Embedding the External Perspective in Study Programmes

In accordance with the new Quality Code for Higher Education (2019), Ghent University places great store by the input of external parties on its study programmes' education policy and quality assurance. Each study programme is expected to take a number of actions, that allows them to embed a wide-ranging external perspective in a structured manner.

What Are Minimal Requirements?

The entire set of actions undertaken by a study programme in the context of the external perspective should meet the following three criteria:

Each study programme seeks out a broad range of external stakeholders (minimally including the professional field, alumni, and international peers) to review its content-related components – including (at the very least) its programme competencies (learning outcomes), curriculum, assessment and exit level.
On an annual basis, the Study Programme Committee is to discuss the results of programme-specific surveys of the professional field, or of other structurally involved stakeholders, and of institutionally organised alumni surveys, as they become available in the Education Monitor via UGI. These surveys form a starting point for self-reflection and analysis.
The programme is to conduct a programme review. This entails that at least 3 international, independent, academic peers with a broad view on the programme, are asked to review programme content quality, either individually or in a panel. Such a programme review is to take place once every 6 years (or in the context of a major curriculum revision). The focus of the programme review is to check whether or not programme competencies (learning outcomes), curriculum, assessment, and exit level are up to standard.

Peers are preferably international authorities in the field. The Education Department (DOWA) developed a template with target questions. The use of the template is optional.

Independent peers are experts who are transparent on any existing collaboration ties with the study programme that is under review. They sign a declaration of impartiality and independence stating that they will conduct the programme review in an independent and objective manner. A template is provided by the Education Department (DOWA).

The Professional Field and Alumni Perspective vs. the Perspective of International Peers

The Quality Code for Higher Education identifies two stakeholder groups as mandatory sounding boards for reviewing study programmes' content-related components:

the professional field, alumni, employers' organisations;
international peers/experts.

It goes without saying that these stakeholders groups all carry a different expertise and different perspectives:

Regional vs. International

professional field partners and (most) alumni often represent locally/regionally embedded organisations and companies, and thus offer local/regional perspectives;
international peers, with a variety of possible affiliations, offer an international perspective.

Perspective of the Professional Field vs. Academic Perspective

professional field representatives/partners can introduce a job market point of view into the study programme. Among other things, they can provide information on the employability and professional aptitude of graduates.
international peers can review a study programme's content from an academic perspective.

Feedback vs. Programme Review

study programmes are expected to gather feedback from the professional field and alumni in a structural manner;
study programmes are also expected to seek out international peers for a thorough content-based programme review. Such international experts are well-placed to determine whether or not a programme's content meets international standards, and whether or not the programme is sufficiently evidence-based.

Study programmes are asked to gather external input, reflect on this input, and then determine whether or not they will act upon it.

Gathering and reflecting on the input of (all the above types of) external parties is mandatory. However, well-substantiated arguments can be made why that input does not (immediately) result in changes to the study programme.

Possible Actions to Take in the Context of the External Perspective: An Overview

There is a variety of possibilities for embedding the external perspective in study programmes' (quality improvement) policy. The idea is for study programme committees to selects a number of actions that, taken together, meet the criteria mentioned above.

Engaging the Professional Field or Alumni

establish a professional committee / advisory board;
invite external members into existing bodies of consultation;
use existing network events with the professional field to add a separate feedback moment;
organise specific alumni events or events with professional field, and add a discussion with a quality assurance component;
organise alumni surveys or professional field surveys (@);
organise surveys for other external parties involved in education (@);
organise focus group sessions with recent graduates / alumni (@);
involve the professional field in the Master’s dissertation process, or invite representatives of the professional field as members of Master's dissertation juries;

Actions Towards Realising an International Programme Review

use international frameworks as a guideline for programme reform, or as a touchstone for an existing programme (@)
have a selection of Master’s dissertations reviewed by international peers, or include an external peer in the jury of each dissertation (@)
survey incoming/outgoing students (@)
connect a programme review to activities in the context of teaching staff mobility
connect a programme review to an international conference
organise a meeting with international partner programmes to conduct a programme review (@)
organise a working visit at an international partner programme to conduct a programme review
pursue an international accreditation

The External Perspective and its Link with Ghent University's Strategic Education Objectives ‘Stakeholder Involvement’ and ‘Internationalisation’

Programmes have a lot to gain by creating synergies between the external perspective for quality assurance purposes and existing processes related to the Strategic Education Objectives mentioned above.

Links with a Broader Stakeholder Policy

Stakeholder involvement (cf. the Education Monitor) implies that study programmes run processes and undertake actions by means of which internal and external stakeholders are systematically includes in education (policy) decisions.

These processes and actions aimed at including externals (professional field, alumni, …) can have different end goals, for example:

exchanging information;
setting up a joint (research) project;
installing or supervising learning processes (e.g. in the context of work placements, Community Service Learning)
formulating advice for the study programme committee;
assessing the programme’s intented learning outcomes;
…

Many programmes already have ongoing processes that involve externals in their education practice and/or policy-making. In the context of quality assurance, these channels prove to be an excellent means to review essential content-related components (e.g. the curriculum) as well.

If there is a need for a new or updated plan on stakeholder involvement in the study programme, this exercise should be approached in a systematic manner. The following steps might give some direction:

determine the needs and roles of external stakeholders vis-à-vis the programme;
determine the needs of the programme;
analyse and select relevant stakeholders;
make a well-considered choice of methodology (or a combination of methodologies) that will allow for a structured dialogue with external stakeholders;
assess the policy plan, and revise where necessary.

Links with Internationalisation

To come to an international external perspective, programmes can set up new actions, or they can rely on (existing) initiatives in the context of internationalisation. Initiatives related to staff mobility as well as student mobility offer various possibilities.

Appropriate international peers or partner programmes can also be identified within existing/known networks. Among the possibilities are:

networks at the level of the programme, the faculty, or the institution;
networks of similar international programmes;
international research networks

The DOWA Internationalisation Relations Office offers faculties various means that can be used for the programme review:

Means	Use?
Organisation and support of Erasmus (OS) in the context of Erasmus + Key Action 1 “Learning Mobility for Individuals” and Organisation International Mobility (OIM) outside of the Erasmus zone	For preparatory visits, welcoming activities, etc.
Erasmus teaching staff mobility in the context of Erasmus+ Key Action 1 “Learning Mobility for Individuals” + Teaching staff mobility in the context of the Ghent University “Birak-funds” (for use outside of the Erasmus zone).	Primarily for the support of lecturers who have a short-term teaching assignment at a partner institution. Via similar channels, financial support for ATP staff is also available for visits to partner institutions or participation in organised staff weeks.
Within U4Society/Enlight, Ghent University has a continuous call for applications to support the mobility of students and staff.	For individual outgoing, short-term mobility to the 4 partner institutions for research and teaching purposes. And for joint initiatives in which at least 2 partner universities are involved (synopsia, seasonal schools, excursions).
In collaboration with the universities of Lille and Kent, funds are made available via an annual call.	For teaching- and research-related collaboration initiatives.
Ghent University's regional platforms (China Platform, Africa Platform, Russia Platform, CESAM platform and ASEAN+ platform) offer opportunities for support	For specific types of collaboration between Ghent University and a partner institution in one of the countries/regions involved.

The regulations governing budget expenditure also allow for these funds to be used for improving the quality of collaboration with the institutions involved, provided that the Faculty Committee Internationalisation, and, if relevant, the International Relations Office have approved this.

Embedding the External Perspective: Specific Examples

In the event that a Programme Committee has selected and initiated various actions to embed the external perspective, what can the sum total of these actions eventually look like? What is “sufficient” to meet the three criteria? Three fictional examples:

Example One: Study Programme X

test

1. Each study programme reviews its content-related components – at the very least the programme competencies (learning outcomes), the curriculum, assessment and exit level – with a broad range of external stakeholders.

study programme X organises an annual alumni event. In the margins of this event, the study programme also organises a focus group session with a number of alumni to ask them a number of questions in the context of quality assurance;
recently, study programme X set up an advisory board to consult the professional field in a structured manner. Its graduates end up in a wide professional field. This is why the advisory board comprises representatives of the main sectors employing these graduates. The advisory board meets on an annual basis, or more frequently in the context of a major curricular revision;
the study programme also organises work visits to two Erasmus partners and a meeting with a peer at a research conference (cf. criterion 3).

2. The Programme Committee (PC) discusses the results of the programme-specific surveys of the professional field, or other structurally involved stakeholders, and of centrally organised surveys of recent graduates and alumni on an annual basis.

study programme X discusses the results of the centrally organised alumni survey at a Programme Committee meeting.

3. The study programme conducts a programme review. This entails that at least three international, independent academic peers, who have a comprehensive outlook on the programme, should review the quality of the programme content. They can either do so independently or in a panel, once every six years, or in the context of a major curricular revision.

in the margins of a research conference, a member of the teaching staff of study programme X is planning a meeting with a lecturer/representative of a leading and comparable international study programme. During that meeting, the content-related components of the programme will be reviewed;
the study programme also organises two working visits to two Erasmus partners to review the content-related components and to identify potential learning points.

Example Two: Study Programme Y

study programme Y's faculty is home to an active, faculty-wide alumni association by means of which the study programme can contact its alumni for participation in programme-specific surveys, or in a feedback session on a proposed curricular revision;
study programme Y organises a bi-annual survey of the work placement mentors involved in the programme’s work placement (cf. criterion 2);
study programme Y set up an advisory group of external professional field representatives. This advisory group comprises five members who, taken together, represent the main sectors in which graduates find employment. The advisory group meets with the study programme committee annually to discuss the two most important content-related matters of the upcoming academic year. The advisory group is also always contacted for feedback on major curricular revisions;
together with the other study programmes in the faculty, study programme Y periodically goes through an international accreditation procedure (cf. criterion 3).

study programme X discusses the results of the centrally organised alumni survey at a Programme Committee meeting;
study programme Y organises a bi-annual survey of the work placement mentors involved in the programme’s work placement . This survey yields interesting information on whether or not students attain the programme competencies (learning outcomes);

Together with the other programmes in the faculty, programme Y periodically goes through an international accreditation procedure. In this context the extent to which the content-related components meet international standards is assessed.

Example 3: Programme Z

study programme Z organises a speeddate between students and alumni on an annual basis. In the margins of this event, study programme management hold a focus group session with a number of alumni, discussing, among other things, employability and content-related questions;
on an annual basis, study programme Z organises a poster conference, during which students present their Master’s dissertations to an audience of externals. The study programme always invites professional field represenatives to this conference. Prior to this event, they organise a consultation with their professional field partners as a means to keep abreast of new trends in the labour market. The professional field representatives use their perspetives to offer feedback on study programme content;
study programme Z sets up a meeting between programme management and three leading international partner programmes. This meeting becomes the programme review (cf. criterion 3).

study programme X discusses the results of the centrally organised alumni survey during a Programme Committee meeting.

study programme Z sets up a meeting between programme management and three leading international partner programmes. This meeting becomes the programme review: the programme competencies (learning outcomes), the curriculum, assessment and exit level of the participating study programmes are compared critically. Prior to the meeting, information on the content of the different study programmes is exchanged. A number of Master's dissertations are assessed as well. The participants formulate mutual advice and exchange good practices.

How to Make the External Perspective and Concomittant Actions Visible in the Education Monitor: an Example

if your study programme as drawn up an action plan, or an overview table, make sure to include this in the Education Monitor. This can take the form of an attachment or a hyperlink, preferably added to the chapter on Embedding the External Perspective (Part Two) and the "Key Information" section;
also include the output of separate initiaves (reflections, reports, survey results, …). Please find an example of how this can be registered in the Education Monitor below, applied to study programme X;
please note that there are no fixed approaches. The way in which you register items in the Education Monitor can also depend on the way in which your programme/faculty is organised.

Fictional study programme X: an Example

Processes/actions	How is this registered in the Education Monitor?
Study programme X discusses the results of the centrally organised alumni survey during the Programme Committee meeting.	the recurrent processes related to alumni involvement (discussion surveys / organisation of events / methodologies for focus groups) are described in the “DO” of Part Two, Chapter 2.1, “Embedding the External Perspective”; the results of the discussion of the alumni survey are included in the PC meeting minutes. When performing the CHECK of the OBJECTIVES related to the external perspective, a link (in the field “discussion of results) to the meeting minutes is included; when performing the CHECK of the OBJECTIVES pertaining to the external perspective, the minutes of the focus group meeting are added as an attachment; if the alumni input gives rise to suggestions/points of improvement, a reference to the PC meeting minutes or the focus group meeting should be added to the ACT in the relevant topic or chapter (assessment, teaching methods).
Study programme X organises an alumni event. In the margins of this event, they hold a focus group meeting with alumni.
Study programme X recently set up an advisory board to hold discussions with the professional field in a structural manner.	the functioning of the advisory board is described consicely in the “DO” of Part Two, Chapter 2.1. minutes of the annual advisory board meetings are posted on the PC Team Site; when performing the CHECK of the OBJECTIVES pertaining to the external perspective, a link to the advisory board meeting minutes is included; It is also possible to link to the PC meeting minutes and/or of other quality assurance bodies (e.g. programme management meeting, Quality Assurance Unit) in which the findings of the advisory board are discussed; if the input given by the advisory board gives rise to suggestions/points of improvement, a reference to the PC meeting minutes or the focus group meeting should be added to the ACT in the relevant topic or chapter.

Attachments

UGent Practices

Farmaceutische bachelorproef: een samenwerking met het werkveld

Last modified April 16, 2024, 11:58 a.m.