1. BOLOGNA PROCESS
The Bologna Process is a European process of academic reform, the original aim of which was to create a single European Higher Education Area by 2010. 47 countries are currently involved, with the support of various international organizations and the direct involvement of all European institutions. The process seeks to converge the university systems of the participating countries to organize higher education systems and individual institutions throughout Europe, and involves:
- the adoption of a system of academic degrees which are easy to read and compare, to allow for their mutual recognition;
- the adoption of a system based on three cycles and a new system of credits, the ECTS;
- making higher education in Europe more attractive to non-EU students;
- promoting the social dimension of the Process;
- promoting cooperation within the EU on quality assurance and the implementation of the criteria and guidelines proposed by ENQA.
Two aspects of the Bologna Process need to be clarified. Firstly, it is not based on an international treaty that binds the governments of the countries involved: although the relevant ministers have signed various documents, each country and its academic community adheres to the common principles on a voluntary basis. Secondly, the process does not seek to standardize the individual European systems of higher education, but aims to preserve their diversity within a common framework, while building bridges between them.
The 48 European countries that have adhered to the Bologna Process so far are:
- Albania,
- Andorra,
- Armenia,
- Austria,
- Azerbaijan,
- Belarus,
- Belgium,
- Bosnia-Herzegovina,
- Bulgaria,
- Croatia,
- Cyprus,
- Czech Republic,
- Denmark,
- Estonia,
- Finland,
- France,
- Georgia,
- Germany,
- Greece,
- Holy See,
- Hungary,
- Iceland,
- Ireland,
- Italy,
- Kazakhstan,
- Latvia,
- Liechtenstein,
- Lithuania,
- Luxembourg,
- Malta,
- Moldova,
- Montenegro,
- Netherlands,
- Norway,
- Poland,
- Portugal,
- Romania,
- Russian Federation,
- Serbia,
- Slovak Republic,
- Slovenia,
- Spain,
- Sweden,
- Switzerland,
- the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
- Turkey,
- Ukraine,
- United Kingdom.
As not all the objectives have been achieved in full, the original deadline of 2010 has been deferred until 2020.
2. INTERNAL EVALUTATION
In the process of internal evaluation, the unit under evaluation seeks to respond to four fundamental questions (What are we trying to do? How are we trying to do it? How do we know if it is working? How can we improve?). These questions prompt the unit to reflect on its mission, purpose, objectives, strategic priorities and procedures, with the aim of bringing about improvements.
One of the first fundamental stages in the organization of quality evaluation is the creation of an appropriate internal QA body within each institution.
As most ecclesiastical institutions are small, it would not make sense to insist on such a body in all cases: another appropriate solution should be adopted.
The method includes various stages for each unit:
- the preparation of a self-evaluation report under certain headings, to explain the work and activities of the unit in detail. The emphasis is on reflection, analysis and self-criticism;
- an international group of external experts reads the self-evaluation report and spends a few days visiting the unit. This group writes a report of the visit, highlighting any recommendations for improvement;
- the report is made available to all interested parties;
- a plan of action is agreed upon to implement the recommendations contained in the external experts' report.
The duration of the visits by experts depends on the size of the unit under evaluation; an average of two to three days is generally sufficient.
The guidelines drawn up by ENQA suggest that the entire evaluation process be repeated once every five years.
During the self-evaluation process, students receive questionnaires to fill in. They can also request to speak to members of the external evaluation team during their visit.
Students can be chosen by their university to take part in the evaluation of the unit (faculty, library, canteen, etc.).
3. EXTERNAL EVALUTATION
The process of external evaluation is intended to assess the realization and effectiveness of internal quality systems. The procedures used for external quality assessment are proportional to the size of the institution in question and reflect those used for the internal evaluation. Specifically, external evaluation seeks to:
- provide a brief but comprehensive summary of the unit's vision of its strategic objectives and its ability to achieve them;
- illustrate the quality procedures and systems already in place, assessing their effectiveness;
- provide a critical analysis of the unit's activities and act as a springboard for its development and improvement;
- help the unit to identify its strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and suggest appropriate solutions when necessary;
- identify any procedural and organizational weaknesses in the definition of policies and other matters that are under the control of the unit and can be changed.
External evaluations are organized by AVEPRO, which selects a team of international experts to perform them. Having read the unit's self-evaluation report and spent one or two days visiting the site, the experts write up a report which will be published. The institution then prepares an action plan based on the experts' report and AVEPRO monitors developments during the implementation of the plan.
The duration of the visits by experts depends on the size of the unit/faculty/university under evaluation; an average of two to three days is generally sufficient.
The guidelines drawn up by ENQA suggest that the entire evaluation process be repeated once every five years.
The criteria are defined by the Sapientia christiana, the statute(s) of the institution, the ESG and the guidelines provided by AVEPRO. It should be pointed out that, with the exception of the general principles, the regulations may be subject to change according to the context in which they are applied.
4. EXPERTS
The peer review group charged with carrying out the site visit at the end of the internal evaluation phase is chosen by the institution itself. The team of external experts who carry out the site visit is selected by AVEPRO.
5. REPORTS
The self-evaluation report generally varies in length (from 5 to 25 pages) according to the size of the unit under evaluation. Its purpose is to provide a concise but comprehensive presentation of the activities and processes of the faculty or service unit in question, with the emphasis on self-analysis and self-criticism. The self-evaluation report should help the faculty/unit to identify and analyse its strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and introduce the necessary improvements.
In this document the peer review group selected by the institution itself puts forward its recommendations, with the aim of encouraging quality improvement. The coordinator of the external peer review group is responsible for writing up this report.
In this document the group of experts selected by AVEPRO certifies the validity and precision of the self-evaluation report, puts forward any proposals to favour the institution's development, and provides suggestions for further actions to be taken both by the institution and by the relevant academic authorities.
Only the external experts' reports are published, following the external evaluation.
None of the reports contain personal information, ensuring complete anonymity.
6. STUDENTS
Apart from through questionnaires and conversations, students are selected by the university to join the unit's (faculty, library, canteen) evaluation team, bearing in mind that this commitment must not take up too much of their time.
No. Regulatory competence remains with the Congregation for Catholic Education, as does responsibility for the accreditation of ecclesiastical universities or faculties and any administrative decisions. The Congregation also reserves the right to take corrective action, when necessary, concerning problems identified by the experts following the external evaluation.
