Self-evaluations at the University of Helsinki

1
Self-evaluations at the University of Helsinki

• Kauko Hämäläinen, professor
• University of Helsinki
• Varazdin, 11.11.2005

2
Content of the presentation

• Experiences of quality assurance
• evaluation of research
• evaluation of teaching
• quality matrix for self-assessment
• evaluation of administration
• problems and possibilities

3
University of Helsinki(1640)

• Main tasks research, teaching and interaction
  with society
• Bilingual (Finnish and Swedish)
• 11 faculties,budget EUR 475 million
• 38,000 undergraduate students, 60,000 in adult
  education
• 3,500 researchers and teachers
• Operates on 4 campuses in Helsinki and in 20
  other locations in Finland
• One of the leading multidisciplinary research
  universities in Europe

HY-KALVOSARJA XI/03 YLEISTÄ 2
4
Objectives of quality system

• meet the qa criteria of the European HE Area
  ENQA
• be part of the HE institutionss operational
  steering and management system
• cover all of the universitys operations
• be integrated as a part of the normal operations
  of the university
• be continuous, documented and participatory

5
Evaluation of teaching

• University organised an international evaluation
  of the quality of its education and its degree
  programmes
• all faculties were evaluated
• first self-evaluation
• second international experts
• public report
• more funding to the best and weakest

6
Quality matrix for the self-assessment of teaching

• defines the quality of teaching
• essential processeses and areas in high-quality
  education
• areas are ranked satisfactory,developing, good
  and exellent
• definitions are concrete
• sets standards for quality

7
Content of the matrix

• interaction between teaching and research
• teaching goals
• leadership of teaching
• teaching
• learning results
• resources
• feedback and follow-up
• postgraduate studies

8
Use of the matrix

• for self-assessment as well as for setting
  concrete objectives
• help individual teachers and students to become
  acquited with matters related to quality and its
  definition
• help planning of the programmes
• used to set criteria when rewarding departments
  for exellent teaching

9
Evaluation of research

• Every sixth year, first time 1999
• By 21 high level international panels
• Panels are nominated by the Scientific Council of
  the university
• Purpose to examine the scientific quality and
  advice how to develop it
• Based on desk research and on-site visit
• Allocation of funds

10
Basic material

• A complete list of publications
• Selected complication of publications
• Sample of best publications
• Doctoral theses and other academic actvity
• Interaction between the units research and
  society

11
Evaluation of administration and governance, 2005

• How should the university be managed?
• Are the roles of academic and administration
  clear?
• How can we manage the ever-growing costs?
• How to make administrative processes shorter and
  more transparent?
• Focus Functionality, size, organisation and
  operation

12
Activities evaluated

• Strategic planning
• Budgeting and budget monitoring
• Working processes of personal policy,
  recruitment, staff leadership, personnel training
• Research administration and services
• Administraton of premises

13
Evaluation process

• Planing working group from university
• Evaluation group membersfrom industry and other
  universities, everyone with internatinal
  experience
• Self-evaluation first, then on-site visits
• Public report
• Development group nominated

14
Critical points of evaluation

• Who is the owner of evaluation?
• Who defines the quality?
• Is self evaluation enough?
• What kind of evaluation can activate
  development?
• Flexibility to create new programmes / teaching
  arrangements and use of nationally or
  internationally accepted standards
• How to find standards / criteria, which are
  essential for learning?
• The discipline-specific and general academic
  standards (learning-to-learn, thinking styles,
  social skills etc.)
• How many times same evaluation / quality method
  can be used?

Kauko Hämäläinen 2005