quality of education

Below you can find more information about the external assessments of our education.

Accreditation

All bachelor’s and master’s degree-programmes at the University of Twente are accredited by NVAO, the national accreditation organisation. They commission a review of the programmes by a committee of (international) experts and students once every six years.

NVAO also conducts institutional audits of universities in the Netherlands every six years, to assess their internal system of quality assurance and management. University of Twente has successfully passed the audit in 2014.

More information about the accreditation procedure and the register of accredited programmes can be found on the NVAO website.

Next to the national accreditation organisation, some programmes are assessed by accreditation organisations specific to their field. If this is the case, these accreditations are mentioned on their programme websites.

Rankings

The University of Twente participates in a number of reputable rankings, like the Times Higher Education, QS and ARWU. These rankings show that, relative to its size, the Dutch higher education system is in the absolute top of the world.

There are a number of organisational bodies that play a role in managing and assessing the quality of education.

Programme Committee

Every degree programme has a Programme  Committee. The  Programme Committee is a participation body and represents students and staff at programme level.  It consists of an equal number of teaching staff and students.

In general this Committee advises the Programme Director  on improving and safeguarding the educational quality of the programme (including the quality agreements). According to the Dutch Act on Higher Education (article 10.3c), it is a Programme Committee’s task to give advice on how to guarantee and improve the quality of a Degree Programme. In practice this means that the Programme Committee:

• has the right to consent regarding some elements of the Education and Examination Regulations (EER), whether on others the right of consultation;
• evaluates the implementation of the Education and Examination Regulations;
• gives advice on the quality assurance system, the annual evaluation of the courses and modules, the curriculum, including admission criteria and examination criteria for final assessment and thesis.

Given these tasks, the Programme Committee is an important discussion partner for the Programme Director.

Board of Examiners

The Board of Examiners is required by law to monitor the quality of the diplomas and the examinations independently of the programme management (Dutch Act on Higher Education article 7.12). This board determines the guidelines for the assessment, and assesses whether students meet the learning outcomes of the programme. The board has at least one member who is a lecturer in the programme and one external member. The board also decides on requests from individual students regarding choices/adjustments in their study programmes. The Board of Examiners addresses a report to the dean of the faculty annually, with recommendations for improving the quality of assessment and the associated procedures.

Employee and student representation

Councils of elected students and staff monitor both the department- and university-boards. They advise on budgets and quality reports and have a strong voice in rules and regulations for education.

Student associations

There is an autonomous student association for every programme or group of programmes. The student associations conduct their own surveys of teaching quality and monitor complaints by students. They are an important and respected advisor to the programme management.

According to the committee, UT has embraced the full scope of the Twente Educational Model (TOM). Considerable consensus with regard to the model is ingrained throughout the university. The committee also observes that the environment and the professional field are strongly involved in the educational programmes. Entrepreneurship is evident throughout the entire university. 

The vision on internationalisation is clear, and the committee understands the choice for teaching in English. The committee nevertheless recommends preserving space for the Dutch language. 

There is a clear vision on growth in student numbers, as well as on the limits of growth. The committee recommends identifying tools that can be used to keep growth within these boundaries, in cooperation with the Ministry. 

The examination and assessment policy is well documented, allowing considerable freedom for educational programmes. 

Finally, the committee notes that the university has a fine talent policy for staff members, and it advocates having the courage to promote the truly good performing teachers to the position of professor.

The UT is working on the further development of the Twente Educational Model to realise ‘TOM 2.0’. The committee regards this as an excellent process. The philosophy of ‘High Tech, Human Touch’ is explicitly tangible, although the committee does remark that there is still room for increasing the involvement of stakeholders.
The committee notes that lecturers are quite approachable for students, and they are impressed by the range of professional-development options for teaching staff.
The committee refers to the introduction of the faculty boards as a good step, further noting that the University Education Committee (UC-ED) is in need of attention, given that it is an advisory board that, in practice, is sometimes seen as a decision-making body. The committee regards the addition of a study advisor to the Examination Board as a good idea that is in the interest of students.

With regard to workload, the university addressed the problem in an early stage. There is an awareness that workload is a ‘many-headed monster’. Although the approach will not lead directly to a reduction in the workload, the committee does see that the university is on the right track in this regard.

Finally, the committee notes that the UT should take action to address the issue of formative testing

The committee observes a continuous line of improvement in the quality of education, with a broad range of monitoring instruments. In the opinion of the committee, the university is doing well with regard to involving the professional field in education. With regard to the MISUT management-information system, the committee also recommends the addition of qualitative criteria.

Finally, the committee appreciates the university’s courage in listing clear key issues in the evaluation report for the Twente Education Model (TOM).

The committee observes that development is taking place in all areas, and that there is explicit interplay between lecturers and students throughout the university in this regard. The committee expresses considerable respect for the manner in which the university’s new mission, vision and strategy—SHAPING2030—were developed, with substantial involvement from the university community. It was a true bottom-up process, in which considerable work remains for the university with regard to the digital transformation. 

Although the committee has seen that the university is strong in adjusting, it nevertheless recommends to prioritise more and not to do everything at the same time.