Evaluation of University of Arts "George Enescu"

From EiWiki

Revision as of 04:45, 3 February 2014 by Admin (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

This report is the result of the evaluation of University of Arts George Enescu Iaşi. The evaluation took place in 2012-2013 in the framework of the project “Performance in Research, Performance in Teaching – Quality, Diversity, and Innovation in Romanian Universities”, which aims at strengthening core elements of Romanian universities, such as their autonomy and administrative competences, by improving their quality assurance and management proficiency.

Such evaluations are taking place within the context of major reforms in the Romanian higher education system, and specifically in accordance with the provisions of the 2011 Education Act and the various related normative documents. Whilst institutional evaluations are taking place in the context of an overall reform, each university is being assessed by an independent team, under the authority of Institutional Evaluation Programme.

Evaluators

The evaluation team (hereinafter named the team) consisted of:

  • Prof. Philippe Rousseau, Former Rector, University Charles de Gaulle - Lille 3, France, team chair
  • Prof. John Butler, Professor of Art, Birmingham City University, United Kingdom
  • Kotryna Peilakauskaite, Student, Vilnius University, Lithuania
  • Dr Terhi Nokkala, Research Fellow, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, team coordinator

This report is based on knowledge, which the review team gained during two visits to the university and from written materials: the self-evaluation report and some additional materials prepared by the university on request. However, there are some limitations in this form of assessment. The report of the review team is dependent on what they have been told and have seen during the visits. In some cases they heard conflicting statements reflecting the uneven perception in various parts of the institution of a fast-changing situation.

The team would like to thank the Rector Simionescu, her team, the self-evaluation group and the entire university community for the cordial reception and candid and constructive discussions throughout the entire evaluation process. Also the logistical support provided by the UEFISCDI liaisons Alexandra Roman and Virgil Brumaru, as well as help of the interpreter Lucia Petrescu was invaluable for the work of the IEP team.

Self-evaluation Process

The self-evaluation process was undertaken by a Self-Evaluation Group (SEG) established by the university. The SEG comprised the following people representing the faculties and units of the university:

  • Mr. Doru Albu, Professor PhD, Vice-Rector for Teaching and Quality in Education – Chairperson of SEG;
  • Mr. Aurelian Bălăiță, Assistant Professor PhD – Vice-Rector for Research;
  • Mr. Florin Grigoraș, Assistant Professor PhD – Vice-Rector for International relations, Academic Image and Student affairs;
  • Ms. Eugenia Maria Pașca, Assistant Professor PhD – Director of the Institute for Counselling and Training in Psychology and Pedagogy (CTPP);
  • Ms. Cornelia Brustureanu, Lecturer PhD – Vice-Dean for Teaching, the Faculty of Visual Arts and Design (FVAD);
  • Mr. Ion Urdeș, Lecturer PhD – representative of the Faculty of Music Performance, Composition and Theoretical Musical Studies (FMPCTMS);
  • Mrs. Raluca Bujoreanu – Huţanu, Assistant Professor PhD – Dean of the Faculty of Acting (FT);
  • Mr. Ciprian Ion, Assistant professor PhD – Head of Department, FMPCTMS

The self-evaluation report of UAGE, together with the appendices, was sent to the evaluation team on 7 November 2012. The visits of the evaluation team to Iaşi took place from 5 to 6 December 2012 and from 27 February to 1 March 2013, respectively. In between the visits the University of Arts George Enescu Iaşi provided the evaluation team with some additional documentation.

The team would like to offer the following observations concerning the self-evaluation process and report.

  • There was no student representative in the self-evaluation group, which the IEP team considered somewhat puzzling. The students were, however, at least in some departments, consulted in a more informal manner.
  • The staff of the various departments of the institution were asked to provide data on their activities and research and artistic production for the purposes of the self-evaluation report.
  • Some had also engaged in discussions at departmental level regarding the content of the self-evaluation report.
  • The self-evaluation report had been widely circulated amongst the university community.

The self-evaluation report itself is a largely descriptive document, which offers a lot of information about the intentions of the university. It would have benefitted, however, from a more critical self-evaluation of the actual situation and from additional data to substantiate statements made in the report.

The impression of the team is that because the university has gone through several evaluations of a different nature over the recent past, the IEP exercise has been somewhat new for the university, and in some occasions, its specific character had not at first been fully understood. As a result, the potential of the self-evaluation process has partially been obscured by a more accountability-driven approach. However, the benefit of the previous evaluations has been that the university has had to develop an internal information system for collecting the output data, which is also used for preparing the next strategic plan of the university.

Personal tools