influence

The report is partly based on the students' programme evaluation.

Main stakeholders

Teachers linked to the programme, students, Programme Council, Managers’ Forum, Education Committees.

Background and purpose

The purpose of Programme Councils at the University of Borås is to assure the quality when it comes to the relevance of educational programmes, with a particular focus on the professional and research connection of the Faculties' programmes.

The Programme Council is a forum where external and internal stakeholders meet to discuss strategic educational issues as well as identified development needs based on the programme reports [Activity 5].

Areas of responsibility

Decision: Deans of Faculty

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department

Implementation: Programme Co-ordinator

Implementation

The Programme Councils are advisory bodies to the programme's teaching team and departmental management. The Programme Councils are expected to discuss issues of overall importance for education activities in their area, as well as programme-specific challenges and opportunities. The work of the councils should mainly focus on discussion, rather than information. Each meeting should address a few issues of a strategic nature.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The Programme Council will work on programme reports. Minutes of council meetings are used as documentation for programme development. The minutes will also be included in the next programme evaluation [Activity 4].

It is the responsibility of the responsible manager to contribute to and ensure that the necessary changes are implemented.

Timetable

Programme Councils must meet at least twice per academic year.

Student influence

Students should be offered representation in the Programme Councils

Main stakeholders

External members from the profession(s) of the field of study, students and the Faculty's quality and education coordinators (if any exist).

Bakground and purpose

The purpose of the local educational programme evaluations is to review on a regular basis, with the help of external assessors, whether the university's programmes meet the requirements of the Higher Education Act, the Higher Education Ordinance, and the degree descriptions. Based on the review, the strengths and areas for development of the programmes will be identified and good examples shared among the Faculties.

Areas of responsibility

Initiation: Head of Department

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department

Implementation: Programme Co-ordinator

Implementation

The review is based on the quality requirements that the university has decided should apply to all education at first and second cycle level. The evaluation is based on the description of the course by the Course Director, the curriculum, syllabi[Activity 1a], course reports and program reports[Activity 3 and Activity 5] from the last six years, and a list of the resources and competences the course currently has.

The relevant Research and Education Board determines the criteria to be used by the assessment team, the composition of the assessment team and which programmes can be evaluated together (clustering). The university's central quality coordinator provides support in the evaluation process.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The Head of Department and the Program Co-ordinator are informed of the assessment team's report, analyse the report and draw up an action plan. The relevant Research and Education Board then reviews the assessment teams report together with the action plan drawn up to ensure that the proposed measures are in line with the review of the assessment unit.

The action plan is followed up one year after it has been notified to and approved by the relevant Research and Education Board. This is done by the Head of Department and the Program Co-ordinator returning to the relevant Research and Education Board and reporting on how the implementation of the action plan has progressed.

Feedback from the Faculties is provided at the Vice-Chancellor's quality and operational dialogues according to the established annual cycle regarding outcomes and measures.

Timetable

All programmes at the university are to be evaluated within a period of every six years. The timetable is adapted to UKÄ's educational evaluations.

Communication channels

The action plans are made available on the university's website.
The boards' exchange of experience provides a forum for discussion.

Student influence

Students in the evaluated programme are interviewed. A student representative should be invited to join the assessment team.

Main stakeholders

Research and Education Boards, programme teachers, students and external reviewers.

Bakground and purpose

The purpose of the local programme evaluations is to review on a regular basis, with the help of external assessors, whether the university's programmes meet the requirements of the Higher Education Act, the Higher Education Ordinance and the degree descriptions. Based on the review, the strengths and areas for development of the programmes will be identified and good examples shared among the Faculties.

Areas of responsibility

Initiation: Head of Department

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department

Implementation: Director of Studies for doctoral education programmes

Implementation

The review is based on the quality requirements that the university has decided should apply to all doctoral education, the activity assurance of national qualitative targets [Activity 1b].

The evaluation is based on the description of the educational programme made by the director of studies, ASP, ISP and course syllabi [Activity 1b] including course reports [Activity 3] from the last 6 years. In addition, a list of the resources and competences currently available to the programme is provided.

The relevant Research and Education Board determines the criteria on which the assessment team will proceed from, the composition of the assessment team and the clustering of courses. The university's central quality coordinator provides support in the evaluation process.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The Head of Department, the Director of Studies of doctoral education programmes and, if applicable, the director of the research school are informed of the assessment group's report, analyse the report, and draw up an action plan. The relevant Research and Education Board then receives the assessment team's report together with the action plan drawn up. The action plan is followed up one year after it plan has been notified to and approved by the relevant board. This is done by the Faculty reporting back to the board on how the implementation of the action plan has progressed.

An exchange of experience is arranged annually, in accordance with an established annual cycle, by the artistic Research and Education Board and the Research and Education Board and its Research Education Committees. The Vice-Chancellor’s Management and Quality Council is informed by the board chairs on the outcome of the experience exchange.

Reporting from the Faculty takes place at the Vice-Chancellor's dialogues in accordance with an established annual cycle regarding outcomes and measures.

Timetable

All doctoral education programmes at the university must be evaluated within a period of every six years. The timetable is adapted to UKÄ's evaluations.

Communication channels

The action plans are made available on the university's website.
The two Research and Education Boards' exchange of experience provides a forum for discussion.

Student influence

Doctoral students in evaluated programmes are interviewed. A doctoral representative is to be invited to join the evaluation team.

Main stakeholders

Research and Education Boards, Research Education Committees, doctoral students, supervisors, research school directors, external evaluators.

Background and purpose

The Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) carries out evaluations of the quality of degrees and educational programmes at all levels based on an established cycle.

The university has an established process to clarify how the activities are organised when such a review is initiated. A further aim is to enable dissemination within the organisation of the lessons learned during the evaluation.

Areas of responsibility

Initiation: Dean of Faculty

Follow-up/checks: Head of Department

Implementation: Appointed project leader

Implementation

For UKÄ evaluations, a project leader is appointed at the Faculty and this person is responsible for planning and running the work on self-evaluation and subsequent interviews at the university. The project leader proposes a working group for the evaluation round. The university's central quality coordinator provides support in the evaluation process.

The relevant Research and Education Board reviews the proposed, written self-evaluation.

The final self-evaluation is submitted to the Dean of Faculty for approval before it is submitted to UKÄ. The project leader coordinates the interviews.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

Prior to a review, the university's quality coordinator organises a seminar focusing on the exchange of experiences, to which the project leaders from previous evaluations and representatives from the Faculties concerned are invited.

Those responsible for the courses concerned compile how the experience of the self-evaluation work can be used to further develop the educational programmes. The summary is reported in the form of a short written report to the relevant Research and Education Board within three months of the submission of the self-assessment.

Exchanges of experience are carried out annually, according to an established annual cycle, between the two Research and Education Boards and the Education Committees. The Vice-Chancellor’s Management and Quality Council is informed by the board chairs on the outcome of the experience exchange.

Feedback from the Faculty is also provided at the Vice-Chancellor's quality and operational dialogues according to the established annual cycle.

Timetable

Working groups and project leaders must be identified before the start of the evaluation round.

Communication channels

Information is made available on the university's website and via newsletters.

Student influence

Students are offered the opportunity to be part of the working group managing the evaluation. The students are also given the opportunity by UKÄ to submit their own comment or to be interviewed.

Main stakeholders

Research and Education Boards, Education committees, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, teachers, Programme Co-ordinators, Directors of Studies of doctoral education programmes, students/doctoral students.

Bakground and purpose

The university conducts three types of university-wide student surveys. The Student Barometer is aimed at Bachelor’s and Master’s students. Boråsakademikern is sent out to the university's alumni and the Doctoral Student Barometer is aimed at the university's internal and externally admitted doctoral students. The surveys aim to obtain information regarding students' views, opinions and experiences regarding the university's educational programmes and its learning and research environments. The information is to be used to develop the courses.

Areas of responsibility

Initiation: Vice-Chancellor

Follow-up/checks: Directors of Studies for doctoral education programmes, Heads of Department, Heads of Offices within Professional Services

Implementation: relevant administrator at the Academic Affairs Office and staff at the Unit for Development and Research in Higher Education (HUF)

Implementation

The Student Barometer survey is sent to a sample of the university's existing students and portions are specifically intended for newly admitted students. Boråsakademikern is sent to graduating students on both programmes and individual courses. Employees at the Unit for Development and Research in Higher Education (HUF) are responsible for the distribution and collection of the Student Barometer and Boråsakademikern surveys.

The Doctoral Student Barometer is sent out to both the university's internally admitted doctoral students and doctoral students linked to the university, but who are admitted to a partner university. Administrators at the Academic Affairs Office are responsible for the distribution and collection of the Doctoral Student Barometer survey.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

The results are analysed and commented on from the perspective of the different programmes. This is done within each Faculty.

Representatives of the Faculties, the Vice-Chancellor's Executive Office and Professional Services meet annually together with the responsible administrators for the implementation of the surveys to identify university-wide development areas and revise the surveys for the next round. The measures will then be integrated into the departments' and the Faculties’ action plans and included as a follow-up item at an aggregated level in the Vice-Chancellor’s Management and Quality Council. The same process applies at Professional Services.

Timetable

The Student Barometer and Boråsakademikern (alumni) are conducted annually during October to November
The Doctoral Student Barometer is conducted every two years during January to February (odd years)

Compilation takes place within 1 month from the end date of the survey.

Communication channels

Summaries of the results are made available on the university's website/DiVA. News releases on the results are sent out.

Student influence

Students respond to the survey and are invited to participate in the working group looking at the results from a university-wide perspective.

Main stakeholders

Students/graduates, Faculties, Professional Services, management.

Bakground and purpose

The university's recruitment process must guarantee transparency as well as fairness and legal certainty in the hiring of research staff. Teaching staff must have a high level of scientific and pedagogical subject competence and, where relevant, professional skills.

Areas of responsibility

Decision: Dean of Faculty or Vice-Chancellor for professorships

Implementation: Head of Department

Implementation

The scholarly/artistic and teaching skills of prospective senior lecturers and professors and the teaching skills of prospective assistant professors are evaluated at the time of appointment. Demonstrated teaching skills and basic training in higher education pedagogy are required for teachers employed at the university.

The Faculty's competence supply plans are to ensure long-term and strategic work regarding the needs of education and research.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

Plans to ensure that the right competencies are in place are to be in place at each Faculty. Identified needs are followed up at an aggregated level within the framework of the university's operational planning process at the Faculty level.

The Academic Appointment Committee or the artistic Research and Education Board provides an annual report to the Vice-Chancellor’s Management and Quality Council on recruitments.

Timetable

Recruitment takes place on an ongoing basis and in accordance with established plans to ensure that the right competencies are in place.

Communication channels

Vacancies must always be advertised via the website, among other places. Proposals on who should be offered the position are posted on the university's digital bulletin board.

Student influence

Two student representatives, one of whom is a doctoral student (if possible), should be offered a seat on the Academic Appointment Committee.

Main stakeholders

Academic Appointment Committee, teachers, Human Resources Office.

Bakground and purpose

Teachers at the university should have space for scholarly or artistic development work, to follow developments in their own subject area, or for other competence development. Research/skills development aims to raise and/or broaden the level of competence within the framework of teachers' employment.

Areas of responsibility

Follow-up/checks: Heads of Department

Implementation: Closest manager

Implementation

The competence development of teaching staff is based on the individual performance review and the professional development time regulated by contract. Competence development refers to both pedagogical competence development and subject matter knowledge development. Competence development includes the research conducted during the period of professional development.

To support teachers' pedagogical competence development, the Unit for Educational Development and Research (HUF) has the specific responsibility for internal training and research in the field. The university also has training initiatives linked to systems and tools for online teaching.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

Each employee must have an individual development plan that is jointly decided in connection with the annual performance review with the responsible manager. Individual follow-up takes place during salary dialogues..

A discussion of the professional development measures implemented at the Faculty takes place at the Vice-Chancellor's Management and Quality Council and the Vice-Chancellor's Board Council. Follow-up is done in Vice-Chancellor’s dialogues.

Timetable

Competence development is ongoing. An annual review is conducted in connection with employee dialogues.

Communication channels

The university's website lists the professional development activities available. Communication via newsletters.

Student influence

Students are offered representation in the Faculty's Advisory Council as well as in both local and central work environment committees where issues related to professional development are regularly addressed in different contexts.

Main stakeholders

Teaching staff, Human Resources Office, the Unit for Development and Research in Higher Education (HUF).

Bakground and purpose

At the university, there is a single administrative support for operations whose mission is to be the university's professional support that proactively and together with other activities works to achieve the university's vision, goals, and strategies.

Areas of responsibility

Initiation: Head of Professional Services

Implementation: Directors within Professional Services

Implementation

In Professional Services, administrative and study-related support for prospective and current students and doctoral students is organised and conducted. Student support includes support to students in the areas of the University Library, Study and Career Counselling, Student Health Care, study support for students with disabilities, Student Reception, the Student Ombudsman, and IT.

The University Library offers access to course literature and other sources of information needed in the programme, as well as opportunities for individual reading, group work and discussion. Teaching librarians collaborate with Course Directors and participate in integrated course elements. Language Support offers guidance and support in developing language skills with a focus on academic language in Swedish and English. The University Library also coordinates ICT and media pedagogical support for the university.

Study and Career Counselling provides qualified guidance and information to students and prospective students as well as alumni regarding study choices, study techniques, and future working life.

Student Health Care provides preventive health care and treatment, both individually and at a group and organisational level, to promote students' physical and mental health.

If a student has a disability, the student has the possibility to apply for support so that studies can take place on equal terms. This can include, for example, providing students with compensatory adjustments in connection with teaching and examinations.

The Student Reception administers what happens around exams to ensure legal certainty. Students can also turn to Student Reception for matters concerning minor study administration issues that arise during their studies.

The university's Student Ombudsman is a support person for students in matters concerning the university's laws and regulations and students' rights and obligations. The issues may also relate to the treatment of teachers and other staff and also apply to students at VFU/student placements/internships with third parties.

The IT Office is tasked with providing service and support in IT matters. Students can contact the service desk if they have questions or problems with the university's computers and networks, user accounts, or access to software.

Dialogue, activities and feedback

Professional Services has regular dialogues with representatives where information on identified needs is communicated. The dialogues are both a review of what has been and a basis for planning ahead.

Regular dialogues at the university:

Follow-up dialogue for Professional Services in March
Departmental dialogues with the Faculties in March - April
Quality dialogue, university dialogue, and budget dialogue for Professional Services in May
Annual dialogue for Professional Services in October
Quality dialogue and budget dialogue for Professional Services in May
Once a month, the Director of the Faculty Support Office attends the Faculties' Advisory Council. Other Heads of Department participate as necessary.

The dialogues are attended by representatives of Professional Services, the university's management, Deans of Faculty, and the chairs of the Research and Education Boards. The dialogues are documented in writing. The Head of Professional Services also attends the Faculties' dialogues.

Regular dialogues with student representatives focusing on student support and infrastructure:

Regular meetings of the Study Environment Council (6 times/year)

The dialogues are documented in writing.

The documentation from the various dialogues and conversations, both with the university and student representatives, forms the basis for Professional Services regarding operational planning. Operational planning is documented in operational plans and action plans both at overall Professional Services level and at the departmental level. Operational plans and action plans are followed up twice a year. The full-year follow-up is documented in an activity report.

Timetable

Annual dialogues and review meetings.

Communication channels

Professional Services operational dialogues and the Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory and Quality Council.

Main stakeholders

Deans of Faculty, Heads of Department, Directors, students, doctoral students, Directors of Studies, Programme Co-ordinators, teaching staff.

Bakgrund och syfte

Rektors kvalitets- och verksamhetsdialoger är en central del i högskolans process för planering och uppföljning avseende att genomföra utbildning och forskning av hög kvalitet samt uppnå högskolans vision och mål. Dialogerna ingår i högskolans kvalitetsledningssystem och agendan skapas tillsammans av akademi/enhet och rektor.

Ansvarig

Initiering: Rektor

Uppföljning/kontroll: Stabschef

Genomförande: Rektors stab

Genomförande

Dialogerna tidsplaneras innan verksamhetsårets start och ska genomföras vid minst 4 tillfällen. Inför en dialog finns som utgångspunkt en dagordning för att skapa agendan samt med funktion att följa upp vad i verksamheten som följer plan och vad som avviker från plan. Dialogerna ska följa akademiers/enheters/högskolans normala verksamhetsstyrningscykel och följa upp de inför året fastställda målen och planerna för verksamheten.

Dialog, åtgärder och återkoppling

Dialogerna sker mellan rektor, prorektor, respektive verksamhetsdels ledning samt nämndordförandena. Minnesanteckningar förs och betraktas som arbetsmaterial. Anteckningarna används för att följa upp överenskomna åtgärder. Det åligger utsedd ansvarig för åtgärderna att dessa genomförs och återrapporteras.

Tidplan

Dialogerna genomförs enligt fastställd årsplan.

Studentinflytande

Studentkårens ordförande ska erbjudas deltagande vid dialogmötena.

Huvudsakliga intressenter

Varierar beroende på vilket område en fråga hör till då dialogernas agenda spänner över hela verksamheten. I ansvaret för en utsedd ansvarig för en åtgärd ligger att tillse att berörda intressenter får insyn.

In addition to the above activities 1-13 described as being included within the scope of the quality assurance system, the following activity is added.

The university has an implemented process for monitoring the quality assurance system and the systematic quality assurance work for education. Every three years, the Vice-Chancellor appoints a working group to conduct ongoing follow-up work on the systematic quality assurance work for education on an annual basis. The working group is chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor with the support of the university's central quality coordinator. The working group also includes representatives made up of staff, who have an important role to play in the teaching context.

The purpose is to evaluate and assess how well the quality assurance work functions and is used, and whether the system fulfils its purpose, i.e. whether the division of responsibilities, governance and activities in the quality work contribute to the maintenance and continuous improvement of quality in education at the University of Borås. The working group selects the appropriate area(s) to evaluate. The selection is based on the activities collected in the quality assurance manual for education and where shortcomings in how systematic quality assurance work is carried out have been noted. The evaluation object can also be a process/function that is deemed particularly important, but which does not constitute a single activity in the manual.

Serious shortcomings are reported immediately to the Vice-Chancellor’s Management and Quality Council, after which the manager concerned is given responsibility for drawing up an action plan and taking action within the framework of the regular quality work. Shortcomings are followed up in the Vice-Chancellor's dialogues. The working group documents the results of the ongoing monitoring for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the systematic quality work on education in the form of reports. The report also aims to identify both good examples and shortcomings that need to be addressed in order to ensure the quality of the measures implemented.

The report is presented and discussed at the Vice-Chancellor’s Management and Quality Council. The Deans of Faculty are responsible for addressing identified shortcomings. This work is followed up in the Vice-Chancellor's quality dialogues. The report provides a basis for further work on addressing identified gaps and disseminating good practice.

The follow-up process is described in more detail in Procedure for Systematic Follow-up of the Quality Assurance System for Education at the University of Borås, dnr 934-23.