HUMANE
Heads of University Management &
Administration Network in
SEMINAR
Friday 15 to
“Student
Issues”
The seminar took place in the Senate room of
the University, which in addition to a rich collection of portraits from its
long history was endowed with highly sophisticated IT equipment such as
individual screens for viewing presentations and speakers. Such technological innovation gave a
particular edge to the first session, on the role of new technologies in
support services.
Following a kind welcome by the
Rector of the University, Professor Fabio Roversi Monaco, the head of
administration (and President of the Italian Association of Direttori Amministrativi), Dr Ines
Fabbro, introduced the seminar by giving a summary of the University of
Bologna, the oldest university in the world. She underlined the fact that
students had always played a key role in
Since 1989 there had been four
decentralised campuses in other cities of
After giving more details of the provision made for students, Ines underlined the University’s commitment to improving the support services further still, both in technological and human terms. The inter-action between these different aspects was to be the subject of the first session.
Session 1
Professors Diego Macrì, and Maria Rita Tagliaventi, Università degli
Studi di Bologna (IT)
In two separate but linked presentations the speakers argued that
although new technologies had given rise to formidable new opportunities for
the delivery of services on the web, such approaches were not always the most
suitable. Certain services require forms of interaction that cannot be entirely
automated, since they require human contact, and would be less effective and
more impersonal if reduced solely to web-based exchanges. It was therefore
important too identify and deal with those operations consisting of pre-defined
exchanges of data and information in which human contact is not necessary.
In order to do this,
The structure of the portal was described, with a brief outline of a
number of successful projects implemented by
Discussion
Not least because of the excellence of the audio-visual equipment in the
meeting room, participants were interested to know what sort of resources had
been made available for the review. A
team from
Two British speakers put forward the view that while business process
re-engineering (BPR) was a valid undertaking, the full benefit of any new
systems comes from the accompanying examination of the managerial process. Christine Challis agreed with this, noting
that the LSE for You project which she had described in
Other observations concerned the paradox and occasional tensions
involved in the fact that there was decentralised use of centralised data, and
the extra training costs which were associated with this. Several colleagues developed this clash
between the intranet and the internet, and remarked on the wish of academic
colleagues to “do their own thing” rather than submit to a single, central set
of data. The need for a common system
across the institution was felt to be vital – and the session ended with the
remark that if that central system was
good, and produced by a committed team, other staff would want to
use it, and there would be no need to insist on it.
Session 2
Appeals
and
Student Complaints on Academic and Related Matters
Steve
Cannon noted that most, if not all, institutions of higher education (HEIs)
have internal procedures for dealing with student complaints. In recent years,
however,
One
major point which he made at the outset was the multiple rights of students to
complain in terms of standards, ranging from internal protocols to government
legislation, and including various codes of conduct which allowed complaints
against other students or staff. He
also stressed that academic complaints are always and only at the procedural
level – matters of academic judgment could not be challenged. Steve wondered whether this was still
reasonable. Indeed, the
He went on to examine the
controversy surrounding this issue and the background to the debate. As well as looking at existing practice and
procedures within
Discussion
In the lively debate which followed the short
presentation there was much concern about the ways in which the complaints
process had to balance the rights of the student and the person who was the
subject of a complaint. For example in
matters of sexual harassment the situation in the
Dutch students had the opportunity of going to
(civil) courts to press their case.
Steve noted that although this was theoretically possible in the
Bert Verveld,
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (NL)
Bert opened his presentation by
asking various questions, all springing from the idea that “… every professional firm must satisfy
three goals of ‘service, satisfaction and success’…” [1] He used this idea to show that when we look at a university as a
professional firm, we can see academic education as a professional service. In
this light, what service do we offer our students? How professional are our
service providers, the teachers? What is their professional academic
make-up? He argued that many aspects
were of importance: academic standing, teaching skills, teaching methods,
social behavior, open-mindedness, contact with colleagues, etc.
He drew
attention to three aspects in particular which would determine the teacher’s
success: the study programme, the physical context and the student.
The
design of the study programme provides the framework or broader perspective
within which the teacher works. It
determines to a large extent what is expected from teachers. Physical
facilities are very often underestimated in relation to teacher success
and student satisfaction. Poor
facilities don’t always produce poor education, but they make things a lot more
difficult. Good facilities, on the other hand, increase teacher and student
performance considerably. The student
determines the success of the teacher just as the teacher determines the
success of the student. You can’t spoil a good student - the best students will
survive any education system and any teacher! But most of our students don’t
reach the summit and come to university for a good solid education as a start
for their career in society.
Again
to quote Maister: “in any professional service there are three key benefits
that clients seek: expertise, experience and efficiency”. For most of our
students efficiency is not the least of their objectives.
The presentation concentrated on the case of
the
By contrast, key elements of the policy approach in
Bert acknowledged that university teachers are
traditionally researchers. So it should be and so it should stay. Academic
teaching and research are two of a kind, but it should be recognised that
university teaching is a profession in itself. University teachers should be
assessed on two aspects of their activity:
1.
Knowledge.
This is so obvious that it hardly needs mentioning. It involves academic
status, keeping up with international literature, research activities,
membership of editorial and academic boards, etc. More and more other types and
fields of knowledge are now becoming important for university lecturers, such
as: teaching methods, ICT and education, labour market, etc.
2.
Skills. These have become more and more important
over the years. As students tend to evaluate skills rather than knowledge in teacher
evaluations, staff have become more aware of the significance of teaching
skills. Here we shall consider things such as
pedagogical qualities, organising skills, communication with students
and colleagues, attitudes towards reform, openness to intellectual debate and
criticism, command of foreign languages, etc.
Bert offered two or three case studies from faculties
to illustrate the policy in more detail. His general premiss here was that
although we cannot ensure that all staff are great teachers, we can at
least expect that they all do a good, solid teaching job.
Discussion
Several participants recognised in their own national
systems the contradiction (referred to by one person as schizophrenia) whereby
universities allegedly respect and reward good teaching whereas in fact
research is king. There was still, for
example, no national scheme in the
Other members were interested in the way in which
Workshop Session (a)
Quality of Teaching
Christophe Ehrenberg, Universität Osnabrück (DE)
Problems concerning the quality of teaching at German universities were
acknowledged in the 1990s. The causes: on the one hand, the relatively poor
teacher/student ratio, thus the unfortunate conditions for being in charge of
an “overload” of students. Like Bert Verveld (previous session), Christoph
noted that another important reason was that becoming a university professor is
based mainly on research and not on teaching skills, so that good teaching
performances are not recognised.
The recognition of inadequate academic teaching
had led the federal government and several different states to introduce new
regulations concerning the evaluation of teaching skills into their higher
education legislation since 1998 in order to improve the quality of teaching.
Accordingly, when appointing professors, “pedagogic suitability” was now also
taken into consideration.
.
In the State of
While the ZEvA evaluations examine basic and structural questions (e.g.
evaluating the priorities of the offered courses, the structure of study-plans,
equipment, etc.), it does not go into the details of individual seminars or
lectures.
First
comes a period of self-evaluation and preparation of the external evaluation.
Here a working programme is drafted for specific disciplines, and the
university is advised about the main themes, and the possibility of using
workshops to agree on objectives. The
department draws up a self-evaluation, and discusses the nomination of experts
with the agency. Departmental groups
then have to collect the required material, and provide written analyses of
various issues, which the agency passes on to expert panels. These panels prepare and carry out external
evaluations.
The
agency agrees the precise timescale, and takes part in discussions within
departments before agreeing on any further action in consultation with the
expert panel. These peer groups decide
on the work plan for each evaluation, and then send a copy of their report to
departments for comment. Departments
then have a chance to respond to the report and its conclusions, and may submit
suggestions on the implementation of any recommendations. The expert panel then
finalises its report in conjunction with the agency, which determines the final
version and arranges publication.
Student feedback has also been introduced at most German universities,
but it is still on new ground. At the
The most systematic and scientific-based evaluation is at present the
“Teaching evaluation procedure
Christoph’s conclusion was that neither the evaluations of ZEvA nor the
feedback from students had resulted in harsh consequences so far at the
Workshop Session (b)
The Provision of Student
Services within the Context of a TQM System
Antonio Alonso Sanchez, University of Salamanca (ES)
This presentation addressed the experience of the
In a second section he went on to summarise his experience in
innovations in the academic services provided to students through the “single
window” principle underlying the Student Assistance Service. This aims at
simplifying students’ paperwork, partly through new on-line academic services
through the Internet. Thus there was
now a system of on-line suggestions/complaints/consultation boxes and on-Campus
Student Orientation Points, with Student Information Terminals through which
students can gain access to their own academic information, “smart cards”, etc.
This structure, designed to improve quality in student affairs,
completes the cycle of the TQM experience undertaken by the management of the