HEQEC INQUIRY

about system of higher education quality improvement in Latvia

It is recommended to evaluate each question listed below by a mark according to the scale.

We would appreciate your comments especially in cases of negative assessment (satisfactory and unsatisfactory).

    Please give your assessment in four points scale:
  1. 4 (excellent),
  2. 3 (highly satisfactory),
  3. 2 (satisfactory),
  4. 1 (unsatisfactory).

We would appreciate your comments on questions (look the text in italic) we consider very important.


Experts
1. Is the information received from HEQEC for evaluation work (questionnaire, etc.):
1.1. sufficient (in content) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
1.2. easy to use, handy 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
1.3. available (on time, easy to receive) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
2. Is the information about the study programme and/or higher education institution in self evaluation reports:
2.1. sufficient (in content) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
2.2. easy to use, handy 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
2.3. available (on time) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
3. Please evaluate information sources about higher education quality:
3.1. HEQEC home page www.aiknc.lv 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
3.2. other home pages on the internet 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
3.3. newspapers, magazines 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
3.4. radio, TV 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
3.5. annual international exhibition "School" 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
3.6. information catalogues 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
3.7. brochures issued by higher education institutions 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
3.8. friends, relatives 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
4. Is the necessary additional information (about legislation, evaluation methodology, work conditions) received from HEQEC about the study programme and/or higher education institution:
4.1. sufficient (in content) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
4.2. easy to use, handy 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
4.3. available (on time, easy to receive) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
5. Is the necessary information from HEQEC about Latvia and the education system in Latvia:
5.1. sufficient (in content) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
5.2. easy to use, handy 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
5.3. available (on time, easy to receive) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
6. Are you satisfied with HEQEC home page www.aiknc.lv -
6.1. available information about expert work and recommendations 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
6.2. download of self evaluation reports 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
6.3. is it easy to use? 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
7. Are you satisfied with actual, current information received from HEQEC during the personal meeting of experts and HEQEC representative before the visit? 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
8. Are you satisfied with electronic communication (e-mail) during the coordination of most convenient time and dates for all the evaluation commission to visit Latvia -
8.1. are you satisfied with the form of communication (the communication is open: the e-mail is sent also to representatives of the study programme, e-mail contains also contact information of experts) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
8.2. are you satisfied with the information included in e-mail? 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
8.3. are you satisfied with operativeness answering your e-mail? 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
9. What information is necessary in addition to received information for evaluation and visit in Latvia?
10. What is unnecessary or troublesome in received information? 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
11.
12. Organization of expert visit.
13. Was it easy to receive information -
13.1. about study programme and/or higher education institution 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
13.2. about useful (recommended) methodology of evaluation 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
13.3. about Latvia and expert work conditions 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
14. Are you satisfied with the evaluation commission (expert team):
14.1. members of evaluation commission (were they appropriate to the task) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
14.2. your work conditions in higher education institution 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
15. Your evaluation about the visit -
15.1. the project of visit programme 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
15.2. possibilities to change the programme of visit 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
15.3. possibility to complete the assessment tasks during the visit 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
15.4. transport and accommodation during the visit in Latvia 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
16. Are you satisfied with arrangement and regulations:
16.1. way of financial payment and other documentation 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
16.2. the amount of payment 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
17. What improvements are necessary in the organization of expert work?
18. What normative acts or restrictions are unnecessary or troublesome?
19. Experts' recommendations.
20. To what degree were you provided with opportunities to give recommendations to:
20.1. higher education institution ( academic staff, administration) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
20.2. students 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
20.3. HEQEC 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
20.4. Ministry of Education and Science (government, Saeima) 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
20.5. employers and professional organizations 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
21. To what degree the existing quality improvement system in Latvia (summarization of recommendations and use in improvements, changes, prevention of mistakes) provide opportunities to make use of your recommendations:
21.1. in higher education institution 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
21.2. in student self-government 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
21.3. in HEQEC 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
21.4. in legislation 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
21.5. in higher education institution’s collaboration with labour market 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
22. In case you have evaluated this study programme or higher education institution before, how are your previous recommendations used in quality improvement:
22.1. in higher education institution 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
22.2. in student self government 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
22.3. in HEQEC 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
22.4. in legislation 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
22.5. in higher education institution’s collaboration with labour market 1; 2; 3; 4; No answer. Comments:
23. What should be added in normative acts and the practice of usage?
24. What is not sufficiently clear or explained in details in normative acts?
25. What normative acts, regulations and restrictions are unnecessary or troublesome?
26. What is too detailed or regulated in too many details in normative acts?
27. Please write some personal information if it is possible and, please, provide your restrictions in use of this information:
27.1. education
27.2. position (profession)
27.3. age
27.4. contact information (if you agree and if you want to continue discussions about higher education quality improvement in Latvia)
Return to the beginning of questionnaire Return to the home page of HEQEC EN LV
©AIKNC