Report on the Evaluation of Training Programmes – 2017 Session

1. Background and conduct of the evaluation

With the aim of establishing a culture of quality and institutionalising evaluation and continuous monitoring, ANEAQ launched its first session for reviewing applications for accreditation and renewal of training programmes in 2017. This initiative was intended, in particular, to encourage institutions to develop new programmes that facilitate students’ socio-economic integration.

The Agency drew up the list of experts taking part in the evaluation process and entered into contracts with them. Institutions were informed of the electronic submission arrangements and deadlines through Ministerial Memorandum No. 01/00039 of 17 January 2017, addressed to private institutions and universities, and Memorandum No. 01/00339 of 13 February 2017, addressed to universities and higher education institutions not affiliated with universities.

Starting in March 2017, the Agency began electronically processing accreditation applications through the following stages:

• Receipt and verification of electronic copies of files received from the Ministry.
• Classification of applications by disciplinary field and programme.
• Assignment of applications to experts by disciplinary field and programme.
• Compilation of individual expert reports and experts’ summary reports.
• Submission to the Ministry of initial reports requiring conditions to be met, for onward transmission to the institutions concerned.
• Requesting that institutions fulfil the stated conditions.
• Submission of final reports to the Ministry for presentation to the National Commission for the Coordination of Higher Education, with a view to an appropriate decision.

2. Evaluation of public higher education programmes

Breakdown by university and institution

Breakdown by disciplinary field

3. Evaluation of private higher education programmes

Breakdown by university and institution

Breakdown by disciplinary field

4. Expert evaluation results

Reading note: The figures and percentages are reproduced as they appear in the 2017 report, without correcting internal discrepancies. Thus, the public-sector breakdown tables show 756 programmes, while the expert evaluation results table covers 773 programmes. Certain rows and percentages also contain inconsistencies in the original document.

5. Observations addressed to public and private institutions

The report makes the following observations concerning the applications and accreditation conditions:

• Some institutions not affiliated with universities failed to prepare their own CNPN.
• Failure to comply with the legal deadlines for submitting accreditation applications and responses to observations.
• Electronic copies of accreditation application files did not match their paper versions, although electronic copies were the ones used in the evaluation process.
• Some institutions failed to comply with the requirements for submitting programme accreditation applications.
• Lack of the opinions and provisions required in programme descriptions.
• Mismatch between the pedagogical coordinator’s specialisation and the specialisation of the programme submitted for accreditation.
• Mismatch between module titles and their content.
• Failure to comply with the teaching hours allocated to modules.
• Absence of commitments from external contributors to the institutions.
• Programmes coordinated by professors who are not specialists or do not hold the required degree.
• Lack of evidence demonstrating the availability of the teaching resources required by the institution.
• Insufficient qualified and specialised human resources to launch certain programmes.
• Some module coordinators do not belong to the host institutions.
• Lack of coherence between the modules of a programme.
• Proposals for certain training programmes outside the institution’s field of competence.

6. Survey on the evaluation process

A survey conducted as part of the 2017 evaluation round aimed to strengthen trust between the Agency and higher education stakeholders, particularly programme coordinators, and to gather suggestions for improvement concerning legal texts, the CNPN and the operation of the evaluation process.

The survey was prepared in four stages:

• Defining the objectives of the process.
• Designing the survey questionnaire.
• Defining the sample.
• Presenting the data.

The survey percentages are those shown in the charts on pages 4 and 5 of the original document. Some percentages may add up to slightly more or less than 100% because of rounding.