Re: CEPES UNESCO questionnaire

Monica Cucoanes <MONICA@cepes.ro> Fri, 04 February 1994 00:06 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21659; 3 Feb 94 19:06 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21652; 3 Feb 94 19:06 EST
Received: from nisp.ncl.ac.uk by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23621; 3 Feb 94 19:06 EST
Received: by nisp.mailbase.ac.uk id <AA24126@nisp.mailbase.ac.uk> (5.65cVUW/MAILBASE.2.0 ); Thu, 3 Feb 1994 23:56:20 GMT
Message-Id: <199402032356.AA24126@nisp.mailbase.ac.uk>
X-Version: Mailbase (TM) Enhanced List Manager Version 2.3
Received: from [+JANET.000040010500/FTP.MAIL] by nisp.mailbase.ac.uk id <AA24082@nisp.mailbase.ac.uk> (5.65cVUW/MAILBASE.2.0 ); Thu, 3 Feb 1994 23:56:07 GMT
Received: from ROEARN.ICI.AC.RO by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <sg.25013-0@sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>; Thu, 3 Feb 1994 21:00:12 +0000
Received: from CEPES.RO (MONICA) by ROEARN (MX V3.1C) with BSMTP; Thu, 03 Feb 1994 14:51:52 +0200
Received: from CEPES.RO by CEPES.RO (PMDF #12540) id <01H8GA06CQOG0001SR@CEPES.RO>; Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:18 MET
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:18 MET
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Monica Cucoanes <MONICA@cepes.ro>
Subject: Re: CEPES UNESCO questionnaire
To: hsavolai@convex.csc.fi, schnitzer@his.de, sigrid.holtermann@admin.uio.no, mat@sco.msvsr.sk, andr@sspa.msk.su, jvberkom@kub.nl, kempff@kub.nl, s211keno@kub.nl, piet@kub.nl, martin@kub.nl, teun@kub.nl, solke@kub.nl, bacher@bmwf.gv.at, lestinen@tukki.jyu.fi, andrey@idenet.isrir.msk.su, MHO@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu, nir@mailbase.ac.uk, ososo <ososo%BITNET.BGCICT@roearn.ici.ro>, mifmo09d@d5.ub.es, John.Hopkins@csc.fi, pavel@center.unicor.free.net, Message-Id: 01H8GA06CQOG0001SR@cepes.ro;
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at CNRI.Reston.VA.US
X-Envelope-To: sigrid.holtermann@admin.uio.no, ososo@bgcict.bitnet, bacher@bmwf.gv.at, pavel@center.unicor.free.net, hsavolai@convex.csc.fi, John.Hopkins@csc.fi, mifmo09d@d5.ub.es, h267kir@ella2.sztaki.hu, schnitzer@his.de, andrey@idenet.isrir.msk.su, jvberkom@kub.nl, kempff@kub.nl, martin@kub.nl, piet@kub.nl, s211keno@kub.nl, solke@kub.nl, teun@kub.nl, nir@mailbase.ac.uk, MHO@NAUVAX.UCC.NAU.EDU, X-Vms-To: @LO.DIS
X-Vms-Cc: MONICA
X-List: nir@uk.ac.mailbase
Reply-To: Monica Cucoanes <MONICA@cepes.ro>
X-Orig-Sender: nir-request@mailbase.ac.uk
Precedence: list

                                                        CEPES UNESCO
                                                        Jan. 12 1994


                        QUESTIONNAIRE
                        =============

                            on

                Institutional Evaluation and Accreditation System(s)
                in Higher Education
                ===============================================

        Following the recent approval of the Low on Accreditation on Academic
Evaluation and Accreditation in Romania, CEPES-UNESCO has launched, under the
auspices of the World Bank, and with the agreement of the Romanian Ministry of
Education, two pilot-projects in the field.
        The main objectives are to assess and test various evaluation
mechanisms on different types of higher education institutions, as well as to
improve the methodology of the evaluation procedure(a problem all countries in
Central and Eastern Europe are facing), including the methodology for granting
a national diploma.

        We would very much appreciate if you could assist us in the
accomplishment of this extremely difficult task by accepting an exchange of
information on the following questions:

        1.  Have you implemented an/more evaluation system(s) of higher
            education in your country?
            .........................................................

        2.  If Yes, what kind of system is it: governmental/nongovernmental?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................

        3.  Does the evaluation/accreditation of an institution take place at
            the latter's request? Who supports its cost?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................

        4.  Are performance indicators used in this procedure? Which factors
            are involved in the elaboration of these indicators?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................

        5.  In the evaluation process, do you distinguish between quality
            assurance and quality control? Who is in charge of accomplishing
            each of them?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................

        6.  Does your Evaluation Board/Comittee have any permanent members?
            If yes, how many? Which is their term of office?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................

        7.  Is it compulsory to resort to foreign evaluators in this process?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................
            .........................................................

        8.  To whom is the evaluation report submitted by the Board/Comittee?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................

        9.  Is the report made public?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................

        10. To what extent could the minister of education make use of the
            results of this report in the implementation of appropiate
            policies and strategies of action, particularly in the financing
            of higher education?
            .........................................................
            .........................................................
            .........................................................


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                        CEPES UNESCO
                                                        Feb. 3, 1993

        Suite ` la ricente adoptation de la Loi sur l'Evaluation de
l'Habilitation acadimique en Roumanie, le CEPES-UNESCO, sous les auspices de la
Banque Mondiale et avec l'accord du Ministhre de l'Enseignement , a lanci deux
projects-pilot dans le domain concerni.

        Le but principal en est de tester les micamismes d'ivaluation sur les
diffirents types d'itablissement d'enseignement supirieur, d'amiliorer la
mithodologie d'un tel processus (problhme auquel se confronte d'ailleurs tous
les pays de l'Europe centrale et Orientale, de mjme que la mithodologie d'un
examen national de licence).

        Pour nous aider dans cette tbche extremement difficile, nous vous
saurions de bien vouloir  recepter un echange d'informations sur les questions
suivantes:



                        QUESTIONNAIRE
                        =============

                            sur

                Les systhmes d'ivaluation et d'habilitation
                institutionnelle dans l'enseignement supirieur
                ===============================================

        1.  Avez-vous mis en place dans votre pays un, des systhmes
            d'ivaluation de l'enseignement supirieur?
            .........................................................

        2.  Si oui, de quel type ? Gouvernemental ? Non-gouvernemental?
            .........................................................

        3.  L'ivaluation l'habilitation d'un itablissement se  fait-ell sur la
            demande de l'institution respective? Qui en supporte le co{t?
            ...............................................................
            ...............................................................
            ...............................................................
            ...............................................................
            ...............................................................

        4.  Utilisez-vous des indicateurs de performance dans ce processus?
            Quels sont les facteurs impliques dans l'ilaboration de ceux-ci?
            ...............................................................
            ...............................................................

        5.  L'ivaluation permet-elle de distinquer entre l'assurance de la
            qualiti et le contrtle de celle-ci?.............................
            ................................................................
            ................................................................
            Qui est responsable de l'une et de l'autre?.....................
            ................................................................

        6.  Le Comiti d'Evaluation a-t-il des membres permanents? Combien? Pour
            quelle durie?....................................................
            .................................................................
            .................................................................

        7.  Y a-t-il des spicialistes itrangers obligativement impliquis dans ce
            processus?......................................................
            ................................................................
            ................................................................
        8.  A qui s'adresse le rapport d'ivaluation du comiti?..............
            ................................................................
            ................................................................
            ................................................................
        9.  Est-il rendu public?............................................

        10. Dans quelle messure le ministre de l'enseignement peut s'en servir
            pour l'itablissement des politiques d'action pour une stratigie qui
            puisse utiliser d'une manihre adiquate les risultats de celui-ci
            surtout pour le financement? .....................................
            ..................................................................
            ..................................................................
            ..................................................................
            ..................................................................
            ..................................................................