Evaluation of West University Timisoara

From EiWiki

Revision as of 09:11, 31 January 2014

This report is the result of the evaluation of West University of Timisoara. The evaluation took place in 2012 and 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:

• Öktem Vardar, Rector, TED University, Turkey, team chair
• Richard Lewis, former pro Vice-Chancellor, Open University, United Kingdom
• Antoni F. Tulla, former Vice-Rector of Economic Affairs and Administration, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
• Olav Øye, student, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
• Lil Reif, researcher, Danube University, Austria, team coordinator

During the two visits, the IEP team talked to approximately 90 staff members and 60 students from six different faculties, including larger faculties such as economics and business administration, political science, philosophy and communication science, faculty of sociology and psychology as well as small faculties like the physics, arts and design and music. Furthermore, the team had the chance to talk to representatives from research centres to support departments at central university level and to external stakeholders from cultural institutions and the business sector. These discussions together with all written information (self-evaluation report, appendixes, additional information) form the information basis of this report.

The team thanks Prof. Dr Marilen Pirtea, Rector of WUT, for inviting us and devoting his time to us. We would like to thank Prof. Dr Madalin Bunoiu, Vice-Rector for academic strategy, and his team for the very effective and smooth organisation and coordination of the visits. We thank Dr Dan Luches and the whole Department of Quality Management team as well as everybody who worked hard to prepare a good self-evaluation report and the additional information the team requested. Also, the team would like to thank all those who gave time to meet and have very open discussions with the IEP team.

Self-evaluation Process

This was the second time the university had undergone an IEP evaluation: in 2010, WUT had undergone an institutional evaluation based on a decision of the senate in 2009. Regarding this evaluation, occurring in the context of the project “Performance in Research, Performance in Teaching – Quality, Diversity, and Innovation in Romanian Universities”, it needs to be mentioned that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the format of this evaluation, as it is not being considered a follow-up evaluation from 2010 as expected by WUT management, but as an entirely new evaluation in the framework of the project mentioned above. Consequently, the self-evaluation report focuses on the recommendations from the first evaluation and how these have been addressed by the former and current management team (SER 2012, p. 3).

The self-evaluation process was undertaken by the self-evaluation group consisting of 12 representatives from all faculties of WUT, including student representatives. The group was supported by the Department of Quality Management (D.Q.M.) and the rector’s office in order to collect all necessary data for the last three years. Contributions from the self-evaluation group were collected and a draft report was set up by the coordinator on this basis, which was then discussed during the team meetings, when the final analysis and conclusions were agreed on. The final version was presented in and approved by the senate.

Regarding the content and quality of the self-evaluation report, the evaluation team acknowledges it being open and very self critical, pointing out clearly some of the problems.

One of the main criticisms from the team’s viewpoint is that the report includes only a few analytical points. It could have been helpful to structure the report as mentioned in the guidelines provided by IEP. Then, the question on the “How” (“How is the institution trying to do it?”) would have been further emphasized and made the report more comprehensive and thus even more useful for internal use and communication during these times of change. A SWOT analysis was missing in the self-evaluation report, but was provided at a later stage by the self-evaluation group, based on input from the faculties.

Also, there was some confusion among the IEP team about the different documents of reference and how the statements — be it missions or strategic and operational objectives — relate to each other, namely those given in the WUT charter, the strategic plan and the rector's management plan. The team learned from the coordinator of the self-evaluation group that this is a result of the changing environment at WUT at the moment, causing some inconsistencies in this respect because of the ongoing process of confirmation of the documents: for example, WUT’s charter underwent two changes: first, due to the new legal situation (2011) and again only shortly after due to the new rectorate in 2012, the latter being already close to the preparation of the self-evaluation report and including changes in the mission statement of the university. In sum, there have been different changes at different levels and for different reasons and alignment of documents apparently will need some more time.

In general, the team had the impression that large parts of WUT’s community (from the Council of Administration to academic staff and students) are familiar with the self-evaluation report, who agree that it reflects quite well the real situation of the university.

In the light of this evaluation being understood as a follow-up evaluation, the team wanted to know how the results of the last report have been used. According to the coordinator of the self-evaluation group, after the last evaluation a plan on activities was set up in 2010 and was approved by the senate later on. Parts of this plan are an integral part of the current rector’s management plan, so there seems to be continuity in this respect, despite the changing environment.

The self-evaluation report of WUT was sent to the evaluation team in October 2012; after this, some additional documents (mainly, a translation of the charter, a more detailed chapter on quality assurance in the self-evaluation report) were provided shortly before the visit. The site visits of the evaluation team to Timisoara took place from 14 to 16 November 2012 and from 27 to 30 of January 2013, respectively. Between the visits WUT provided the team with some additional documentation on quality assurance and further information on the mechanisms of teaching and research evaluation, a translation of the rector’s management contract and some clarifying information on the university’s yearly budget.

Reporting

Governance and Institutional Decision-making

more on Governance and Institutional Decision-making at WVT

As mentioned, a new rector and management team were elected or appointed at WUT in 2012. According to the SER, the new management team holds a holistic view on education, research and administration, trying to integrate all the faculties, thus allowing a deeper collaboration and permeability between them, addressing one of the recommendations from the IEP evaluation in 2010 (SER 2012, p. 2).

Teaching and Learning

more on Teaching and Learning at WVT

It is stated in the SER that the student population (Bachelor and Master) decreased by 29% between 2008 and 2011, whereas the number of Bachelor programmes increased from 77% to 89%; that of Master programmes from 124 to 136. The team was told that there is a high and complex interdependency of state policies for state subsidies per student, academic promotion and the results from the evaluation of study fields, which makes it difficult to plan teaching and learning. Nevertheless, it is clear to the team that there are more programmes at WUT than it is possible to run properly. Also, the team was told that WUT plans to close 10 programmes, focusing on those which have been ineffective and lowly ranked, which do not bring added value or lack attractiveness. Furthermore, WUT’s management plans to restructure the study programmes in order to better fit the needs of potential students and the labour market, thus becoming more attractive on the higher education market. The team supports this and recommends using this opportunity to look into the possibility to use staff time more effectively.

Research

more on Research at WUT

As mentioned previously, improving research is the priority of the WUT leadership, conceived as a necessity, not an alternative, expected to bring income and prestige. As it reads in the strategic objectives of the institutional strategic plan: "Creating a competitive research environment at a national and international level, in order to transform WUT into a centre of excellence focused on generating knowledge through scientific research, development, innovation and artistic creation, with a direct impact on the quality of teaching and services provided for the socio-economic environment".

Service to Society

As it has been mentioned above, WUT sees its mission — generating and transferring knowledge to society, through research and education — deeply interlinked with the city of Timisoara, Timis county and Western Romania. The institutional strategic plan states as strategic objective for the area “WUT in society” that it firmly states the strategic role of WUT in the economic, social, cultural, civic and moral development of local, regional, national and international community. The SER states that WUT remains “deeply anchored in the society hosting scientific and social debates, concerts, exhibitions and is involved in promoting Timisoara as a European cultural capital” (SER 2012, p. 7).

During its visit, the team witnessed the strong links between the university and its surrounding society. There is a high esteem for WUTs’ role within the city and the region, which includes its role for the transborder DKMT Euro region together with Hungary and Serbia and the respective universities in Szeged and Novi Sad. The team could observe that WUT is seen as an important qualifying institution for workplaces in the region (for example, 70% of the school teachers in Timisoara are graduates from WUT). High importance is given to relationships with companies in the region. Furthermore, there are lots of links and seemingly very good relationships with public and private institutions (the team could see this especially in the field of culture). Interactive activities with society are diverse: internships, participation of representatives outside the university in the evaluation and development of study programmes, realisation of joint programmes, realisation of research programmes with or for partners from outside the university (for example a project with prisoners) and many more. One important area of collaboration is with the school sector, as WUT organises further education and didactical preparation for school teachers.

The team congratulates WUT for its strong commitment and obvious engagement with external stakeholders. In order to use the full potential of these strong links, recommendations given in relation to governance (chapter 2) and teaching and learning (chapter 3) should be repeated here: establish mechanisms involving external stakeholders for the strategic development of the university as well as for the further development of study programmes, thus ensuring that courses are relevant to practice.