DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011

YEREVAN STATE ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS (YSAFA)

ESG Standard 1. Policy and procedures for quality assurance It is not possible to give a mark. The university describes precisely what the most important challenges and objectives and problems to solve its organizational development are and a list of measures for each problem/need detected is presented; though, no detailed information on the planned QA-system is given. A strong recommendation is to incorporate the learning outcome approach as basis for all developments in the fields of teaching and learning. As the policy is not defined therefore the institution does not mention the relationship between teaching and research in the institution, the institution's strategy for quality and standards, the responsibilities of departments, schools, faculties and other organizational units and individuals responsible for the assurance of quality. The information provided seems more to be a plan for future actions, some of actions have more concrete description, which lead to an assumption that plans are partially implemented.

2. Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards There seem to be some regular reviewing activities of study programmes; the learning outcome approach though is not mentioned. There is a good practice of cooperation with counterparts at international level. The institution implements annual review of academic programmes. However, there is no mention on the existence of distinct mechanisms and it is not clear, if and what kind of feedback mechanisms are in place. The described annual overview of programmes could be interpreted as evaluation, though. The changes seem to be made at the programme level in course of the annual overview. A strong recommendation is to adopt a learning outcome approach. The institution does not refer to the development and publication of explicit learning outcomes, specific needs of different modes of delivery and types of higher education, availability of appropriate learning resources, formal program approval procedures by a body other than that teaching the program, regular feedback from employers, labour market representatives and other relevant organisations, participation of students in quality assurance activities. In the second criteria there is a link to all ESG standards, which does not allow for objective assessment.

3. Assessment of Students In the third standard the institution mentions that, in general, it strives to use the Bologna assessment. The criteria and procedures of student assessment seem to be defined and published, although learning outcome approach not yet implemented (probably meant when stating that assessment will have to meet Bologna system). However, there is no clear information whether the assessment system is revised and checked for effectiveness. Further, there is no information on the feedback mechanisms and evaluation tools. There exists a list of measures to be taken. As for the improvement with regards to learning 1

DUIS EVALUATION RESULTS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT May 24, 2011 outcomes based assessment there is no mentioned so far. The institution does not mention about the assessment of the expected learning outcomes, whether the assessment correspondence to its goals and the like. The system is presented in general terms and does not provide any specific information. 4. Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff A list of measures to enhance quality of staff exists; however no information is available if a systematic staff development is planned for. YSAFA has planned to analyze and evaluate the capacities of the teaching staff, to develop a questionnaire for assessing teachers by students, to prepare and implement trainings for the them, to employ new teachers, to encourage young teachers and to provide mobility for them. However, no information is available on whether other staff evaluation tools and feedback mechanisms are planned for to improve the effectiveness of the teaching staff. It is not clear whether any measures are planned and are already implemented. 5. Learning Resources and Student Support It is difficult to give a mark. The university presents an analysis of their needs with regard to learning resources and especially infrastructure. There is no information about quality assurance of learning resources and student support. The institution does not present data about the mechanisms of the verification, efficiency, modernization, improvement and current needs satisfaction of the learning resources. 6. Information Systems It is difficult to give a mark. The university presents an analysis of their needs with regard to information technology and infrastructure. However, there is no information whether there is a quality related information system in place and whether it is checked for validity and reliability. There is no information about the collection and analysis system to recruit the following information: student progression and success rates, employability of graduates, student satisfaction with their programs, effectiveness of teachers, available learning resources and their costs, the institution s own key performance indicators. 7. Public Information The university presents a list of measures to be taken for improving public information provisions; nevertheless nothing is said about quality issues and present performance, as well as about the availability of relevant quality information material for studying at YSAFA. The institution does not provide information about the work opportunities of its graduates.