Quality management

The effective management of faculty resources and the delivery of high-quality education aligned with the needs of the professional world are central priorities for the Faculty of Applied Sciences.

The quality assurance approach is deeply embedded in the procedures established by the various faculty bodies (Faculty Council, Faculty Standing Committee on Education, Faculty Pedagogical Council, Academic Councils, etc.). This quality assurance approach is sustained by regular and constructive interactions among faculty members, researchers, advisors, students, alumni, and professionals.

Since 2011, the various academic programs have undergone joint or separate evaluations by the AEQESand the CTI , which has led to a more explicit formalization of the quality system.

In 2021, the University of Liège obtained recognition from AEQES for the robustness of its quality system. Based on this overall positive assessment, the University of Liège can evaluate all of its programs independently.

The evaluation of programs that do not fall under the engineering track or that do not wish to participate in the procedure proposed by the CTI is carried out within the framework of the institutional quality system of the University of Liège. For programs that rely on the CTI, the process with this body replaces the general procedure established at ULiège. It should be noted that accreditation by the CTI leads to recognition of the corresponding degree by the French government and is generally coupled with the award of the European EUR-ACE label . However, evaluation following the institutional procedure does not lead to the award of this label.

European Standards and Guidelines (ESG)

Both the institutional evaluation procedure and the one conducted by the CTI are based on the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) outlined below. The quality assurance process carried out in the Faculty of Applied Sciences therefore naturally fits within the framework defined by these ESG.

Faculty bodies for quality management.

The main stakeholders in the quality system within the FSA are the Faculty Pedagogical Council (CPF), the Academic Councils, the Dean’s Office, and the program advisory boards. These bodies work in close collaboration with the SMAQto ensure the integration of the faculty-level approach into the corresponding institutional framework. The approach relies on the Radius unit which collects the faculty dashboard data necessary for steering and monitoring the quality policy.

The Faculty Academic Council brings together the key figures responsible for organizing academic programs—namely, the chairs of the academic councils and examination boards—under the chairmanship of the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs. The Faculty Pedagogical Council is therefore naturally the primary faculty body for managing the quality of teaching. In consultation with the Dean’s Office, it is specifically responsible for the following matters:

• defining the general quality assurance policy (ESG 1.1);
• student evaluation of courses and follow-up (ESG 1.3);
• coordination of educational initiatives and sharing of experience (ESG 1.3);
• sharing of resources and expertise (ESG 1.6);
• collection of key figures related to teaching and graduate tracking (ESG 1.7), in collaboration with the Radius unit.

The Academic Councils bring together all faculty members from each program as well as representatives of the academic advisors and students. The chair of the Academic Council is responsible for quality management within their program. If necessary, this responsibility may be delegated to another council member. Within the program for which they are responsible, the chair of the Academic Council, or their quality delegate, implements the initiatives launched by the Faculty Pedagogical Council and leads discussions and efforts to meet quality objectives related to the following themes:

• definition of KLOs and management of the course program (ESG 1.2);
• definition of learning and assessment methods and mechanisms (ESG 1.3);
• definition of the learning environment (ESG 1.6);
• presentation and promotion of the program, communication (ESG 1.8);
• graduate employment (ESG 1.9);
• link between teaching, research, and society (ESG 1.9).

Each year, the CPF identifies a theme related to quality and initiates corresponding discussions and actions within each academic council. The academic council is responsible for monitoring the specific actions it develops. The CPF ensures the sharing of experiences and the coordination of cross-cutting actions.

In order to analyze the link between the programs offered and the expectations of the professional world (ESG 1.9), each program has an Advisory Board composed of alumni and representatives from companies or public and private organizations active in the fields covered by the program. Advisory Board meetings are held at least twice a year, at the initiative of the Chair of the Academic Council.

Quality Cycle for Instruction

The quality assurance approach developed at FSA aims to improve both the quality of teaching and the programs themselves.

The educational objectives of the various programs are presented in the form of Key Learning Outcomes (KLOs), in accordance with the European ECTS standard, which are integrated into the program descriptions (particularly on the University/Faculty website). When a professional association has established standards—as is the case for architects, chemists, or in the field of computer science—the learning objectives are modeled after those standards.

Course curricula and teaching methods are defined based on the program’s Key Learning Outcomes.

Evalens surveys are used to gather student feedback on courses and their organization. Survey results are subject to specific analysis by each instructor and to cross-disciplinary analyses conducted by the chairs of the Academic Councils and by the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs. If necessary, individualized support may be offered to address specific challenges identified by the survey. Cross-departmental initiatives may also be implemented by the Faculty Pedagogical Council or the Academic Council to address broader issues highlighted by the Evalens surveys. The IFRES serves as a natural partner for addressing the pedagogical issues raised in this context.

The PostMaster surveys (conducted 15 months and 5 years after graduation) and the feedback from the advisory boards of the various programs allow for a more comprehensive evaluation of the programs. In particular, they enable a critical assessment of the alignment of educational objectives (KLO) with the needs of the professional world and provide feedback on the actual development of the corresponding attitudes and skills among graduates.

Since all faculty members are themselves researchers involved in international networks, they naturally bring their research experience to bear on the design and evolution of the curriculum. This approach allows for the continuous reassessment of the programs in light of the current state of knowledge and new challenges arising from scientific research findings and technological advancements.

The main procedures related to the development, presentation, and evaluation of programs are described in the documents provided in the appendices.

To ensure their traceability and monitoring, all actions taken to improve the quality of instruction and the efficient use of resources are documented in writing. In particular, documents used or drafted by the Academic Council and other faculty bodies responsible for teaching (Faculty Council, Faculty Standing Committee on Teaching, Faculty Pedagogical Council) are subject to centralized archiving coordinated by the faculty’s administrative services.

Faculty and Program Evaluations

Faculty and program evaluations are conducted periodically, at least every 6 years. The frequency is adjusted according to the schedule of any external accreditation processes to which the various programs are subject.

The periodic evaluation is led by the faculty bodies and the SMAQ. It covers, at a minimum, the following elements:

• faculty quality policy and system;
• program management;
• human and material resources;
• student support;
• recruitment and communication;
• graduate employment.

The evaluation leads to the drafting of a self-assessment report and an action plan, which are divided into a faculty-wide section and sections specific to each program. The faculty-wide section is drafted by the Dean’s Office, in consultation with the CPF. The drafting of the sections specific to the various programs is coordinated by the chair of the corresponding Academic Council, or their delegate.

Program evaluations involve the input of independent experts tasked with examining the following elements:

• the alignment of the program’s learning objectives with societal needs and the evolution of knowledge;
• teaching methods and their alignment with the objectives;
• the environment and resources available for organizing learning;
• student progress and success;
• the professional integration of graduates.

The Faculty Pedagogical Council systematically reviews the faculty action plan and any updates to it during the first quarter of each calendar year. The SMAQ is invited by the CPF to participate in this review.

The self-assessment and monitoring of the faculty action plan are submitted every two years for analysis by a faculty advisory board, composed of the FSA’s professional partners.

The monitoring of each program’s action plan is subject to a specific systematic review during the spring meeting of the Academic Council.