Skip to content

Periodic quality assessment

Regular evaluation based on predetermined criteria

Quality at UCM is ensured and evaluated in all educational and creative activities and other related activities carried out at UCM in the previous period. In the evaluation process, emphasis is placed on independence, impartiality, objectivity, professionalism, transparency, and fairness.
Pri hodnotení sa kladie dôraz na nezávislosť, nezaujatosť, objektívnosť, odbornosť, transparentnosť a spravodlivosť.

UCM undergoes a regular external evaluation of the quality assurance of higher education at UCM conducted by SAAVS in order to make sure that VSK UCM is developed and implemented in accordance with the SAAVS Standards for Internal System. UCM requests SAAVS to assess its internal system at least once every six years in accordance with and under the conditions set out in § 24 et seq. of Act No. 269/2018 Coll. on Quality Assurance in Higher Education and on Amendment and Supplementation of Act No. 343/2015 Coll. on Public Procurement and Amendment and Supplementation of Certain Acts, as amended. UCM may, on its initiative, undergo other comprehensive or partial external evaluations of the quality assurance of higher education at UCM in order to make sure that the VSK UCM is developed and implemented in accordance with the SAAVS Standards for Internal System and other national and international standards. The rules and procedures for external assessment of quality assurance of higher education at UCM are defined in the Directive on External Assessment of the Internal Quality System of UCM.

UCM carries out regular internal quality assessments in the following areas:

  1. Education,
  2. creative activity,
  3. other related activities.

At UCM, the following evaluation methods are used to assess quality.

In the field of quality assurance of education, evaluation sources are relevant statistical data and other sources, in particular:

  1. evaluation of teaching by students,
  2. evaluation of learning by lifelong learners,
  3. evaluation by alumni,
  4. evaluation by external partners,
  5. staff evaluation,
  6. evaluating the performance of teachers in educational activities,
  7. the University’s international ranking in university rankings.

In the field of quality assurance of creative activities, evaluation sources are relevant statistical data and other sources, in particular:

  1. staff evaluation,
  2. evaluation by external partners,
  3. evaluation of the results of creative activity,
  4. the University’s international ranking in university rankings.

In the area of quality assurance of other related activities, the evaluation sources are relevant statistical data and other sources, in particular:a.

  1. evaluation by students,
  2. staff evaluation,
  3. evaluation by external partners.

The basic method of monitoring and evaluating the quality of all activities is diagnostic self-assessment. The basis of diagnostic self-assessment is the evaluation of indicators.

Quality assessment at UCM is carried out in two complementary forms:

  1. quantitative assessment (measuring or calculating quality indicators),
  2. qualitative assessment (examining phenomena, analysing their causes, relationships, and connections that are not partially or fully measurable).

The output of the quantitative evaluation is a report on the results of the quantitative evaluation, which is the basis for the preparation of periodic evaluation reports at the UCM level. The report on the results of the quantitative evaluation (evaluation of individual quality indicators defined by the internal regulation) is prepared by the relevant department in accordance with the UCM Organisational Regulations in cooperation with the Information Resource Centre. Other quantitative surveys are carried out as necessary and their content is flexible depending on the current field of evaluation.

Continuous monitoring and periodic evaluation of the quality of all activities at UCM is carried out based on quality assurance and evaluation indicators (hereinafter referred to as “indicators”).

At UCM the indicators are structured into the:

  1. Number of offered SPs by 1st, 2nd, 3rd level of education.
  2. Percentage of unopened SPs in the academic year out of the total offer.
  3. Number of SPs offered in languages other than Slovak.
  4. Percentage of unopened SPs in a language other than Slovak in the academic year out of their total offer.
  5. The number of applicants for study in the relevant academic year.
  6. Number of applicants for study in the relevant academic year with citizenship other than Slovak.
  7. Percentage of enrolled students out of all registered prospective students in the respective academic year.
  8. Percentage of students admitted from other universities in the 2nd and 3rd cycle of education.

  1. Admission procedure, course, and termination of studies:
    1. Number of UCM/SP students in each year of study.
    2. Percentage of first-year students who dropped out of the study in the structure according to the reason (expulsion for failure, dropping out, change of SP).
    3. Dropout rates in the later years of study.
    4. Percentage of international students out of the total number of students.
    5. Percentage of students with non-Slovak citizenship studying in a language other than Slovak out of the total number of students.
    6. Percentage of students exceeding the standard length of study.
    7. The average length of the extra length of study.
    8. Number of academic frauds detected, including the number of plagiarisms.
    9. Number of disciplinary actions (expulsion, warning, no consequences, etc.).
    10. Number of graduates.
  2. Student-centred learning, teaching, and assessment:
    1. Student-teacher ratio.
    2. Number of theses supervised by the thesis supervisor (average and maximum).
    3. Share of contact teaching (including student support) in the total working capacity of UCM/SP teachers (in hours per week).
    4. Percentage of students on mobility abroad out of the total number of students.
    5. Average number of credits for profile courses in the SP.
    6. Number of students admitted on mobility from abroad in the relevant academic year.
    7. Extent of career counselling support and services (estimated in hours per student).
    8. Number of staff dedicated to student support (study and career guidance).
    9. Percentage of students who participated in the evaluation of the quality of teaching and SP teachers out of the total number of students and the level of student satisfaction.
    10. The level of student satisfaction with the quality of teaching and teachers.
    11. Satisfaction rates of students with special needs.
    12. Number of student submissions.
  3. Teachers:
    1. Numbers of all teachers in the positions of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, assistant, lecturer, and others.
    2. Numbers of independent researchers with a level 2 university degree (together with the number of teachers = number of creative staff).
    3. Number of teachers with scientific-pedagogical title, scientific rank, and scientific qualification (prof., assoc. prof., DrSc., VKSI., VKSIIa).
    4. Percentage of teachers with PhD and above in the total number of teachers.
    5. Age of SP teachers providing profile subjects (average age and range).
    6. Percentage of teachers who graduated from another university.
    7. Percentage of teachers who have earned a PhD (or equivalent) at a university other than the one where they work.
    8. Percentage of teachers with more than 1 year of work experience at a foreign university or research institution abroad.
    9. Number of teachers recruited on mobility from abroad in the relevant academic year.
    10. Percentage of teachers sent on mobility abroad in the relevant academic year.
  4. Creative activity and habilitation proceedings and inauguration proceedings:
    1. Number of publications produced by teachers in the last 6 years in each field of study and output category.
    2. Number of publications of teachers registered in the Web of Science or Scopus databases in the last 6 years in the individual fields of study and categories of outputs (or equivalent e.g., in the arts).
    3. Number of publications of PhD students registered in the Web of Science or Scopus databases in the last 6 years in individual fields of study and categories of outputs (or equivalent e.g., in arts).
    4. Number of responses to teachers’ publications in the last 6 years.
    5. The number of responses to teachers’ publications registered in the Web of Science and Scopus databases in the last 6 years.
    6. Number of creative outputs of international excellence according to the industry practice.
    7. Evaluation of the level of creative activity of the UCM workplace.
    8. The amount of financial support received from domestic and international grant schemes and other competitive sources in the field of the discipline.
    9. Number of 3rd cycle students (PhD.) per supervisor (average and maximum).
    10. Number of students in the 3rd cycle of studies (PhD.) in the corresponding field of habilitations and inaugurations.
    11. Number of supervisors in the field of habilitations and inaugurations (individuals).
    12. Number of approved proposals for the award of the title of professor in the VR UCM in the current year.
    13. Number of approved proposals for the award of the title of Associate Professor in the VR of the Faculty in the current year.
    14. Number of habilitation and inauguration proceedings terminated (initiated procedures that were not approved by the VR, withdrawn by the candidate, or otherwise terminated) in the current year.

  1. The rate of employability of UCM/SP graduates.
  2. Employers’ satisfaction rate with the achieved education outcomes of SP.

  1. Number of publications of creative staff in the last 6 years in individual fields of study and categories of outputs.
  2. Number of publications of creative staff registered in the Web of Science or Scopus databases in the last 6 years in individual fields of study and categories of outputs (or equivalent e.g., in the arts).
  3. Number of publications of PhD students registered in Web of Science or Scopus databases in the last 6 years in individual fields of study and categories of outputs (or equivalent e.g., in arts).
  4. Number of responses to publications of creative staff in the last 6 years.
  5. Number of responses to publications of the creative staff, which are registered in the Web of Science and Scopus databases for the last 6 years.
  6. Number of outputs of creative activity of international excellence in the field three and six years.
  7. Evaluation of the level of creative activity of the UCM workplace on an annual basis.
  8. The amount of financial support received from domestic and international grant schemes and other competitive sources in the subject area over a six-year period.
  9. Number and type of quality projects submitted and received on a triennial basis.
  10. Frequency of success in obtaining financial support from domestic and international grant schemes and other competitive sources in the subject area on a triennial basis.
  11. The position of creative staff in a three-year project.
  12. Number and type of creative outputs produced by the creative staff in collaboration with students over a three-year period.
  13. Number and type of active participation in scientific events per three years.
  14. Number and type of international mobilities completed per three-year period.
  15. Number and type of awards, memberships in scientific, and professional boards, committees, and associations per year.
  16. Other creative (scientific, research, artistic, popularization) activities annually.
  17. Publication of work registered in Web of Science or Scopus databases by PhD students for their studies.
  18. Active participation of the PhD student in a scientific event per year.
  19. Publication of scientific work by PhD students annually.
  20. Completion of foreign mobility by PhD students for their studies.
  21. Participation of the PhD student in the project for the study.
  22. Working scientific study of doctoral students after the 2nd year of study (or in the external form after the 3rd year).

The indicators shall be assessed at a frequency according to the assessment area.

  1. individual indicators are assessed annually,
  2. sets of indicators to demonstrate long-term and systematic are generally assessed over the last 10 years,
  3. The sets of indicators in the periodic evaluation of the SP and OHIK are evaluated at a frequency consistent with the length of study in the respective SP, or 6 years in the case of OHIK,
  4. sets of additional indicators, where there is a need for ongoing monitoring and evaluation, shall be evaluated at three- or six-yearly intervals.

The indicators at UCM are defined by the VSK UCM Directive. Indicators of creative activity at UCM are also defined by the Directive on the Evaluation of Creative Activity at UCM, the Directive on Doctoral Studies, the Directive on the Creation of Excellent Teams, and the Minimum Indicators of Creative Activity of Teachers at UCM according to their functional rank (assistant professor, associate professor, professor). The quality indicators of creative activity at UCM within the specifics and practices of the Faculty of Education are also defined by the related internal regulations (such as minimum requirements, criteria, etc.) at the UCM divisions.

The results of monitoring and quality assessment are included in the evaluation reports.

Ročné hodnotiace správy na úrovni UCM:

  1. Evaluation report for education.
  2. Evaluation report for creative activities
  3. Quality assessment report
  4. Evaluation report for related activities or Evaluation report for all activities carried out at UCM

Annual evaluation reports at the faculty level:

  1. Study evaluation report
  2. Creative Activity Assessment Report
  3. Quality assessment report

The evaluation reports contain an evaluation of the processes referred to in Articles 12-17 of the VSK UCM Directive. The indicators (or the development of indicators) listed in Articles 22-26 of the VSK UCM Directive are used to evaluate the processes.

  1. The VHS of the VSK UCM includes a list of all accredited SPs, SPs with limited internal accreditation, and SPs with cancelled accreditation in a given year.
  2. VHS VSK UCM contains information on the analysis of the set rules, standards, methods, and procedures of quality assurance and evaluation in the field of education, creative activities, and related activities, including an overview of the identified shortcomings and proposals for measures leading to their elimination.
  3. The RVHK receives internal feedback on the VHS VSK UCM, which is sent to the Rector of UCM.
  4. The internal feedback to the VHS VSK UCM includes the RVHK’s statement on the compliance of the VSK UCM with the SAAVS standards for the internal system, the functionality of the VSK UCM, and suggestions for measures to improve it.

SAAVS shall conduct ongoing monitoring of the implementation of the internal system standards at least once every two years, based on data from reports on:

  1. evaluation of the level of UCM in educational activities and the field of science, technology, or art discussed by the VR UCM,
  2. evaluation of the faculty’s level in educational activities and the field of science, technology, or art discussed by the Faculty VR.

ŠP sú ročne monitorované RŠP. Výsledky sú zaznamenané v zápisniciach z rokovania RŠP. ŠP sú hodnotené a schvaľované v perióde zodpovedajúcej ich štandardnej dĺžke štúdia. ŠP na žiadosť dekana/riaditeľa hodnotí a schvaľuje RK súčasti UCM, kde sa daný ŠP uskutočňuje a následne na žiadosť rektora hodnotí a schvaľuje RVHK. Výsledky hodnotenia a schvaľovania sú zaznamenané v zápisniciach z rokovania RK na súčasti UCM a zápisniciach z rokovania RVHK. Do monitorovania, úprav, hodnotenia a schvaľovania ŠP sú zapojení aj zamestnávatelia, študenti a ďalšie zainteresované strany (bližšie zloženie RŠP, zloženie RK súčasti UCM, zloženie dočasných pracovných skupín pri RVHK, zloženie RVHK).

OHIK (najmä úroveň tvorivej činnosti osôb zabezpečujúcich jeho kvalitu a rozvoj) sú ročne monitorované prodekanom pre vedu. Výsledky sú zaznamenané v správach o vedecko-výskumnej činnosti. OHIK sú hodnotené a schvaľované v šesťročnej perióde. OHIK na žiadosť dekana hodnotí a schvaľuje RK súčasti UCM, kde sa daný OHIK uskutočňuje a následne na žiadosť rektora hodnotí a schvaľuje RVHK. Výsledky hodnotenia a schvaľovania sú zaznamenané v zápisniciach z rokovania RK na súčasti UCM a zápisniciach z rokovania RVHK. Úpravu, hodnotenie a schvaľovanie OHIK realizujú kompetentné osoby (bližšie zloženie skupiny osôb zabezpečujúcich kvalitu a rozvoj OHIK, zloženie RK súčasti UCM, zloženie dočasných pracovných skupín pri RVHK, zloženie RVHK).

AS – Academic Senate
DPS – Temporary Working Groups
ESG – European Standards for Higher Education
KR – Rector’s Board
OHIK – Field of Habilitation Proceedings and Inauguration Proceedings
RSP – Study Programme Board
RK – Quality Board
RVHK – Internal Quality Evaluation Board
SAAVS – Slovak Accreditation Agency for Higher Education
SR – Board of Trustees
SO – Field of Study
SP – Study Programme
UCM – University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava
VHS – Internal Evaluation System
VP – Internal Regulation
VR – Scientific Board
VSK – Internal Quality System