1.3 The evaluation and enhancement of education

Korkeakoulun itsearviointi

Assurance of learning

The Assurance of Learning (AoL) process, guided by the Assurance of Learning policy, is a tool by which Hanken can be assured that BSc, MSc, EMBA and PhD graduates have the knowledge and skills expected by the academic and business communities and fulfil the competency goals stated for each programme. Each programme-specific competency goal has been concretised by measurable learning outcomes. Students’ learning outcomes are measured at different points during the studies. Assessment rubrics are used to determine how well the learning outcomes meet the expectations. One of the benefits of using assessment rubrics is that when they are communicated to the students in advance, the students know what the expectations on their learning are. Most of the learning outcomes are measured in the theses, but there are also measure points in courses. From the beginning of 2013 all theses in all degree programmes are assessed as part of the AoL process, which makes the information on students learning comprehensive.

Although the assessment mostly deals with individual student performance, the focus is on the programme level; problem areas are identified, solutions and improvements are discussed and considered for a programme. After implementation of improvements, re-assessments are conducted, and a loop of the process is closed. Changes and improvements are also made to rubrics and measure points.

Student feedback and societal needs

Feedback is collected through course feedback, graduate surveys, alumni surveys, feedback discussions with students, regular discussions with the student union and sometimes (especially during the pandemic) ad hoc surveys on well-being. General results are presented on the webpages.

All courses on BSc and MSc levels and most courses on PhD level are evaluated by students. The results of the evaluations are processed by the teachers, heads of subject and departments and are considered when designing the courses for the following academic year. The dean of education and dean of programmes and quality assurance receive semester-wise reports on the results of the three standard questions for all courses. All students that have been registered for a course receive the electronic course evaluation form. Full anonymity is guaranteed. Courses that receive the average of at least 4 (on a scale to 5) on the three standard questions and a response rate of at least 35 % are marked in the course description as courses that have obtained top evaluations. The students’ response rate is quite low (26,1 % in 2022). A new course evaluation system, integrating giving feedback-on-feedback, was introduced in March 2022, and the aim is that all teachers use this function in the future thereby encouraging more students to give feedback.

The feedback collected in the graduates’ surveys is, since 2021, discussed on Hanken-level in the Academic Council, and broken down by subject and analysed at the department level and discussed with students and stakeholders. These discussions serve also as a forum for feedback-on-feedback and will after a pilot in 2022 be held every second year before the revision of the study plans.

The support services participate in the meetings of the decision-making bodies and are made aware of and discuss the development needs concerning the services. The graduate surveys include questions about the study services, but more effective channels for student input are the frequent contacts with student representatives. The Office of Studies and Admissions has regular meetings with the student union together with the dean of education and/or the rector. The directors of the support services and senior managers are members of the Management Team that discusses all strategic issues and plans the implementation and involvement of bodies and units of the organisation. The administrative units have annual dialogues with the rector, the directors of the units have regular meetings with the teams within their units and with each other and administrative teams have strategy days addressing development needs.

The participation of business representatives in teaching, the researchers’ collaborations with companies and organisations, the professors of practice, the External Stakeholder Advisory Board and the feedback discussions with stakeholders all contribute to input about the expectations of society and working life. National strategies and policies as well as trends and recommendations by the international business school networks are, to appropriate parts, incorporated into Hanken’s strategies. The heads of subjects are convened by the dean of education a few times per academic year to review current issues and seek common solutions.

The Digital Learning Policy draws up the guidelines for Hanken’s digital pedagogy, and the implementation of it supports the students’ digital working life skills. Hanken offers opportunities for continuous learning as individual courses as well as study modules. The larger modules include topics such as Corporate Responsibility, IP Law and a study module in HR. The globally available MOOC’s include topics such as Service Management, Organising for the Sustainable Development Goals and Introduction to Humanitarian Logistics. The resources of the Learning environments project on topics such as scientific writing, the writing process, good language and skills for work life, are available to the public. Most of Hanken’s courses are open to the public through quota for Open University students. Executive education is offered by the limited company Hanken&SSE, which Hanken owns together with Stockholm School of Economics.

Strengths Enhancement areas
A well-established Assurance of Learning process supporting continuous improvement Increasing the share of students giving course feedback and the share of teachers giving feedback on feedback
Strong corporate involvement in programme delivery Implementing the feedback discussions as a recurrent way for students and external stakeholders to contribute to the study planning
Active student participation in education-enhancing activities

Auditointiryhmän arvio

Hanken monitors and evaluates degree programmes in a systematic way

Hanken has implemented an Assurance of Learning policy and the Assurance of Learning (AoL) process. The latter is implemented as a tool to ensure that students at all levels are aware of and acquire the knowledge and competences expected by the programme at graduation and business communities after graduation. The AoL is implemented through the development of assessment rubrics at the programme level, by operationalising learning outcomes and competencies. These are presented to students at the beginning of the courses. The Teaching Lab assists with the development of assessment rubrics and data collection of students’ evaluation of courses is used to improve in subsequent iterations. The AoL is an important instrument for assuring the alignment of planning, learning and assessment in the programmes, and involves significant efforts by various actors at Hanken to develop a functional system.

The AoL targets especially outcomes at the programme level and is applied to theses and according to the self-assessment report, is also part of some courses. The audit visit confirmed that the AoL is indeed a useful instrument for institutional purposes, but still not implemented for learning purposes. As students reported a lack of feedback on learning and lacking understanding of their own performance and grounds for their grades, there is a concern that the AoL instrument is not fully effective in the ways it was envisioned.

In addition to the AoL, Hanken employs follow-ups and reviews as a tool in the quality management of degree programmes that are connected to university and department-level planning. This system, based on the sample of reports reviewed and audit discussions, seems to work well and is a good practice for systematically integrating the analysis into the annual operations management process.

The institution collects student feedback data to enhance the quality of education – feedback-on-feedback is to be given systematically

The strategy and implementation of the collection of data for the purpose of evaluation of education has been developed and implemented diligently at Hanken in the past years. The usefulness and importance of the different systems for collecting feedback is acknowledged by staff and contributes to a quality culture built on evidence based on data. A particularly noteworthy development is the current revision of the instruments for collecting student feedback on courses, which constitutes a major improvement regarding the evaluation and enhancement of the education provision. Digital systems are available for monitoring students’ progress and evaluating education at the bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degree levels. The data are analysed by the support services (the Teaching Lab) and cover the demographics of the students, their progress, and their evaluation of education.

Students can have their voices heard directly via their representation in management bodies and programme committees. As regards degree programmes and courses, the perspective of students is considered via course evaluations and their involvement in the curriculum development process. Although several channels for student feedback are used and have an established role in the quality management of teaching and learning, some aspects can still be improved. The student feedback systems create valuable data on student learning and the quality of courses, but as mentioned by some students they also want to give feedback concerning their programmes and structures. As described in the self-assessment, feedback results are presented in management and programme-specific meetings, where feedback and measures are discussed. The audit team recommends a continuous dialogue with students regarding their possibilities to influence their degree programme.

Whereas the feedback collection processes are well established and used, scope for improvement remains regarding the ways in which the feedback received is handled. Hanken’s education provision could therefore be improved by ascertaining that there is an actual follow-up on the feedback provided in all cases. Enhancing students’ competences as feedback givers and feedback-on-feedback can add to the establishment of a broader feedback culture within the university. This is one of the clear development issues identified during the audit visit. Learning to provide feedback, receiving feedback and tailored guidance based on the expressed needs, and being informed about how the uptake of their evaluations in the process of curriculum revisions and renewal is expected to make a difference when data is collected. This feedback on feedback can support student wellbeing and progress at different stages of the study trajectory.

Yet, several students, including international students and doctoral researchers, were uncertain whether their feedback had an impact, and if their views were considered in the revision, improvement, or renewal of the education provision. If and when improvements and developments are made, students should see that their feedback matters. Although student feedback may have a big impact, that information is not necessarily reaching students. As mentioned, students are well represented in the Hanken bodies at the university and department level as well as involved in feedback discussions at the subject level. Still, students could be further involved in the analysis of the feedback and in discussions about what could be improved and how. There are also some good practices related to mid-course evaluations, a practice that the audit team recommends could be employed on a wider range of courses.

Developments of support services are well tuned to the needs of students and staff

With regard to quality management of study progress, Hanken has established an orderly system of procedures and instruments, with clearly assigned responsibilities among the administrative support structures. The support services are part of the annual operations planning process with linked assessments. In addition, the support services have their own surveys and there is evidence of data use for the improvement of support services for both staff and students. The responsibilities of the support services are to contribute to a systematic approach to the development of teaching and learning throughout the university (see also Section 3.1).

The support services are in charge of ensuring that the needs of staff and students are identified and instrument and measures to address these exist. Examples are: asking students what they need and want; attending to students’ needs for follow-up with regard to their study choice and progress; identifying the reasons for drop-out from the process; creating and tailoring employability measures and comparisons with other institutions and sectors; cooperation with the corporate world; exchanging experiences and knowledge with other institutions on offered services (e.g., spaces for group work); identifying the effectiveness of support and trainings; identifying networking opportunities and creating conditions for collaboration with other institutions. The audit confirmed that the support services are prompt in addressing the various needs of students and staff for learning and development. The individualised arrangements for students and the follow-up of teachers’ pedagogical competences, as well as digital support, are concrete examples of the systematic development and activities of support services based on needs of students and staff.