Contacts

Study Program Periodic Review

 

The Periodic Review represents the key moment of in-depth self-assessment regarding the fulfillment of the “quality requirements” outlined for Study Programs (CdS), within the AVA model. During this process, each CdS evaluates its progress against predefined objectives, identifying notable strengths, existing challenges, significant issues, and proposed improvement strategies for the subsequent cycle. Additionally, the periodic review offers an opportunity for comprehensive self-evaluation in anticipation of the University's and selected Study Programs' periodic Accreditation visits.  

  

The Periodic Review must be conducted at least once every five years, and under the following circumstances: 

  • Upon specific request from ANVUR, the Ministry of Education (MUR), or the Evaluation Unit. 
  • Before the periodic accreditation visit by the CEV (in this case, if the most recent report is over 2 years old at the time of the visit or, even if it was prepared later, it does not accurately reflect the current state of the Study Program). 
  • When significant issues arise. 
  • Following substantial changes to the Study Program's regulations.  

  

The Periodic Review Report is divided into five sections (in accordance with the AVA3 accreditation model): 

  1. Quality Assurance in CdS Design (D.CDS.1), which assesses whether quality assurance processes are effectively implemented during the initial design or redesign/revision phase of the Study Program.  
  2. Quality Assurance in CdS Delivery (D.CDS.2), focuses on ensuring the effective implementation of quality assurance processes during the delivery of the Study Program. This involves evaluating the quality assurance practices in orientation and tutoring, assessing the required entry knowledge, reviewing teaching methods, considering the internationalization of teaching, and overseeing the planning and monitoring of learning assessments methods.  
  3. The Management of CdS Resources (D.CDS.3) aims to ensure that the Study Program has sufficient and qualified resources in terms of teaching stafffaculty, tutors, and staff. Also, it ensures suitable facilities tailored to educational requirements and functional and accessible student services. 
  4. Review and Enhancement of the Study Program (D.CDS.4) aims to evaluate the Study Program's capacity to identify critical aspects and areas for improvement in its educational framework. This involves gathering input from faculty, staff, students, graduates, and external stakeholders to inform the development of targeted interventions.  
  5. The Analysis of Study Program Indicators, seeks to provide a concise evaluation of the key performance indicators, primarily drawing from the quantitative indicators featured in the Annual Monitoring Report (SMA). 

  

Each section (excluding with the exception of the final one) is further divided into three subsections, outlined as follows:

1
Summary of Key Changes: identifies and elaborates on the main changes observed since the last Periodic Review, including any subsequent actions for improvement.
2
Data Analysis: lists the key elements for observation and recommends points of reflection to pinpoint critical areas or areas for enhancement through commentary and self-assessment.
3
Objectives and Improvement Strategies: specifies the improvement objectives intended for the next cycle, detailing the actions required for attainment, measurement benchmarks, accountable parties, necessary resources, and estimated implementation timeline

 

Preparation and presentation of the Review 

The document is prepared by the Degree Program Review Group and then presented for approval to the Program Committee. Following this, it is forwarded to the Quality Assurance Committee.  

The latter is responsible for submitting it to the respective Dean of the School, the relevant Student-Faculty Joint Teaching Committee, the Evaluation Unit, and ANVUR.  

  

After completing the Periodic Review Report, the Program Director conducts annual monitoring to track the progress and implementation status of the defined interventions and provides the Quality Assurance Committee with an evaluation of the estimated effectiveness.