Resumen de Analysis of the evaluation system for the renewal of accreditation in university master's degrees in the educational field in Andalusia
Introduction:Quality Assurance Systems (QMS) are synonymous with quality assurance and management systems and are fundamental pillars of universities, forming part of their institutional policy. It is necessary to know the design and implementation of the QMS in the educational field of higher education, as well as the context in which they are generated in order to understand their relationship with the quality objectives of the teachings to which they support, but, are QMS processes really useful in the field of higher education?Methodology:The objective of this work is to analyze the renewal system for the accreditation of official university master's degrees in the educational field in Andalusia and to identify proposals for improvement. The analysis carried out is based on the experience in the preparation of eight annual self-reports and three reports for the renewal of the accreditation of an Official Master's Degree by the Andalusian Agency of Knowledge, Evaluation and Accreditation Directorate (AAC-DEVA).Results:Carrying out an evaluation of the QMS of a degree involves a significant investment of personal, financial and time resources that are essential both for the Coordination and the Commission for the Quality Assurance of the degree and for the universities, agencies, and organizations of evaluation of the QMS.However, there is not always a match between the criteria that are evaluated and the data available to provide evidence or the resources available to achieve the improvement plans. Some of the specific weaknesses detected in the system would be:The evaluation by the AAC-DEVA is based on the results of surveys that, in addition to not being representative of the group due to low participation, in most cases contain ambiguous questions or that do not allow a correct assessment of the criteria to be analyzed and makes it extremely difficult to respond to the objectives of the QMS. Sometimes, as is the case of graduate follow-up, there is not even data available in this regard.The participation of the agents involved (students, teachers, tutors...) is essential for the success of the SGC process. However, with the current system, sufficient and adequate involvement is not achieved.The SGC criteria for assessing learning outcomes, something essential in a degree, are not based, in our opinion, on adequate evidence.On the other hand, we miss the enhancement of the accreditation of a degree for society that, currently and despite all efforts, does not distinguish an official degree from one of its own, and even from a non-university degree.Conclusions:We consider the control processes of the QMS more than necessary and more so in official titles, but the system should be reviewed and the set of criteria and guidelines designed in the general procedure should be adapted to each title. In addition, the process should be simplified so as not to contribute to excessive bureaucracy in title management.The results obtained can guide future actions of universities and evaluation agencies in relation to the way of approaching the design and implementation of QMS.
