Approval, monitoring and periodic revision of programmes and awards
SCIENCE has six study boards, each of which conducts an annual revision of its study programmes’ curricula and course descriptions.
The purpose of the revision is to assure the quality of the academic content, and ensure consistency between the programmes’ competence profiles and the qualifications framework, as well as between the subject elements’ learning objectives and forms of exam.
The study boards are responsible for drawing up proposals for the curricula. They conduct revisions of curricula on the basis of both their own proposals and those from the head of studies and from the deputy head of department for education. Input is also provided from qualitative and quantitative material received by the study boards, e.g. programme reports, programme evaluations, course evaluation reports, reports by the chairs of the external examiners, minutes of meetings of employer panels, graduate surveys and programme statistics.
The study boards submit curricula and course descriptions to the dean for final approval.
The regular course evaluations run by SCIENCE are an important element in the quality assurance and enhancement of study programmes and courses. As per UCPH Guidelines for Course Evaluations and Publication of Evaluation Reports, the purpose is to ensure that courses are evaluated in a systematic, well-planned and efficient manner, so that the evaluations have the greatest possible impact on teaching quality. The evaluations are conducted in accordance with current legislation.
At faculty level, course evaluations are part of the ongoing evaluation of entire study programmes and the annual process of drawing up a strategic action plan for the education area. At department level, the course evaluations form part of the basis for performance and development reviews, educational skills development of lecturers and quality enhancement of courses and counselling.
Procedure for course evaluation and follow-up work at SCIENCE describes how teaching and counselling relating to projects and theses are evaluated after each block, i.e. at least once a year. The teaching committees discuss the results of the evaluations of courses and study activities for which each individual department has primary responsibility. The deputy head of department for education (VILU) is responsible for ensuring that, in the light of the teaching committees’ discussions, a report is submitted to the study boards once a year – on 1 October. A template for course evaluations and reports assures the quality of the work. A summary of the report is published and an internal version included in the study boards’ annual revision of curricula and course descriptions. In this way, the evaluation results are part of the process for the development of courses and projects.
All SCIENCE programmes draw up an annual report that provides insight into the status of the programme. The programme report is an important tool for the systematic and continuous quality assurance of all SCIENCE study programmes.
The report brings together a range of quantitative and qualitative data for consideration by the head of studies for the individual study programme.
The head of studies for the individual programme is responsible for drawing up the report. The head of studies is responsible for working closely with the head of department and the head of department for education in drawing up the programme report.
The deadline is 1 March each year. The dean approves the final programme report.
In the Procedure for Programme Reports you can read more information about the process, the timetable and who is involved.
All SCIENCE study programmes conduct a programme evaluation every six years. The internal evaluation schedule is spread across the six study boards so that a study board’s complete programme portfolio is evaluated in the same year. In the year in which a study programme is evaluated, no programme report is drawn up.
The purpose of the evaluation is continuously and systematically to assure and develop the quality of the study programmes. The programme evaluation provides detailed insight into the status of the study programme and the challenges it faces. Like the annual programme report, it brings together a range of qualitative and quantitative data for consideration by programme management.
The head of studies for the individual programme is responsible for drawing up the report. The head of studies is responsible for working closely with the head of department and the head of department for eduation in drawing up the programme evaluation.
The deadline is the 1st of March each year. The dean approves the final programme report.
SCIENCE also involves external experts in the evaluation process and arranges for them to meet the programme management as well as students and lecturers from the relevant study programme.
In the Procedure for Programme Evaluations you can read more about the process, the timetable and who is involved.
Every year by 1 October, the Dean submits a report on SCIENCE's quality assurance of study programmes to the Rector. A common UCPH format is used for the reporting with the programme evaluations as an appendix. The format for reporting consists of two parts; an external part for publication which briefly summarises status on quality assurance and an internal part which reports on measureable standards of quality and assess SCIENCE's ability to achieve its objectives.
The Associate Dean for Education is responsible for a draft to be prepared for the for the Dean's reporting and to submit the draft to the SCIENCE Management Team, the deputy heads of department for teaching, the heads of studies, the Coordination Committee for Study Boards and the Faculty Management before the Dean's approval.
Every year at the end of december SCIENCE receives feedback from the Rector about the Dean's report (DAU). The feedback lists the areas that Rector want a status for in the DAU the following year. SCIENCE has a procedure for how to follow up on the feedback from the Rector.
As per the Accreditation Act of July 2013, new study programmes are subject to the Ministry of Higher Education and Science’s pre-qualification process. Pre-qualification ensures that new study programmes are relevant to the labour market’s needs in terms of employment and skills and fills a gap in the total available range of programmes.
The head of department is responsible for drawing up and submitting a proposal for a new SCIENCE programme. The proposal must be in accordance with UCPH’s and SCIENCE’s procedures, checklists and annual wheel.
The proposal must meet a number of criteria, as described in Procedure for setting up new study programmes at SCIENCE. As per UCPH’s Procedure for Approving New Study Programmes, SCIENCE ensures that proposals for new programmes are discussed with stakeholders including employer panels, study boards and the SCIENCE management team.
At SCIENCE, the dean makes the final decision on setting up new study programmes prior to submitting the proposal to Rector.
In the Procedure for Setting up New Study Programmes at SCIENCE, you can read more about the process prior to submitting the proposal to University Education Services.
At SCIENCE, considering the closure and merger of study programmes forms part of the ongoing and systematic quality-assurance and enhancement work on each individual programme. If problems are identified, it is a requirement that the annual programme reports include deliberations about closure or merger.
The head of department is responsible for drawing up and submitting a proposal for the closure and merger of SCIENCE programmes. The proposals must include consideration of a number of criteria, as set out in Procedure for Closing and Merging of Study Programmes at SCIENCE.
If the dean decides that a study programme should be closed or merged with another programme a discontinuation plan is required, so that students enrolled in the study programme are able to complete their studies and their legal rights are respected. It is a requirement that when the dean submits a recommendation to close or merge a programme, a discontinuation plan is attached for final approval by Rector, in accordance with University Procedure for Approval to Close a Study Programme.
Every third year, the University of Copenhagen conducts graduate surveys for all of its study programmes. University Education Services (US) is responsible for gathering graduate data and for subsequent data reporting to the faculties.
The purpose of the systematic dialogue with graduates is to ensure that SCIENCE’s study programmes are continually developed and equip students for their future careers by providing them with the knowledge, skills and competences that are in demand in their subject area. Furtermore, that the quality of the study programmes are evaluated.
See Procedure for dialogue with graduates for further information about the allocation of responsibilities.
SCIENCE works closely with the outside world – both the private and public sectors. Dialogue with employer panels is designed to provide employers with greater insight into the competences possessed by SCIENCE students at the point when they enter the labour market, and to inform the ongoing development of the study programmes. The overall purpose is to improve SCIENCE graduates’ chances of finding relevant employment upon leaving university.
SCIENCE has seven employer panels, mirroring the seven study boards. Each panel meets at least twice a year. Knowledge from the dialogue with the employer panels is incorporated into quality-assurance work at SCIENCE.
SCIENCE has a wide-ranging programme portfolio. It draws on 11 different corps of external examiners and services five.
At SCIENCE, the departments are responsible for servicing the corps of external examiners. Joint guidelines have been drawn up for servicing the corps, and for appointing and remunerating external examiners.
The chairs of the external examiners contribute to an ongoing dialogue on developments in the study programmes and their annual report forms part of the quality assurance of SCIENCE programmes.
SCIENCE Education obtains the annual reports from the chairs of external examiners once a year. The reports are forwarded to the head of studies and the study board. Insofar as it is relevant, the annual report is included in the head of studies' preparation of the programme report and programme evaluation and in the study boards’ annual revision of curricula and course descriptions.
Read more about the role played by the chairs of the external examiners and their individual areas of responsibility in Procedure for involving the chairs of the external examiners.
The Associate Dean for Education has the overall responsibillity. The International Affairs and MSc Admissions section (SIK) is responsible for both outgoing and incoming mobility, including the monitoring of all agreements and the exchange balance. Accordingly, SIK – in collaboration with the academic environments (mainly the International Coordinators at the departments – is responsible for continuously assessing the Faculty's agreement portfolio to ensure that the exchange agreements available to the students at SCIENCE are attractive, regardless of study programme.
With regard to exchange agreements within the EU Erasmus+ programme, all agreements will be scrutinised in connection with the expiry of the programme – and thus the agreements – in 2020/21. The last review of all Erasmus agreements took place in the beginning of 2014, when the Erasmus+ programme was launched. Now, an academic assessment of which agreements are important to the individual departments will be undertaken. Furthermore, the agreements will be assessed in terms of activity level for both incoming and outgoing mobility. If it has not been possible to shift the balance on agreements with a large predominance of incoming mobility, these agreements will as a general rule be discontinued. SIK conducts an annual review of the faculty’s partner portfolio in collaboration with the international coordinators at the departments.
If new exchange agreements, including Erasmus agreements, are requested, the International Coordinator will assess whether the proposed Erasmus agreement is important for the academic environment based on a set of criteria approved by the Associate Dean for Education at the faculty (Vores Link). The procedure for approving any agreement follows the Academic Board on Education Strategy's (KUUR) University Procedure for Entering into and Ending Erasmus Agreements. The same procedure applies if a foreign university invites SCIENCE to enter into a new Erasmus agreement. Criteria and procedure description are available to employees via KUnet.
The exchange balance on the Erasmus+ programme is monitored every year based on past performance of mobility on the agreements, meaning the number of students that SCIENCE has sent to any partner institution and how many incoming exchange students SCIENCE has admitted on any agreement. Within the exchange area, SIK works closely together with International Education & Grants (IUS), who provides SIK with mobility data and quality assurance of each agreement initiated.
SCIENCE strives to reach balance on the mobility, and along with <a
With regard to exchange agreements with overseas universities, IUS is in charge of monitoring the balance on the university-wide agreements, while SIK monitors the balance on SCIENCE's own overseas agreements.
Each year in mid-August, SCIENCE submits a report on the exchange balance to IUS by reporting figures for registered outgoing students via Nordplus networks (academic networks), self-arranged studies abroad as well as internships abroad. The report relates to studies and internships in the period 1 September of the previous year to 31 August of the current year.