University of Nova Gorica

Univerza v Novi Gorici

Basic information

  • Identifiers
    • DEQARINST2339
    • SI0004
    • SI-ETER.BAS.NATID: 110
    • Erasmus: SI NOVA-GO01

      • Erasmus Institution Code

      Identifier assigned by the European Commission to higher education institutions participating in the Erasmus+ programme - data harvested from ETER/OrgReg

      Read more...

    • SCHAC: ung.si

      • SCHema for Academia

      Internet domain (DNS)-based identifier of institutions, used in several European initiatives for data exchange in the education and research sector, e.g. Emrex - data acquired using the European University Foundation (EUF) HEI API

      Read more...

    • Erasmus-Charter: E10201895

      • Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE)

      Application number related to the ECHE, required for higher education institutions participating in the Erasmus+ programme - data acquired using the European University Foundation (EUF) HEI API

      Read more...

    • EU-PIC: 998298102

      • Participant Identification Code (PIC)

      A PIC is assigned to legal entities participating in EU-funded programmes - data acquired using the European University Foundation (EUF) HEI API

      Read more...

    • EU-VAT: SI29880068

      • EU VAT number

      Identifier of economic operators for value-added tax (VAT) within the EU system, assigned by their national authority - data acquired using the EU participant register API

      Read more...

    • WHED: IAU-020666

      • IAU World Higher Education Database (WHED)

      Identifier used in the world-wide WHED database of higher education institutions, managed by the International Association of Universities (IAU) - data harvested from ETER/OrgReg

      Read more...

  • Provider type
    higher education institution
  • Legal seat(s)
    Nova Gorica, Slovenia
  • Further location(s)
    Ljubljana, Slovenia
    Venezia, Italy
    Gorizia, Italy
  • Website
    http://www.ung.si/en/
  • Founding year
    1998
  • QF-EHEA levels
    third cycle, second cycle, first cycle
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/institution/2339

National External Quality Assurance Requirements

  • Accreditation of a study programme
    is granted for an indefinite period or the application is denied.
  • Re-accreditation of a higher education institution
    is granted for a period of maximum five years (or less) or, if quality standards are not meet the accreditation is denied.
  • Initial accreditation of a higher education institutions
    is granted for a period of five years or, if quality standards are not meet, the application is denied.
  • Accreditation of changes of higher education institutions
    Changes to another type, merger by acquisition, merger by the formation of a new entity or division of higher education institutions, changing the location in Slovenia
  • Further information on external quality assurance in Slovenia

External Quality Assurance Reports and Decisions

Institutional level

This report is not currently valid but part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Institutional re-accreditation
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Institutional evaluation
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive with conditions or restrictions
Institutional re-accreditation
  • DEQAR Report ID
    89690
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    Re-accreditation of higher education institutions
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    positive with conditions or restrictions
  • Date
    19/05/2022
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    The evaluation of the University of Nova Gorica (UNG) for the extension of the accreditation of a higher education institution was carried out by a group of experts in accordance with the recommendations, criteria and criteria set by the National Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Quality in Higher Education. The UNG audit was performed in four areas: Operation of the higher education institution, Staff, Students and Material conditions. The visit was intended to evaluate the institution as a whole and its members / faculties. The second visit to the university in the autumn of 2021 will also focus on individual study programs, when we will also assess the area of Internal Quality Assurance and Improvement, Modification, Update and Implementation of Study Programs. The four areas assessed include 17 standards. In 11 quality standards, UNG meets quality standards without non-compliance, in four quality standards we found partial compliance, and in two non-compliance with quality standards. We found non-compliance with quality standards in the field of operation of the higher education institution, mainly related to the internal way of organizing UNG and the involvement of all necessary stakeholders in the management and development of the activities of the higher education institution. It is a way of organizing and operating student councils, academic councils and the UNG Senate. We also identified shortcomings in ensuring the quality loop, as certain inconsistencies in the evaluation of the institute seven years ago have still not been eliminated. We have also identified some partial inconsistencies, for which we recommend that UNG also pay close attention to them. These are mainly UNG's habilitation criteria, the realization of UNG's mission and vision, the workload on certain professional associates, who must also provide support to the study process, and the absence of a formal system for submitting student complaints. In identifying the benefits, we focused on the most evident strengths of UNG, listing a total of 20, but there are certainly more. UNG is an excellent and reputable research and educational university both in Slovenia and internationally. Especially in the field of research, they achieve excellent results in terms of their size, and their structure of financial resources also shows excellence in obtaining funds for research work. UNG is an above-average faculty in Slovenian higher education area in terms of the number of foreign students and staff. They have a unique internal organization that enables good communication between members and greater flexibility in making and implementing decisions and carrying out activities. The ratio between the number of students and staff is favourable. Students are above average satisfied with the study process, the quality and responsiveness of the teaching staff and the system of practical training. The same applies to the library's infrastructure and services, with an open and freely accessible repository in particular. Regardless of the many advantages of UNG, we have highlighted over 40 opportunities for improvement, which UNG can use for further development and quality of the institution. These opportunities apply to virtually all assessment standards, highlighting a more systematic definition and pursuit of strategic and short-term goals, strengthening cooperation with the economy along with providing the necessary knowledge transfer mechanisms, strengthening the Career Center and Alumni, introducing annual interviews 44 with employees to monitor their careers. providing more training for employees, especially non-pedagogical, more effective promotion of study programs, etc. At this point, the members of the group would like to thank all those who made sure that the five-day visit to UNG took place at a very high level: Nataša Kramar, Gregor Rebernik and Klemen Šubic - Nakvis experts, UNG management led by Rector prof. dr. Danilo Zavrtanik and all other stakeholders for constructive cooperation in interviews.
    The evaluation of the University of Nova Gorica (UNG) for the extension of the accreditation of a higher education institution was carried out by a group of experts in accordance with the recommendations, criteria and criteria set by the National Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Quality in Higher Education. The UNG audit was performed in four areas: Operation of the higher education institut...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/89690
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-5/2020/22
  • Verifiable Credential

Programme level

This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Medijske umetnosti in prakse (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Druga stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Medijske umetnosti in prakse (second cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Master
  • Level
    second cycle (NQF 8)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    89689
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    19/05/2022
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    The external evaluation of study program Digital Arts and Practices 2nd level from University of Nova Gorica (UNG) was carried out by a group of experts in accordance with the recommendations, criteria and criteria set by the National Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Quality in Higher Education. The evaluation was carried out in five standards: Internal quality assurance and enhancement of the study programme (standard 1 and 2), Changes and updates of the study programme (standard 3) and Delivery of the study programme (standard 4 and 5). Group of experts established that both study programmes meet all necessary requirement within all five standards. This means that group of experts found no partial or even major weaknesses or non-compliances. Nevertheless, the group of experts has identified several opportunities for improvement and pointed our several strengths. In identifying the strengths, we focused on the most evident strengths of study program and UNG, listing a total of 11, but there are certainly more. Many strengths of study program Digital Arts and Practices and school are direct consequence of strengths and excellence of UNG as a whole, where we first emphasize the fact that UNG is an excellent and reputable research and educational university both in Slovenia and internationally. Especially in the field of research, they achieve excellent results in terms of their size, and their structure of financial resources also shows excellence in obtaining funds for research work. UNG is an above-average faculty in Slovenian higher education area in terms of the number of foreign students and staff. They have a unique internal organization that enables good communication between members and greater flexibility in making and implementing decisions and carrying out activities. The ratio between the number of students and staff is favourable. Students are above average satisfied with the study process, the quality and responsiveness of the teaching staff and the system of practical training. The same applies to the library's infrastructure and services, with an open and freely accessible repository in particular. In terms of infrastructure, we additionally emphasize excellent ICT equipment for full online and hybrid learning and teaching. For the study program Digital Arts and Practices we additionally point out excellent contacts with the local and regional environment and many opportunities for students to present their work. Students of study program Digital Arts and Practices express great satisfaction with teaching staff 21 accessibility and their flexibility in the study program, where this is especially important and encouraging. Another strength is above average effort to promote school and study program. Regardless of the many strengths, we have highlighted 14 opportunities for improvement, which school can use for further development and quality of study program. These opportunities apply to virtually all assessment standards, where we especially point out possibilities to upgrade processes for monitoring and ensuring quality of both study programs. There is a gap between informal and formal approaches to quality assurance, where the preparation of the self-evaluation report does not follow the actual improvements in the quality of both study programs. There is also a need to increase information flow on the results of the self-evaluation report and to involve students even more intensively in the entire quality circle at the faculty. The group of experts also proposes certain improvements in the content of the study program: more theoretical knowledge of visual arts and basic artistic skills in various techniques, traditional media and traditional academic skills, inclusion of graphic design and poster design and, last but not least, knowledge of business and marketing skills to promote student artistic work. Regardless of the quality promotion of the study program, there are still some opportunities in terms of organizing an "open" art festival, more transparent website with the “best of…" award-winning projects, films and animations, newer media works and exploitation of promotion opportunities in Nova Gorica represents the European Capital of Culture 2025. At this point, the members of the group would like to thank all those who made sure that the five-day visit to UNG took place at a very high level: Nataša Kramar, Gregor Rebernik and Klemen Šubic - Nakvis experts, UNG management led by Rector prof. dr. Danilo Zavrtanik, the dean of School of Arts prof. dr. Boštjan Potokar and all other stakeholders for constructive cooperation in interviews.
    The external evaluation of study program Digital Arts and Practices 2nd level from University of Nova Gorica (UNG) was carried out by a group of experts in accordance with the recommendations, criteria and criteria set by the National Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Quality in Higher Education. The evaluation was carried out in five standards: Internal quality assurance and enhancement of t...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/89689
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-5/2020/22-UNG-AU
  • Verifiable Credential
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Migracije in medkulturni odnosi (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Druga stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Molekularna genetika in biotehnologija (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Tretja stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Načrtovanje in vodenje odprtega izobraževanja (second cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • master
  • Level
    second cycle (NQF osma raven)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Okolje (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Prva stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Okolje (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Druga stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Okolje (first cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Bachelor
  • Level
    first cycle (NQF 7)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    89695
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    19/05/2022
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    Inadequate SER by the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and inadequate internal evaluation of the two programs were the basic problem of the external evaluation of the undergraduate study program 1st Level Environment I and the postgraduate study program 2nd Level Environment II. No differentiation was made between the 1st and 2nd level programs in the faculty self-evaluation reports or the internal program evaluation. All data, including results of stakeholder surveys, are presented uniformly / the same for both degree programs, which prevented adequate external evaluation of each of the study programs (contrary to Article 13, SQAA standard), so the experts' report of experts on external evaluation was prepared uniformly and comprehensively for both study programs. In the self-evaluation reports, it is important to monitor, record, analyze and present findings and measures for improvement for each study program separately. The self-evaluation report identifies benefits and opportunities for improvement for the periods 2013/14; 2014/15; 2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18; 2018/19 and 2019/20. All 5 findings on improvement opportunities in all 7 self-evaluations are the same and nowhere is the way of their implementation evident. From the above facts, we can conclude that the Faculty does not have a system to implement improvements and monitor their adequacy / effectiveness. The self-evaluation report does not contain an action plan for improvement and does not allow regular monitoring of actions and their results. The quality loop is not closed.Therefore experts recommend rethinking the logic of the QA Manual that in the future would provide clear connections between the results of analyses, measures planned and implemented and achieved results. The cycle of PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) should be present on the level of programme and lead to continuous enhancement of studies. Feedback from various student surveys - especially subject specific assessments - should be shared and discussed with students. There is a need to establish an appropriate system for student feedback on surveys, as the current percentage of respondents is too low to provide adequate feedback to realistically assess student satisfaction with faculty work and approach. The SER includes updates to the study program. The methodology and aspects on the basis of which the study program is evaluated and updated are presented, but the methodology does not include the results of feedback from various stakeholders of the study program (students, employers, mentors in practice, graduates, project partners). The changes are present to curricula and programs of study (example: changes in electives) from 2013/14 to 2019/20 with a detailed definition of the change and a rationale for the change. However, nowhere is it explained on the basis of which self-evaluation findings these changes were prepared. It is not clear from the report that changes are to be made to the program and curricula as part of the quality loop, as there is no clear and transparent link between the assessment of the situation and the guidelines in the self-evaluation report and the content of the changes to the curricula and program. Based on the findings, the quality loop is not closed.This is partly in contradiction with Article 12 of the SQAA criteria, Standard 6, which states that the internal quality assurance system shall enable the closing 25 of the quality loop in all areas of operation of a higher education institution. The Faculty needs to establish a system in which there is a transparent closed quality loop, i.e. the findings based on feedback from all stakeholders in the study program need to be reflected in the justifications for changes to the study program and the curricula. The action plan must also reflect the activities that will enable changes to the program and curricula. Comprehensive SERs require the preparation of quality summaries to facilitate access to information for all stakeholders in the university. The self-evaluation report and its summary should include clear information on the results of measures from previous reports that address limitations and weaknesses. Not all faculty stakeholders are included in the self-evaluation process, and it was also noted that not all stakeholders are informed about the SEP and its findings. Of particular concern is that students are not informed of self-evaluation findings and measures of the self-evaluation. Faculty collect a lot of feedback through informal forms, interviews, focus groups that are not presented in the SEP. This feedback should be properly formalized and included in the SPS in a manner that reflects the formal findings and consequently leads to appropriate remediation. Informal feedback received by faculty in individual or group interviews with stakeholders should be formalized in the form of notes/ minutes. The validity of a large amount of informal feedback should be reflected in the SER as qualitative feedback and lead to appropriate action. Feedback from various student surveys - especially subject specific assessments - should be shared and discussed with students. There is a need to establish an appropriate system for student feedback on surveys, as the current percentage of respondents is too low to provide adequate feedback to realistically assess student satisfaction with faculty work and approach. The faculty does not have established internal procedures for determining the quality of administrative staff and establishing professional goals and performance indicators. Before establishing such a system, it would be essential to sensitize staff to quality assurance goals and the organization's strategy for raising the level of quality culture. The Faculty should develop an action plan for the development of the personal career of professionals and their continuous professional development and training. The faculty must regulate the adequacy of student opinions in habilitation processes. Faculty The student statements in habilitation procedures are not reviewed in terms of content and quality. Student statements are the same in text and content for all candidates. In an interview with students, we found that the student president receives an email asking for a student opinion to which he responds, without further review or exchange of opinions with other students, that it is equally positive for all applications and for all candidates, which means that students do not form their own independent statements.The faculty should present appropriate measures for the transparency of student opinions in habilitation procedures. Improve the formal process for filing student complaints to better inform students of this possibility and the process itself. 26 A group of SAQQ experts especially welcome the approach to the optimal 50% / 50% ratio between research and educational work of academic staff. This enables the successful and efficient transfer of scientific knowledge into the study process. A group of SAQQ experts that the faculty and UNG can eliminate the identified partially complies and non-compliance with quality standards. At the same time, the faculty must present appropriate measures to realize opportunities for improvement.
    Inadequate SER by the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and inadequate internal evaluation of the two programs were the basic problem of the external evaluation of the undergraduate study program 1st Level Environment I and the postgraduate study program 2nd Level Environment II. No differentiation was made between the 1st and 2nd level programs in the faculty self-evaluation reports or the intern...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/89695
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-5/2020/22-UNG-FZO
  • Verifiable Credential
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Okolje (second cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Master
  • Level
    second cycle (NQF 8)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    89695
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    19/05/2022
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    Inadequate SER by the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and inadequate internal evaluation of the two programs were the basic problem of the external evaluation of the undergraduate study program 1st Level Environment I and the postgraduate study program 2nd Level Environment II. No differentiation was made between the 1st and 2nd level programs in the faculty self-evaluation reports or the internal program evaluation. All data, including results of stakeholder surveys, are presented uniformly / the same for both degree programs, which prevented adequate external evaluation of each of the study programs (contrary to Article 13, SQAA standard), so the experts' report of experts on external evaluation was prepared uniformly and comprehensively for both study programs. In the self-evaluation reports, it is important to monitor, record, analyze and present findings and measures for improvement for each study program separately. The self-evaluation report identifies benefits and opportunities for improvement for the periods 2013/14; 2014/15; 2015/16; 2016/17; 2017/18; 2018/19 and 2019/20. All 5 findings on improvement opportunities in all 7 self-evaluations are the same and nowhere is the way of their implementation evident. From the above facts, we can conclude that the Faculty does not have a system to implement improvements and monitor their adequacy / effectiveness. The self-evaluation report does not contain an action plan for improvement and does not allow regular monitoring of actions and their results. The quality loop is not closed.Therefore experts recommend rethinking the logic of the QA Manual that in the future would provide clear connections between the results of analyses, measures planned and implemented and achieved results. The cycle of PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) should be present on the level of programme and lead to continuous enhancement of studies. Feedback from various student surveys - especially subject specific assessments - should be shared and discussed with students. There is a need to establish an appropriate system for student feedback on surveys, as the current percentage of respondents is too low to provide adequate feedback to realistically assess student satisfaction with faculty work and approach. The SER includes updates to the study program. The methodology and aspects on the basis of which the study program is evaluated and updated are presented, but the methodology does not include the results of feedback from various stakeholders of the study program (students, employers, mentors in practice, graduates, project partners). The changes are present to curricula and programs of study (example: changes in electives) from 2013/14 to 2019/20 with a detailed definition of the change and a rationale for the change. However, nowhere is it explained on the basis of which self-evaluation findings these changes were prepared. It is not clear from the report that changes are to be made to the program and curricula as part of the quality loop, as there is no clear and transparent link between the assessment of the situation and the guidelines in the self-evaluation report and the content of the changes to the curricula and program. Based on the findings, the quality loop is not closed.This is partly in contradiction with Article 12 of the SQAA criteria, Standard 6, which states that the internal quality assurance system shall enable the closing 25 of the quality loop in all areas of operation of a higher education institution. The Faculty needs to establish a system in which there is a transparent closed quality loop, i.e. the findings based on feedback from all stakeholders in the study program need to be reflected in the justifications for changes to the study program and the curricula. The action plan must also reflect the activities that will enable changes to the program and curricula. Comprehensive SERs require the preparation of quality summaries to facilitate access to information for all stakeholders in the university. The self-evaluation report and its summary should include clear information on the results of measures from previous reports that address limitations and weaknesses. Not all faculty stakeholders are included in the self-evaluation process, and it was also noted that not all stakeholders are informed about the SEP and its findings. Of particular concern is that students are not informed of self-evaluation findings and measures of the self-evaluation. Faculty collect a lot of feedback through informal forms, interviews, focus groups that are not presented in the SEP. This feedback should be properly formalized and included in the SPS in a manner that reflects the formal findings and consequently leads to appropriate remediation. Informal feedback received by faculty in individual or group interviews with stakeholders should be formalized in the form of notes/ minutes. The validity of a large amount of informal feedback should be reflected in the SER as qualitative feedback and lead to appropriate action. Feedback from various student surveys - especially subject specific assessments - should be shared and discussed with students. There is a need to establish an appropriate system for student feedback on surveys, as the current percentage of respondents is too low to provide adequate feedback to realistically assess student satisfaction with faculty work and approach. The faculty does not have established internal procedures for determining the quality of administrative staff and establishing professional goals and performance indicators. Before establishing such a system, it would be essential to sensitize staff to quality assurance goals and the organization's strategy for raising the level of quality culture. The Faculty should develop an action plan for the development of the personal career of professionals and their continuous professional development and training. The faculty must regulate the adequacy of student opinions in habilitation processes. Faculty The student statements in habilitation procedures are not reviewed in terms of content and quality. Student statements are the same in text and content for all candidates. In an interview with students, we found that the student president receives an email asking for a student opinion to which he responds, without further review or exchange of opinions with other students, that it is equally positive for all applications and for all candidates, which means that students do not form their own independent statements.The faculty should present appropriate measures for the transparency of student opinions in habilitation procedures. Improve the formal process for filing student complaints to better inform students of this possibility and the process itself. 26 A group of SAQQ experts especially welcome the approach to the optimal 50% / 50% ratio between research and educational work of academic staff. This enables the successful and efficient transfer of scientific knowledge into the study process. A group of SAQQ experts that the faculty and UNG can eliminate the identified partially complies and non-compliance with quality standards. At the same time, the faculty must present appropriate measures to realize opportunities for improvement.
    Inadequate SER by the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and inadequate internal evaluation of the two programs were the basic problem of the external evaluation of the undergraduate study program 1st Level Environment I and the postgraduate study program 2nd Level Environment II. No differentiation was made between the 1st and 2nd level programs in the faculty self-evaluation reports or the intern...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/89695
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-5/2020/22-UNG-FZO
  • Verifiable Credential
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Slovenistika (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Prva stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Slovenistika (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Druga stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Transkulturni študiji (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Tretja stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Vinogradništvo in vinarstvo (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Prva stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Vinogradništvo in vinarstvo (second cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Master
  • Level
    second cycle (NQF 8. raven (8))
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Vinogradništvo in vinarstvo (first cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Bachelor
  • Level
    first cycle (NQF 7)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    89693
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    19/05/2022
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    Comprehensive SERs require the preparation of quality summaries to facilitate access to information for all stakeholders in the university. The self-evaluation report and its summary should include clear information on the results of measures from previous reports that address limitations and weaknesses. Not all faculty stakeholders are included in the self-evaluation process, and it was also noted that not all stakeholders are informed about the SEP and its findings. Stakeholders - especially students - need to be better informed of faculty quality assurance processes and Quality Loop. Activities through which the faculty would raise awareness of the importance of the quality culture and adequately inform stakeholders about the Quality Loop procedures and processes would be necessary. The self-evaluation report does not give a direct link between the identified weaknesses as well as opportunities for the improvement (Part 3.3 of the QA Report „Assessment of the situation and guidelines“) and the updates of the content of study programme (Part. 3.4 of the QA Report). Therefore experts recommend rethinking the logic of the QA Manual that in the future would provide clear connections between the results of analyses, measures planned and implemented and achieved results. The cycle of PDCA (Plan-DoCheck-Act) should be present on the level of programme and lead to continuous enhancement of studies. Faculty collect a lot of feedback through informal forms, interviews, focus groups that are not presented in the SER. This feedback should be properly formalized and included in the SER in a manner that reflects the formal findings and consequently leads to appropriate remediation. Informal feedback received by faculty in individual or group interviews with stakeholders should be formalized in the form of notes/minutes. The validity of a large amount of informal feedback should be reflected in the SER as qualitative feedback and lead to appropriate action. Feedback from various student surveys - especially subject specific assessments - should be shared and discussed with students. There is a need to establish an appropriate system for student feedback on surveys, as the current percentage of respondents is too low to provide adequate feedback to realistically assess student satisfaction with faculty work and approach. The findings are divided into strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. The SER review from 2015/16 to 2019/20 shows progress and implementation of relevant changes that have eliminated or adequately reduced weaknesses, as well as the realization of opportunities for improvement. Nevertheless, several weaknesses and opportunities for improvement are repeated from year to year. The findings based on the student survey results do not allow for direct changes to the program of study or curriculum. The SER includes updates to the study program. The methodology and aspects on the basis of which the study program is evaluated and updated are presented, but the methodology does not include the results of feedback from various stakeholders of the study program (students, employers, mentors in practice, graduates, project partners). The changes are present to curricula and programs of study (example: change in electives, change in teaching modes, change in assessment methods) from 2017/18 to 2019/20 with a detailed definition of the 25 change and a rationale for the change. However, nowhere is it explained on the basis of which self-evaluation findings these changes were prepared. It is not clear from the report that changes are to be made to the program and curricula as part of the quality loop, as there is no clear and transparent link between the assessment of the situation and the guidelines in the self-evaluation report and the content of the changes to the curricula and program. Based on the findings, the quality loop is not closed.This is partly in contradiction with Article 12 of the SQAA criteria, Standard 6, which states that the internal quality assurance system shall enable the closing of the quality loop in all areas of operation of a higher education institution. The Faculty needs to establish a system in which there is a transparent closed quality loop, i.e. the findings based on feedback from all stakeholders in the study program need to be reflected in the justifications for changes to the study program and the curricula. The action plan must also reflect the activities that will enable changes to the program and curricula. The faculty does not have established internal procedures for determining the quality of administrative staff and establishing professional goals and performance indicators. Before establishing such a system, it would be essential to sensitize staff to quality assurance goals and the organization's strategy for raising the level of quality culture. The Faculty should develop an action plan for the development of the personal career of professionals and their continuous professional development and training. The faculty must regulate the adequacy of student opinions in habilitation processes. Faculty The student statements in habilitation procedures are not reviewed in terms of content and quality. Student statements are the same in text and content for all candidates. In an interview with students, we found that the student president receives an email asking for a student opinion to which he responds, without further review or exchange of opinions with other students, that it is equally positive for all applications and for all candidates, which means that students do not form their own independent statements.The faculty should present appropriate measures for the transparency of student opinions in habilitation procedures. Improve the formal process for filing student complaints to better inform students of this possibility and the process itself. A group of SAQQ experts especially welcome the approach to the optimal 50% / 50% ratio between research and educational work of academic staff. This enables the successful and efficient transfer of scientific knowledge into the study process. A group of SAQQ experts that the faculty and UNG can eliminate the identified partially complies with quality standards. At the same time, the faculty must present appropriate measures to realize opportunities for improvement.
    Comprehensive SERs require the preparation of quality summaries to facilitate access to information for all stakeholders in the university. The self-evaluation report and its summary should include clear information on the results of measures from previous reports that address limitations and weaknesses. Not all faculty stakeholders are included in the self-evaluation process, and it was also note...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/89693
  • Agency's identifier
    6031-5/2020/22-UNG-FVV
  • Verifiable Credential
This report does not have a validity period, but it is older than 6 years and thus considered part of the historic record.
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Znanosti o okolju (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Tretja stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
Part of the obligatory external QA system
Znanosti o okolju (third cycle degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Doctorate
  • Level
    third cycle (NQF 10)
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme
  • DEQAR Report ID
    89668
  • Agency
    Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency (SQAA)
  • Type
    Extraordinary evaluation of study programmes
  • Status
    part of obligatory EQA system
  • Formal decision
    not applicable
  • Date
    29/09/2022
  • Valid until
    not applicable
  • Summary

    Report summary

    The study program Environmental Sciences is a well-run PhD study program, which is research oriented. Organized lectures are kept to the minimum defined by the Higher education act, the rest of the time is devoted to research work, which is performed in research labs on several locations, also in renowned research institutes in Slovenia and abroad. Students can choose their elective courses at other faculties at UNG, at other universities and also abroad. This is enabling a true student-centered approach to the studies. Mentors are in a direct, informal, communication with students, practically on a daily basis, which is enabled by a low number of students. In addition, they might have structured meetings with the head of the lab on a weekly basis. Both students and higher education teachers express great satisfaction with the study program and the scientific research work that is a part of the study program. Students have no problems in finding relevant research literature and they have access to scientific bases and licensed software. Students are attending several international research conferences and workshops, which are in line with their research study. However, participation in the mobility programs is rather scarce. Collaboration among different research labs is very active, the use of equipment in other labs is actually going on and is free of charge, which is really a very positive point. Within different research projects, research equipment at foreign labs is also used. However, there is practically no connection among the PhD students. Thus, there is a need for activities that will connect students at different study stages of this study program and also at other PhD study programs. The quality of the study program is seen also through the high quality of the PhD theses. The quality of the research work is examined by two foreign experts, not related to the student or supervisor. The latter is not written in any act, but the faculty management says that it goes without saying that the examiners should be independent. Students are extremely satisfied with the support they receive from offices from the preenrolment on and during the studies. From the description of work covered by only one or two persons in certain offices and from the discussion with the professional staff, the group 30 of experts finds that the administrative staff is really overloaded, thus some care is needed in this respect. The academic staff is satisfied with their working environment and the possibilities for professional development. They think that there are enough possibilities to “climb up the career ladder” and it is only up to them if they use them or not. However, supervisors of young researchers would like to have more autonomy regarding the spending of money for necessary costs regarding the research work, which might be considered by new regulations. The group of experts also suggests that the university encourages sabbatical leave, because it is very important for the personal development and development of the scientific field. The weakest part of the study program is the self-evaluation process. Because the program is very individually oriented and students are in a constant contact with supervisors, the group of experts did not notice any serious issues that would require immediate intervention. Nevertheless, a proper self-evaluation can make the performance even better. Several suggestions for improvement in this respect are given in this report, the major ones being: i) Self-evaluation reports should be prepared for one study program only to allow for a critical assessment of specific areas, identification of problems and challenges, and discussion on possible measures. ii) Self-evaluation reports should shift from a description of the study program to evaluation of the performance of the study program during the year for which the self-evaluation report is written. iii) All the stakeholders should be included in the self-evaluation process and the results of the selfevaluation should be disseminated in various ways, not only through the published report. iv) The research activity of the academic staff and (potential) supervisors should be evaluated periodically (e.g., every 5 years) specifically for this study program. In such a way potential deficiencies can be identified, and advantages can be highlighted.
    The study program Environmental Sciences is a well-run PhD study program, which is research oriented. Organized lectures are kept to the minimum defined by the Higher education act, the rest of the time is devoted to research work, which is performed in research labs on several locations, also in renowned research institutes in Slovenia and abroad. Students can choose their elective courses at oth...
  • Report and decision
  • Permalink
    https://data.deqar.eu/report/89668
  • Agency's identifier
    6034-5/2022/6
  • Verifiable Credential
Part of the obligatory external QA system Decision: positive
Znanost o materialih (degree)
  • Qualification/award
    • Druga stopnja
  • Level
    -
  • Programme type
    Full recognised degree programme

Verifiable Credentials

A Verifiable Credential (VC) is a digitally-signed and thus tamper-evident document containing information on a subject (e.g. personal information, entitlements of an individual, degrees held by an individual or accreditation of a higher education institution). Quality assurance results recorded in DEQAR can be downloaded as W3C-compatible Verifiable Credentials.

Currently, two types of credentials can be issued:

EBSI Verifiable Accreditations (VA) can be used by a higher education institution in the context of the EBSI Early Adopters programme.

  • The VA allows the institution to prove its external quality assurance on the Trusted Issuer Registry (TIR). EBSI VAs are only issued for external quality assurance results with an official status in a national system (“part of obligatory EQA system”).
  • At present, the higher education institution’s EBSI DID needs to be communicated to EQAR and recorded in DEQAR manually at the moment. If you are a higher education institution participating in EBSI, please contact us to register your DID.
  • EBSI VAs are issued by EQAR under its DID did:ebsi:zk4bhCepWSYp9RhZkRPiwUL.

DEQAR Format Verifiable Credentials primarily serve as a proof of concept and public demonstrator currently.

  • DEQAR Format VCs are based on the plain W3C Recommendation and our own data model. While they closely follow the EBSI Schema, no EBSI-specific or EU-specific elements or data types are used.
  • The higher education institution is identified by its DEQAR URI in this case.
  • DEQAR Format VCs are issued by EQAR under its DID did:web:data.deqar.eu.

Please note: this is an experimental feature.