The VG has a considerable programmatic value, indicates some directions but gives the academic institutions the freedom (and the responsibility) to insert the contents and the necessary methods to achieve the objectives and make concrete the indications presented in the text.
The Proem defines 4 key principles that have an impact on the evaluation of the quality of ecclesiastical academic institutions:
- The missionary identity and the return to Kerygma, that is, to the essential of the Christian proclamation;
- Dialogue in all fields "not as a tactical attitude" but as a "culture of encounter";
- Multi-disciplinarity, inter-disciplinarity and trans-disciplinarity, i.e. trying to overcome the fragmentation of knowledge and scientific knowledge;
- The ability to network by enhancing the positive and enriching contribution of peripheral realities.
These elements make it possible for the concept of quality to be investigated not only with regard to teaching but also with regard to research, the third mission and all the management and governance activities of academic institutions.
The Quality Assurance Process is to be considered as a cyclical, shared, continuous activity and is divided into the following phases:
Step 1: Self-assessment and SWOT Analysis
Step 2: Conclusion of the self-assessment and drafting of the RAV (Self-assessment Report)
Step 3: External Evaluation, Avepro Commission Evaluation Report
Step 4: Drawing up the Quality Improvement Plan (QMP)
Step 5: Strategic Plan (PS)
It is the internal evaluation process of university quality through which the University monitors and evaluates all activities, including curricula, organization and volume of research, innovation, management, funding systems and services. Procedures should promote academic and organizational quality, develop a culture of quality, reduce bureaucracy, be cost-effective, avoid regulatory excesses, etc..
It is the analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for the improvement of academic and organizational quality.
Groups can be formed either by students and faculty together or divided by category. In large faculties there can be more than one working group, also divided by Department. Each group must have a moderator who, at the end of the work, will draw up a report on the SWOT analysis to be handed over to the Deans/Presidents/Directors.
Yes. The analysis must be made in relation to the overall academic reality and with respect to the individual areas of reference (eg. teaching, research, teachers, students, services, etc..). Avepro suggests the following questions:
- What are the main strengths of the University? What are the main strengths of academic unity? How do you plan to maintain and develop them?
- What are the main weaknesses of the University? What are the main weaknesses of academic unity? How do you plan to overcome them?
- What are the main opportunities for the University? What are the main opportunities for academic unity? How do you plan to take advantage of them?
- What are the main challenges and obstacles facing the University? What are the main challenges and obstacles that the academic unit has to face? How do you plan to overcome them? In what timescale?
- How does academic unity intend to achieve its goals in the short and long term?
- What are the strategic priorities highlighted by the SWOT analysis, consistent with the University's own vision and mission?
More specifically :
- Why should a person come to teach or study at the WYP, rather than somewhere else? What is the most qualifying aspect of PUG training?
- What are the main obstacles you encounter when working or studying at the PUG?
- Considering the current context as the Pontifical University of Rome, what can be the new possibilities for our future development?
- Still in the above context, what are the challenges that could threaten our future if we did not act promptly?
The Self-assessment Report must contain information on the SWOT analysis, strengths and weaknesses, criticalities and areas of excellence of the University. The emphasis is on reflection, participation, analysis and self-criticism.
The RAV is a document reserved for the exclusive use of the Institution itself and the External Evaluation Commission and will not be published. This will encourage the University to make an examination of conscience, involving all components of the academic community in the process.
Avepro appoints a group of international experts (Evaluation Commission) who will analyse the RAV, visit the University for one or more days (external visit) and write a Report (External Evaluation Report) which will be sent to the Grand Chancellor and the Congregation for Catholic Education and which is published on the Avepro website.
During the visit the external Commission interviews the different groups of the University, visits the spaces, consults documents. At the end of the visit, the Commission presents to the University the first results and recommendations that it intends to highlight in the drafting of the Evaluation Report.
The evaluation report should be drawn up within 6 weeks of the visit.
The next step is for the President of the Commission to send the Rector the final version of the Report drawn up by the Commission.
The University has two weeks to examine the Report, comment on it and, if necessary, correct formal errors or produce an annex which, if appropriate, will be part of the final Report.
After the external evaluation report, a follow-up process will follow in order to achieve 3 objectives:
- Assess the feasibility and adequacy of the recommendations made by the External Commission and contained in the External Evaluation Report;
- Initiate a participatory reflection leading to the definition of strategic planning;
- Monitor the implementation of strategic planning and update the University's SWOT analysis in order to launch the new evaluation cycle that will lead to the drafting of a new RAV, etc.
The tools to achieve these objectives are:
- the Quality Improvement Plan (QMP) to be elaborated within 6 months from the conclusion of the external evaluation report process;
- the University's Strategic Plan (SP) to be elaborated within 12 months of the conclusion of the external evaluation report process.
The evaluation process can be considered concluded when the University draws up and approves its Strategic Plan. The implementation and monitoring of the Strategic Plan marks the start of the next evaluation cycle. The new RAV will start from a critical re-reading of how and how much will have been possible to achieve thanks to the Strategic Plan.
In 2015, the Faculties and Institutes prepared the Strategic Plan of the relative academic unit for the three-year period 2015-2018. In the RAV that we will present in 2021 it will be necessary to include the updates of the Strategic Plans.
It is a document designed to take into account only the recommendations drawn up by the external Commission.
- The first column indicates the recommendation made by the External Commission;
- In the second column, the academic and/or service unit indicates its degree of "attunement" with the recommendation (e.g. to be accepted in full or in part, mostly not to be accepted, etc.);
- The third column indicates the reasons why it is not considered useful or possible to accept the recommendation or, alternatively, the way in which it is intended to do what is indicated in the recommendation, specifying the time frame within which the process is to be started and possibly completed, and the persons responsible for the necessary work.