Every Dutch programme that offers a Bachelor's or Master's degree needs to meet criteria as set in the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW). Within the WHW, Chapter 5 focuses on the accreditation processes within higher education. Accreditation is mandatory for diploma recognition, funding and the student finance system. The WHW (Chapter 5) covers the procedures and criteria for both the initial accreditation of new degree programmes and the periodic reaccreditation of existing programmes. In addition, it describes the role and responsibilities of the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisation (NVAO) in guaranteeing educational quality.
Bachelor's and Master's programmes that are naturally affiliated to each other (e.g., the Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering and the Master's in Mechanical Engineering) are accredited together for efficiency.
The NVAO is the quality assurance organisation that safeguards and guarantees the quality of higher education in an expert and independent manner and that promotes the quality culture within higher education institutions in the Netherlands and Flanders. It accredits existing and new degree programmes and assesses the quality assurance of higher education institutions. The NVAO is therefore the guardian of the higher education system. The decisions of the NVAO lead to the recognition of diplomas and titles and, where applicable, to the financing of university programmes. The NVAO bases its assessment on advice from recognised experts.
Accreditation is an approval of quality. This quality is assessed by an external panel of peers once every 6 six years. The panel assesses to what extent the programme meets the quality as described in the NVAO framework in four standards: Intended learning outcomes, Teaching-learning environment, Student assessment, and Achieved learning outcomes (the latter is excluded for new programmes). The NVAO Framework describes criteria for assessment of existing programmes, new programmes and institutions. Degree programmes may additionally choose to be assessed on distinctive features, for example, in areas such as Internationalisation or Entrepreneurship.
For an existing programme, the visitation panel (sometimes referred to as a committee) of external and independent peers will assess the quality as defined in the four standards. This includes a review of written materials and a site visit, during which they gather additional information through interviews to support their final assessment. The panel must be formally appointed by the NVAO for this assessment. More information about the composition of the panel can be found below.
Start of the accreditation process
For every programme accreditation process, a member of the QA team will be assigned as the process lead and contact person. That QA team member initiates a start meeting with the programme management team and faculty quality assurance coordinator(s) roughly two years before the NVAO deadline of reaccreditation. The goal of the start meeting is to establish a plan for the accreditation process and the different phases that this process entails, as well as to define the support needed. Suggestions on how to determine the planning and timeline can be found in the Accreditation Manual.
In most cases, the accreditation takes place in a so-called ‘cluster’: similar degree programmes from different Dutch universities are visited and assessed by the same (core) panel. Clusters cooperate and are coordinated by one of the cluster’s universities, which also initiates the cluster meetings. It is advised to invite the quality coordinator and/or QA team contact to the first cluster meeting.
Clusters of UT degree programmes can be small, together with TUD and TU/e, like Industrial Design Engineering, or larger, like Mathematics or Psychology, which are part of a cluster represented by more than five universities. Some of UT’s degree programmes are unique and, for that reason, not part of a cluster, like Advanced Technology.
Cooperation in a cluster involves selecting and contracting an evaluation agency, agreeing on a shortlist for possible panel members, and may include updating a Domain-Specific Framework of Reference (see section below). However, a degree programme within a cluster is still responsible and in the lead for its accreditation process. Deviating from the choices of the cluster is therefore allowed when alternatives are preferred.
Hiring an evaluation agency is voluntary, but commonplace. An agency delivers a secretary and guides the programme through the process, including the composition panel and mandatory development talk. Together with the programme, it organises and attunes the site visit and takes on a lot of administrative tasks related to the site visit and reporting.
A limited number of agencies specialise in the assessment of academic programmes. The QA team will advise on which agencies best fit the programme’s profile and preferences. The agency is formally appointed with the approval of the Faculty Board and is funded by the programme’s budget.
In addition to hiring an agency, a programme may choose to appoint an independent secretary and take responsibility for composing and organising the panel itself. For more information or advice about this option, please contact the QA team.
The panel consists of a group of independent experts, peers of the programme, who assess the quality of the degree programme. This panel is composed according to the NVAO guidelines and must be approved by them. It consists of at least four members (including a chair and a student member). More peers can be added when necessary, but be aware that this will increase costs. The members all have to be independent from the programme (meaning no relation whatsoever with the programme or the university for the last five years). All together, the panel must have a diverse and balanced composition representing the expertise needed to assess the programme.
Preparations for the site visit
Looking at the different tasks involved with the accreditation process, the development of the self-evaluation requires the most effort. The NVAO does not prescribe a format for the self-evaluation, as long as the programme reflects on the required four standards. At UT, we have experience with written self-evaluation reports and web-based self-evaluation portfolios. Depending on the programme's preference, the most fitting format can be used. Advice from the QA team can be obtained, as well as examples and formats.
The self-evaluation plays a crucial role in the accreditation process, as it forms the basis for the assessment of a degree programme. In this report or portfolio, the programme reflects on its quality, educational approach, and improvement policy, and substantiates how it complies with the accreditation frameworks. It also provides insight into strengths and areas for improvement, and demonstrates the programme’s commitment to continuous quality assurance. The panel uses the self-evaluation and its appendices for its document review and as a starting point for discussions during the site visit.
The programme director is responsible for drafting the self-evaluation and typically writes major sections or, at a minimum, performs the final editing. Careful drafting is essential due to the focus on the four standards and the page limit: a maximum of 15 pages per degree programme, or the equivalent when presented in a web-based format, excluding appendices. This requires programme management to have well-developed information, data, and documentation readily available. Typically, a draft report or portfolio undergoes several rounds of revision and improvement. Various parties are involved in the review process, including the programme committee and the rector (on behalf of the Executive Board). Because the final version of the self-evaluation serves as a cornerstone document during the visitation, all staff and students involved should be familiar with and supportive of its content.
A web-based self-evaluation can be created using an existing online platform developed for this purpose. For more information and a template, see the document below.
A mandatory part of the self-evaluation is the student chapter, along with the programme’s reflection on it. This chapter provides students with an independent voice to present their perspective on the quality of the programme. A group of student representatives is invited to compose the chapter, which may be submitted in written form or as an alternative format such as a poster, video, or website. In some cases, the student members of the programme committee lead this process. In others, a neutral and independent staff member (for example, from CELT) facilitates the development of the chapter. In all cases, programme management is not involved to safeguard the independence of the students. To support the process, it is recommended that students be given access to a (draft) version of the programme’s self-evaluation report. This can help them develop their chapter. It is also advisable to involve a representative group of students who are available (be it partially) during the site visit.
A second mandatory part is a sample of 15 theses per degree programme for the panel to review. The programme is required to offer the panel a list from which they will choose the sample. To review, the panel needs the (anonymised) work of the students and the review forms or rubrics used for the assessment of the thesis. The procedure for compiling and submitting the theses samples will be discussed with the quality assurance agency during the process.
A third mandatory part of the self-evaluation is a reflection specifically on the recommendations from the panel of the previous accreditation. This can be short and to the point, as in-depth reflection on the status of the degree programme will already be part of the self-evaluation.
While not mandatory, it is recommended to include a Domain-Specific Framework of Reference (DSFR), particularly when the programme is part of a cluster. A DSFR outlines the specific knowledge, skills, and competencies relevant to a particular field or domain, often aligned with international frameworks. It serves as a blueprint for the content and assessment within the domain and provides guidance for degree programmes. When available, the DSFR can support the programme in justifying and substantiating its profile and Programme Intended Learning Outcomes (PILOs) under Standard 1, by relating them to the framework and enabling comparison. It also offers an opportunity to emphasise the programme’s unique positioning within the broader domain. In cluster contexts, programmes may have developed a shared DSFR or may choose to do so collectively. Individual programmes may also develop a DSFR independently.
Site visit
The programme management is responsible for the organisation of the site visit, supported by faculty support staff and the secretary of the accreditation panel. The latter has an advisory role. The site visit takes at least one day and very often about 1,5 to 2 days in practice, depending on the size of the programme (can representatives be mixed or not?) and if bachelor's and master's programmes are assessed together.
The visit schedule may vary, but should always include meetings with lecturers, students, and members of programme management, as well as with representatives of the Examination Board and Programme Committee. For the latter two groups, participation in the meetings with students or lecturers may suffice, depending on the context. The planning of the schedule can be done in consultation with the QA team and the panel secretary, who can provide example schedules and advice.
Additionally, the programme management can steer on dates and the schedule. Next to that, the travel time of the panel members needs to be taken into account. Finally, the schedule needs to accommodate a consultation hour that representatives of the programme can use to talk anonymously with the panel, and a so-called development talk (or dialogue). The latter can be organised after the site visit on campus or planned for another date.
It is highly recommended to offer programme staff and students the chance to experience a trial visit before the actual site visit by the accreditation panel. It is up to the programme management to organise this; support can be offered by CELT by providing an experienced panel member or chair.
Final report and follow-up
After the site visit, the accreditation panel prepares its report, a process that typically takes two to three months. The panel secretary is required to share a draft version with programme management for a check on factual inaccuracies. The QA team and the faculty’s quality assurance coordinator will also be involved in reviewing the draft and providing input on the feedback. Based on this feedback, a final version of the report is prepared and shared a few weeks later.
The final version of the panel report will be submitted for accreditation at the NVAO by the QA Team and on behalf of the Executive Board. The NVAO announces its decision on accreditation within six months. The programme management is asked to share the final report with all relevant stakeholders within UT.
An important step of the governance process is a meeting of the rector magnificus, the vice-dean of education and the programme director to discuss the outcomes, particularly the improvement points, of the accreditation. This meeting is arranged and held in the presence of a member of the QA Team.
Optional mid-term evaluation
Within UT, a mid-term evaluation can be conducted voluntarily or may be required as part of faculty policy. The purpose of the mid-term evaluation in the accreditation process is to assess the programme’s progress and quality halfway through the accreditation period, typically about three years after the previous accreditation. This internal evaluation enables the programme to identify strengths and areas for improvement and to make timely adjustments before the next formal accreditation. Various formats can be used for the mid-term evaluation, and support is available. Quality assurance coordinators and the QA team can provide advice on how to design a mid-term evaluation that aligns with the programme’s evaluation goals.
Other relevant information
Roles and responsibilities
As described in the above sections, many stakeholders are involved in the accreditation process. For a precise and detailed overview of the different roles and responsibilities in the quality assurance process, see the webpage 'UT policy on educational quality assurance'.
Support and Guidance
The first point of contact for the programme during the accreditation process is the quality assurance coordinator of the faculty, second will be the process lead from the QA Team. When required, educational experts from CELT can offer workshops and other hands-on support. The QA Team will discuss support requests and options with programme management in the start meeting and can refer to specific experts when needed.
For more information about the available support regarding educational quality assurance with each faculty, go to:
About Favourites Use the Bookmark this page button on Service Portal pages to add that page to the My Favourites section. To add web applications, use the star icon in the webapplication list. To add pages outside the Service Portal, use the Add custom bookmark button above. Add your favourite apps to your bookmarks by using the favourite button.
The My Organisation section shows mandatory bookmarks for your your main unit.