The evaluation of the implementation of study programmes is complementary to the processes of assessing intentions and proposals for study programmes. It is designed so that each study programme undergoes evaluation at least once during the validity of its authorisation to be implemented or its accreditation. In the period under review, Charles University (CU) devoted considerable attention to the development of this process, including the establishment of the necessary IT infrastructure. This infrastructure covers the entire process, from the preparation of the self-evaluation report by the guarantor of the study programme, through the provision of analytical materials by the Rectorate of Charles University (RCU), to the collection of statements from relevant stakeholders. Thanks to these measures, the evaluation of study programmes was gradually piloted and subsequently introduced into standard operation in both undergraduate and postgraduate education.

The starting point for the evaluation of study programmes is the definition of their key aspects, which are subsequently monitored and assessed in each individual case. These include in particular: staffing, creative and research activities, internationalisation, applicants’ interest, completion rates, student satisfaction, the structure of the curriculum, engagement with graduates, and external conditions for the functioning of the study programme. Selected aspects of study programmes are supported by data that illustrate how the programme was implemented in the period under review. The evaluation of a study programme therefore always takes place on the basis of information on its actual implementation. The data sources include, among other things, feedback from students and graduates, which is regularly collected through University-wide surveys.

Within the evaluation process, the guarantor, on the basis of the data provided by the RCU, prepares a self-evaluation report addressing the predefined key aspects of the study programme. This report, together with the supporting data, is subsequently assessed by the relevant panel of the Internal Evaluation Board (IEB), which then prepares a draft of final evaluation report on the study programme. The guarantor of the study programme and the Dean of the relevant faculty may subsequently comment on this draft. The draft report, including these comments, is then discussed and, where appropriate, approved by the IEB. A crucial element of the process is the strong involvement of guarantors, who bear responsibility for the implementation of study programmes. The evaluation process is therefore designed so that the guarantor genuinely plays a central role. In this way, guarantors are also encouraged to actively monitor and evaluate information on the implementation of their study programmes, even beyond the formal evaluation process.

Evaluation of a Study Programme – Process Overview: 1. Collection of data on the study programme (SP) – Data on each SP are collected and compiled on an ongoing basis, whether through the SIS, student surveys, or other means, so that they can subsequently be used (not only) for evaluation purposes. Data collection takes place exclusively for the purposes of CU’s internal evaluation of SPs and is accessible only to the actors involved in the evaluation process (Department of Quality of Education and Accreditations [DQEA], faculty coordinators, guarantors, faculty management, etc.). 2. Compilation of data – For the purposes of SP evaluation, the DQEA compiles the data materials, if necessary in cooperation with the faculty coordinator, who continuously assists in verifying the accuracy of the entered data. 3. Materials for the faculty/guarantor – Via the Student Information System (SIS), the DQEA sends the Self-Evaluation Report form (including the uploaded data materials) to the guarantor of the SP. 4. Self-Evaluation Report on the SP – The guarantor completes the Self-Evaluation Report form in the SIS. 5. Initial assessment of the guarantor’s Self-Evaluation Report – The rapporteur/IEB panel carries out the first assessment of the Self-Evaluation Report within the SIS. 6. Decision on the involvement of an external evaluator – On the basis of its assessment, the IEB panel decides whether to appoint an external evaluator and, if so, selects the evaluator and defines the specific assignment. The contact with the evaluator and the administration of the evaluator’s report are managed by the DQEA. 7. Decision on holding a joint meeting – On the basis of its assessment, the IEB panel decides whether to hold a joint meeting with the guarantor and representatives of the faculty. Any such meeting is organised by the DQEA in cooperation with the faculty coordinator. 8. Draft Evaluation Report on the SP – The IEB panel prepares the Draft Evaluation Report on the SP in the SIS, including the section intended for publication. 9. Submission of the draft report to the guarantor and the Dean – Both the guarantor and the Dean have the right to review the Draft Evaluation Report as prepared by the IEB panel and, if necessary, to add their comments. 10. Final Evaluation Report on the SP – The draft report, together with any comments from the Dean and the guarantor, is submitted to the IEB via the SIS. Upon approval by the IEB, it becomes the Final Evaluation Report on the SP. 11. Reflection on the results – The results of the evaluation serve as an incentive for the further improvement of the study programme (the formative function of evaluation) and become one of the supporting materials for subsequent processes of evaluation and approval of SPs.

Page Admin: Václav Műller