F17: Evaluation of results
The degree course is subject to a periodic review, which is partly based on verifiable targets.
Protocols on quality assurance have been formulated on both the university and faculty level. The internal quality assurance for the BME Master's programme involves the Board of Examiners and the Study Programme Committee. The study programme is put together by a separate committee called the Curriculum Committee. This Committee meets at least twice a year for the evaluation of each semester. Once a year meetings are organized with regard to the evaluation of activities in the previous year and to the working schedule for the coming year.
Courses are evaluated by students via course evaluations.
Also, other sessions and meetings where all students participate are assessed, reported on and discussed in the SPC.
An overall programme evaluation takes place after each semester and after each year. Criteria for assessment are e.g. coherence, overlap, order, and curriculum change. This assessment is done by the Curriculum Committee.
The Review Committee finds that the programme questionnaires contain good and relevant questions.
There are no exit programme evaluations right now, but they are in the process of being developed.
Currently, alumni only receive a general questionnaire from the University, not specifically about the BME Master's programme.
The Committee finds that the evaluation of results fulfils the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory.
F18: Measures to effect improvement
The results of this evaluation form the basis for measures that can be demonstrated to improve the course and that will contribute to reaching the targets.
Both the conclusions from the evaluation of the results and new initiatives from students, staff members, or members of the professional field can lead to modification of the
programmes, either in terms of topic studied or teaching method used. The procedure starts with a discussion in the SPC. The Master’s degree programme has been running for 6 years, and adjustments have taken place. Prominent changes were integrated in the BME Master's programme over this period that were imposed by external modification of the curricular system, like the introduction of the Bachelor’s degree in 2002, the change from trimester to semester in 2002 and 2003, and the restructuring of the FMNS Faculty into three schools (LS, NST and IS) called ‘Tripos’.
Students give feedback on courses. However, it is not always clear to the students interviewed whether anything is done with the remarks, though examples of improvement are known. Students know that they have an effect on the curriculum as sometimes the content of a course is changed afterwards. For example, a desire that had been communicated by students
to staff members for more active working methods in specific courses has lead to more working groups and practicals.
The Committee approves of the monitoring process and recommends creating a more structural feedback process on evaluations to students.
Teachers are considered to have an open and positive attitude towards the results of the evaluations and are willing to make improvements. However, the possibilities for
improvement could be explored better, there is sometimes a tendency to think in obstacles rather than opportunities.
The Committee concludes that the link between evaluations and implemented improvements fulfils the requirements for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory.
F19: Involvement of staff, students, alumni and the professional field
Staff, students, alumni and the professional field in which graduates of the course are to be employed are actively involved in the internal quality assurance.
The involvement in monitoring the education process of the students is adequate, mainly due to the short communication lines. Teachers are accessible.
There is a Steering Committee, consisting of people from the professional (hospital) field and teachers. This Committee gives feedback on the programme when it meets twice a year. The Review Committee feels it would be interesting to expand this Committee with people from industry.
Alumni have in general no institutionalized contact with the programme, but some of them work in departments that are involved in the education.
Staff and students play an essential part in the SPC, the formal advisory committee that checks study progress, identifies existing and potential problems, and can propose modifications of the curriculum. Subcommittees are active and advisory to the SPC. The Programme Director takes the final decision, but has to ask the viewpoint of the SPC first. The SPC/OC exists of four students and four teachers.
Students have an influence in the OC especially regarding the evaluation of courses which is discussed regularly. The OC is not just reactive based on evaluations, but also proactive, and works on possible improvements in education.
The SPC/OC mainly evaluates the quality of individual courses, the quality of the education process and the Educational and Examination Regulations (OER).
Staff and students are thoroughly involved in the Programme Committee, formally as well as informally.
There are still alumni present in the Faculty, but the staff stays in contact with the others who have found employment elsewhere.
The Committee finds that the professional field could be better and more structurally involved.
The Committee finds that staff, alumni and the professional field are well involved in the internal quality assurance. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory.
Assessment of Subject ‘Internal Quality Assurance’
The Committee concludes that the overall score for the Subject ‘Internal Quality Assurance’ is Satisfactory
1.2.6. Results
F20: Level that has been achieved
The final qualifications that have been achieved correspond to the targets set for the final qualifications in level, orientation and domain-specific requirements.
Students appear to be well equipped when they start their projects (thesis and internship). The Committee finds that the programme is considered good, expectations are met, there are no important subjects missing.
In 2003, 3 Masters graduated, in 2004, 6 and in 2005, 11. The grades given are seldom lower than 7 or higher than 9. Grades lower than 7 are considered to be very poor. Two students graduated cum laude, generally students get high grades for thesis work (see Facet 11).
Students are sometimes encouraged to publish their work. In many cases (more than half) the results of Master's theses are presented in meetings (even international ones), often not by the students but by teachers, mostly as poster presentations.
The number of diplomas granted thus far is limited because the programme is still in its initial phase, and this is somewhat difficult to evaluate.
The Master's thesis is an optimal beginning for a PhD according to alumni interviewed. Most alumni are now doing a PhD or are working as medical researchers.
Most of them were offered a job before they graduated, sometimes even before they finished their thesis.
Based on the limited experience until now, the industry seems to be very satisfied with the few students they get in. How this will develop in the future will have to be monitored. There are not many graduates yet, so it is not quite clear what the possibilities for students are when their numbers increase.
The level of the graduates is considered by the Committee to be good in general.
The relationship between the targets of the course and the final qualifications of the graduates fulfils the criteria for accreditation. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory.
F21: Success rates
To measure the success rates, target figures have been set in comparison with relevant other degree courses. The success rates meet these targets.
The number of students who finished the Master's degree curriculum within the planned time was about 40%. The aim is to attain a 50% completion rate for two years of active study, increasing to 80% for three years.
The Committee finds that the success rate targets set by the programme are quite modest and recommends evaluating them regularly and making adaptations as necessary.
The Committee finds that the results fulfil target figures that are common in Dutch universities. The score for this Facet is Satisfactory.
Assessment of Subject ‘Results’
Overview of the assessment by the committee Master’s degree course Biomedical Engineering
Subject Assessment Facet Assessment
F1 Domain-specific requirements Satisfactory
F2 Level Satisfactory 1. Aims and objectives of the degree course + F3 Orientation Satisfactory
F4 Requirements for university degree
courses Satisfactory F5 Relationship between aims and objectives
and contents of the programme Satisfactory F6 Coherence of the programme Satisfactory
F7 Study load Satisfactory
F8 Intake Satisfactory
F9 Duration Satisfactory
F10 Co-ordination of structure and contents
of the degree course Satisfactory
2. Programme +
F11 Assessment and examinations Satisfactory F12 Requirements for university degree
courses Good
F13 Quantity of staff Satisfactory
3. Deployment
of staff +
F14 Quality of staff Satisfactory
F15 Material facilities Satisfactory
4. Facilities and
provisions + F16 Student support and guidance Good
F17 Evaluation of results Satisfactory F18 Measures to effect improvement Satisfactory 5. Internal
quality assurance
+
F19 Involvement of staff, students, alumni
and the professional field Satisfactory F20 Level that has been achieved Satisfactory 6. Results +