The University’s quality assurance system for education approved by the Swedish Higher Education Authority

“This is first and foremost confirmation that we have a quality assurance system for education that works. That is very gratifying. But it does not mean, of course, that we can rest on our laurels, or that it is perfect in every respect. But it does show that our way of assuring quality in our courses and study programmes inspires confidence when reviewed externally,” says Vice-Chancellor Anders Hagfeldt.

In formal terms, each higher education institution and UKÄ have a joint responsibility for providing high quality education. Higher education institutions develop their own quality assurance systems and UKÄ ensures that each HEI’s quality assurance processes serve their intended purpose. In the current review of our University, UKÄ communicated that the focus is on our quality assurance system for education (including doctoral education).

UKÄ has now assessed the University’s quality assurance system as approved quality assurance processes. A review of this kind results in one of three assessments: Approved quality assurance processes, Approved quality assurance processes with reservations, or Quality assurance processes under review.

All assessment areas satisfactory

In its report, the assessment panel judged all areas of assessment as satisfactory. Among other things, the panel highlighted the fact that we have a university-wide framework for quality assurance processes while also taking into account disciplinary domain diversity.

“This is really wonderful,” says Åsa Kettis, head of the Division for Quality Enhancement in the University Administration. “And it is particularly gratifying that our Uppsala model was convincing to the assessment panel. Our quality assurance system has grown out of peer processes in collaboration with the students. We have a common university-wide framework, but the main responsibility for quality assurance lies with the disciplinary domains, faculties and departments. This allows for local adaptations and greater suitability.”

But it also makes it a bit more difficult to get an overview, since ways of working vary.

“The assessment panel pointed out these challenges, but essentially they gave us a thumbs up. They could see the advantages, despite the complexity,” says Åsa Kettis.

Enhancement areas

Although the University has been assessed as having approved quality assurance processes, the assessment panel also identified areas that the University needs to work on.

“The assessment panel also pointed out that we ourselves have already identified several enhancement areas and that this in itself is proof that our quality assurance system works,” says Camilla Maandi, Head of the Unit for Quality and Evaluation. Then we need to continue to review our quality assurance processes regularly so that they remain as meaningful as possible given the resources available.

One assessment criteria was not met

Only one assessment criteria of nineteen in total was not met according to the assessment panel. Point 3.6 concerns publishing quality review results and communicating the planned and implemented actions to improve and enhance the course or study programme in a way that is appropriate for the relevant stakeholders.

“This concerns in part our course evaluation procedures; how the students who submitted course evaluations and the students at the subsequent course review receive feedback, but also the completion of course reports,” says Camilla Maandi.

Work is under way in the disciplinary domains and faculties to improve course evaluation procedures while a revision of the University’s guidelines for course evaluations is also in progress.

“The possibility of systematizing feedback to the students will also be reviewed in connection with the development of a new course evaluation tool,” says Camilla Maandi.

Next steps

“We should first be pleased with the excellent quality work that we have here at Uppsala University concerning our courses and study programmes,” says Anders Hagfeldt. “It is a quality model that many have been involved in developing and which many work with in their daily activities. This is proof of successful teamwork! Then, of course, we need to look closely at the report and all the strengths and enhancement areas that the assessment panel has highlighted. It is important that we preserve and retain these strengths while working together on the enhancement areas.”