Edukacijske vede

During the sample evaluation of the study program of the 3rd level of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Pedagogy, University of Primorska (PEF UP), the group of experts concluded the following: 1st standard: PEF UP regularly conducts self-evaluation of the doctoral study program, major changes were made in 2015 and 2019, minor updates were made as needed. The self-evaluation report (SEP) does not include explanations of how the introduced changes affected the results of the work or study, as well as not judging the methods and forms of pedagogical work. The students expressed the need to change the method of evaluating knowledge, they also gave concrete proposals. Opportunities for improvement: The self-evaluation reports lack explanations about how the new subjects replace the competencies from the withdrawn subject and how these changes affect the work results or study; listing and more detailed definition of activities related to changes in the study program; Partial fulfillment of the quality standard: Many identified inconsistencies need to be eliminated, incorrect data corrected or selection of correct data and giving appropriate space and weight to evaluation areas that are currently not covered at all in selfevaluations (external stakeholders, non-teaching staff, etc.). Major deficiencies or inconsistencies: The applicant collects various data, but not all the necessary areas required by standard 1.a are covered and evaluated in the self-evaluation reports. In the future, more attention will have to be paid to the evaluation of individual parameters (e.g., evaluation of ZRD and achievements of higher education teachers, publication of articles by doctoral students, library activity, evaluation of teaching units etc. 2nd standard: PEF UP regularly prepares the SEP, the records of the implementation of the tasks planned on the basis of the SEP are very short and do not give a comprehensive insight into the 29 changes. The SEP must be prepared more consistently, provide correct data and be extended to all areas that are important for ensuring the quality of the study program. Opportunities for improvement: More accurate monitoring of quality indicators based on the Study Program Evaluation Criteria and Study Program Accreditation Criteria. Partial fulfillment of the quality standard: Involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the self-evaluation of the program (supporters and implementers, non-teaching staff, external stakeholders). 3rd standard: The monitoring of the Educational Sciences study program is based on the system of monitoring and quality assurance at the UP level, but the SEPs are deficient and do not contain the necessary results of analyzes and interpretations thereof. The structure of the programs is arranged sensibly, the compulsory courses give an insight into scientific research work, they allow somewhat less expansion and deepening of knowledge in the professional field. The strict limitation of the possibility of choosing optional subjects outside the offered list does not give all students the same opportunity or equality. The goals of the study program have been achieved, but the question arises as to whether these goals also meet the needs of society. The horizontal and vertical connection of the subjects is not properly justified. Together with the answer of the institution to the report of the expert group, a basic but not complete list (the chosen optional subjects are missing), that is a kind of individual curricula, has been send, but the now inscribed students are not included in that very informative document. The inscribed students still do not have their so-called individual curricula that show the horizontal and vertical connection of their compulsory and elective courses and their intertwining with the research goals of the doctoral dissertation. Advantages: Updating and regularly supplementing the list of optional subjects. Opportunities for improvement: Management of individual subject files for individual students. 4th standard: The program is adapted to part-time students who take on a lot of responsibility due to the individually adapted way of working. Their responsibilities are: 4 compulsory courses, 3 optional courses, publication of a scientific article, preparation and defense of the disposition and doctoral dissertation. Compulsory subjects are taught in full, optional subjects in the form of consultations, which is suitable for 3rd-level studies. Students have access to the materials via e-classrooms, the repository and the library. Students get to know the research work of the holders in specially prepared learning units, in order to treat all students more equally, it is necessary to consider additional ways of familiarizing students with the possibilities of participating in projects. The mentors have appropriate qualifications, some of them lack the required participation in a scientific research project. Advantages: High degree of adaptability of the study process to students with special needs. Opportunities for improvement: Necessary content arrangement of some online classrooms (e.g. not only online links, more materials and content); systematic familiarization of 30 students (especially for those not employed at PEF) with the possibility of involvement in research projects; systematic recording of attendance at conferences and inclusion of this data in self-evaluation reports; automation of the content similarity check. 5th standard The program has clearly defined conditions for advancement through the program and for completing the studies, transferability is suitable. The protection of students' rights is adequately regulated, they have their own representatives in the faculty bodies. The study program enables them to fulfill their obligations and smoothly progress and complete their studies. Higher education teachers are guaranteed respect for their teaching and research autonomy and support for their career development. For a more systematic collection of relevant proposals from program providers, non-teaching staff and students, we suggest regular focus groups. Students are informed through various channels. The alumni club is becoming more and more active, and it would be desirable if more alumni, who are employed at the faculty, participate in their events. Opportunity for improvement: Monitoring and documenting the satisfaction of higher education teachers in doctoral studies; include doctoral students in the student council and faculty bodies dealing with their field (doctoral studies committee); include all stakeholders into the process of quality assurance and giving feedback.