Annual Cycle and Reporting

The admissions report contributes to the evaluation of admissions quality at The Barratt Due Academy and includes information on application numbers, applicants’ academic and artistic standards, students’ experiences at the start of their studies, the quality of marketing and recruitment activities, and the admissions process.

The evaluation of admissions quality must be considered in light of the Academy’s overall objectives and the profile and target group of the study programmes.

Evaluation is carried out through both quantitative and qualitative analysis, including:

• Analysis of application numbers and applicants’ academic and artistic standards
• Review of key admissions documents
• Evaluation of marketing and recruitment initiatives
• Evaluation by audition panels following the admissions process
• Feedback from applicants
• Orientation and induction for new students

Responsibility for implementation and follow-up

Following each admissions cycle, the Admissions Coordinator and the Head of the Academy prepare a report containing key data and indicators. The report is reviewed by the Programme Leader and the Head of the Academy for analysis and the development of actions.

Key trends and proposed actions are incorporated into the Annual Programme Report and approved by the Programme Committee.

The Head of the Academy holds overall responsibility for ensuring that actions are implemented and followed up. Operational responsibility is shared between the Programme Leader and the Admissions Coordinator.

Timing

Evaluation takes place annually during April and May.

The Academy’s performance study programmes are evaluated on a two-year cycle, with principal study courses and class-based and group courses evaluated in alternate years. Courses within the continuing professional development programmes are evaluated every second academic year. The Programme Committees may decide on a different frequency or format for evaluations in a given year.

Course evaluations are conducted midway through the academic year and consist of three components:

• Written anonymous evaluation
• Joint mid-year evaluation
• Faculty report

1. Written Evaluation

Students complete an anonymous digital questionnaire covering:

• The organisation and structure of the course
• Course content and students’ perceived learning outcomes
• The quality of teaching

Student feedback forms the basis for further dialogue and quality enhancement activities.

2. Joint Mid-Year Evaluation

Faculty members and Heads of Department receive a summary of the results of the course evaluation. This summary forms the basis for a joint discussion between the teacher and the students. The purpose of the discussion is to share experiences and identify possible measures for the further development of the course.

3. Faculty Report

The faculty member or Head of Department prepares a brief report summarising:

• Student feedback
• Self-evaluation of the course and teaching
• Any adjustments and measures to be implemented

The report forms part of the Academy’s Quality Assurance System and serves as a basis for the further development of the course.

National Student Survey (Second-Year Students)

The National Student Survey (Studiebarometeret) is conducted by NOKUT on behalf of the Ministry of Education and Research and is a quantitative survey. Due to the relatively small number of respondents, the survey is used as a supplementary source of information within the overall quality assurance framework. Scores below three are subject to further analysis.

Follow-up includes:

• Dialogue meetings with respondents
• Review by the Learning Environment Committee
• Review by the Programme Committee

Responsibility for Implementation and Follow-up

The Head of Teaching and Learning ensures that evaluations are conducted and prepares a report for discussion with the Programme Leader and the Programme Committee, where key trends are identified and potential measures are considered. Key findings and follow-up actions are incorporated into the Study Programme Report.

The Head of the Academy has overall responsibility for ensuring that measures are initiated where necessary and appropriately followed up. Operational responsibility for implementation is shared between the Programme Leader and the Head of Teaching and Learning.

To ensure a coherent quality cycle in the evaluation process, it is essential that students and the academic environment are informed about measures introduced to enhance the quality of education. This is achieved through regular newsletters prepared by the Head of Teaching and Learning. The newsletters shall:

• Communicate measures implemented on the basis of evaluations and feedback
• Be addressed to both students and staff
• Be published three times each semester: at the beginning of the semester, mid-semester and at the end of the semester

This contributes to transparency, participation and the continuous enhancement of educational quality.

Timing

Evaluations are conducted annually during the period from February to May.

Periodic reviews of the study programmes are conducted every four years on a two-year cycle, covering the bachelor’s programme and the continuing professional development programmes respectively.

The purpose of the periodic review is to enhance the quality of the Academy’s educational provision. The review panel consists of students, representatives from professional and wider society, and external academic peers, in addition to internal academic staff and an administrative representative. Reviews are conducted in accordance with the template for periodic review. The terms of reference for each review are prepared by Academy Management in consultation with the Rectorate and are considered by the Programme Committee before being presented to the Board for information. The terms of reference are based on the Academy’s strategy and identify the areas to be evaluated.

The following sources of information may be included in the periodic review and serve as resources for the review panel:

• Alumni survey
• Student surveys
• Faculty surveys
• Annual Report on the Quality of Education submitted to the Board
• Annual reports of the Learning Environment Committee
• Study Programme Reports
• Agreements and practices relating to international networks and incoming and outgoing mobility
• Placement agreements and placement arrangements for programmes including professional practice
• Research, artistic research and development activities undertaken at the Academy

Responsibility for Implementation and Follow-up

The Head of the Academy holds overall responsibility for the process in consultation with the Rectorate.

Actions arising from the review are implemented and followed up in accordance with applicable regulations and internal procedures.

Responsibility for follow-up is shared between Academy Management, Programme Leaders and other relevant roles, depending on the nature of the measures to be implemented.

Timing

Periodic reviews are conducted every four years in accordance with the Academy’s review schedule.

Where necessary, the Board may request a periodic review outside the regular cycle.

Follow-up actions are documented in the annual Study Programme Report.

A template for the Study Programme Report has been developed, incorporating the systematic review and ensuring compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements.

Procedure for Systematic Review

• The Programme Leader, in collaboration with the Head of the Academy, prepares a report based on collected data as part of the annual Study Programme Report.
• The report is considered by the Programme Committee, which assesses the programme against the relevant regulatory requirements.
• The Programme Committee recommends approval of the report and proposes follow-up actions for any identified non-compliance, normally with a deadline of up to one year.
• The report is approved at the dialogue meeting between Academy Management and the Rectorate.
• Key findings and actions identified in the Study Programme Reports are consolidated in the Annual Report on the Quality of Education, which is considered by the Board. The Board adopts the proposed measures and sets deadlines for corrective action, normally within one year.
• A process plan with milestones is developed in cases of significant non-compliance.
• Corrective actions are followed up in accordance with the annual cycle of the Programme Committees and are anchored through Programme Committee meetings and dialogue meetings. In cases of major non-compliance, progress reports are submitted to the Board.
• Progress and outcomes are documented in the subsequent Study Programme Report and reported further to the Board.

Responsibility for Implementation and Follow-up

The Head of the Academy holds overall responsibility for the follow-up of the systematic review.

The Programme Leader and the Head of the Academy share operational responsibility for carrying out the systematic review.

Follow-up actions are discussed by Academy Management and the Programme Leader. Depending on the nature of the non-compliance and the responsibilities involved, responsibility for corrective actions is allocated between the Head of the Academy, the Programme Leader and, where appropriate, other roles and areas of expertise within the Academy.

Timing

The annual systematic review takes place in May and June in connection with the preparation of the Study Programme Report.

The results form part of the annual Study Programme Report, which is considered by the Programme Committee.

The Academy has a period of one year to remedy identified deficiencies or instances of non-compliance. Such deficiencies and the associated deadlines for corrective action are documented in the Annual Report on the Quality of Education submitted to the Board and are monitored through subsequent Board meetings.

The evaluation takes the form of an annual systematic review of the academic environment and is intended to ensure that the composition and competence of the academic environment remain in compliance with the requirements set out in Chapter 1, Sections 1-12 (General Requirements for Academic Environments) and 1-13 (Specific Requirements for First-Cycle Programmes) of the Regulations relating to the Universities and University Colleges Act.

The review is intended to ensure continued compliance with accreditation requirements. The evaluation of academic functions, committees and advisory bodies forms part of the review.

A template for the Study Programme Report has been developed, incorporating the systematic review and ensuring compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements.

Procedure for Systematic Review

• The Head of the Academy prepares a report based on collected data as part of the annual Study Programme Report.
• The report is considered by the Programme Committee, which assesses the study programme against the relevant regulatory requirements.
• The Programme Committee recommends approval of the report and proposes follow-up actions for any identified non-compliance, normally with a deadline of one year.
• The report is approved at the dialogue meeting between Academy Management and the Rectorate.
• Key findings and actions identified in the Study Programme Reports are consolidated in the Annual Report on the Quality of Education, which is considered by the Board. The Board adopts the proposed measures and sets deadlines for corrective action, normally within one year.
• A process plan with milestones is developed in cases of significant non-compliance.
• Corrective actions are followed up in accordance with the annual cycle of the Programme Committees and are anchored through Programme Committee meetings and dialogue meetings. In cases of major non-compliance, progress reports are submitted to the Board.
• Progress and outcomes are documented in the subsequent Study Programme Report and reported further to the Board.

Responsibility for Implementation and Follow-up

The Head of the Academy holds overall responsibility for the follow-up of the systematic review.

The Programme Leader and the Head of the Academy share operational responsibility for carrying out the systematic review.

Follow-up actions are discussed by Academy Management and the Programme Leader. Depending on the nature of the non-compliance and the responsibilities involved, responsibility for corrective actions is allocated between the Head of the Academy, the Programme Leader and, where appropriate, other roles and areas of expertise within the Academy.

Timing

The systematic review takes place annually in May and June in connection with the preparation of the Study Programme Report.

The Academy has a period of one year to remedy identified deficiencies or instances of non-compliance. Such deficiencies and the associated deadlines for corrective action are documented in the Annual Report on the Quality of Education submitted to the Board and are monitored through subsequent Board meetings.

A number of surveys and feedback mechanisms contribute to the evaluation of the Academy’s physical, psychosocial, organisational, digital and pedagogical learning environment.

National Student Survey (Studiebarometeret)

The National Student Survey examines students’ perceptions of the quality of their studies. It is a quantitative survey administered to second-year students and provides an additional perspective within the overall framework of quality assurance activities. The Barratt Due Academy and the Learning Environment Committee jointly follow up the results. Scores below three are subject to further analysis.

Learning Environment Survey

The Learning Environment Committee conducts a Learning Environment Survey every three years. The survey examines the physical and psychosocial environment, information and communication technology services, student participation, information provision, instrument resources, equipment and related matters. Depending on identified needs, the survey may focus on specific aspects of the learning environment.

Student Health and Well-being Survey (SHoT)

The Student Health and Well-being Survey (SHoT) is a national survey addressing students’ health and well-being. It is a quantitative survey and provides an additional perspective within the overall quality assurance framework. The Barratt Due Academy and the Learning Environment Committee jointly follow up the results.

Regular Meetings Between the Student Council and Academy Management

Regular meetings between the Student Council and Academy Management are intended to identify and address ongoing issues relating to the learning environment. These meetings provide an opportunity to resolve minor challenges and ensure continuous follow-up of matters affecting students’ learning experience.

The evaluation covers the following aspects relating to student progression and academic results:

• Number of graduates completing each programme within the standard period of study, monitored over time. Changes of 20 per cent or more trigger follow-up measures.
• Credits achieved per year in relation to the number of students.
• Number of students withdrawing from their studies and the reasons for withdrawal.
• Results from the fourth-year principal study examinations in instrumental and vocal performance at bachelor level.
• Courses with a failure rate exceeding 20 per cent are subject to follow-up.

These data form part of the annual Study Programme Reports and are based on the figures reported for the previous calendar year to the Norwegian Database for Higher Education Statistics (DBH).

The Examination Board evaluates the conduct of examinations and the academic standard demonstrated by candidates in relation to the intended learning outcomes of the course.

Responsibility for Implementation and Follow-up

The Head of the Academy prepares an overview of key figures and data based on the indicators above, which are reviewed together with the Programme Leader for analysis. Key trends and any proposed actions are incorporated into the Study Programme Report, which is considered by the Programme Committee.

The Head of the Academy has overall responsibility for ensuring that actions are initiated where necessary and followed up accordingly. Operational responsibility for implementation is shared between the Programme Leader and the Head of Teaching and Learning.

Timing

The evaluation is conducted annually in June.