Representatives from professional life, students, and external experts relevant to the programme shall contribute to the evaluations.
The purpose of the periodic programme evaluation (PPE) is to obtain a comprehensive, strategic, and external perspective on the quality of education within the study programme. The study programme management shall be provided with a basis to assess whether the programme should continue in its current form or if adjustments are required. Emphasis is placed on the aspect of development rather than control.
Procedures for Periodic Programme Evaluation (PPE) at AHO
Adopted by the Board on 06.03.2019. Revisions adopted by the Rector in October 2025.
A periodic programme evaluation is conducted every six years, in accordance with AHO’s evaluation plan for study programmes [separate appendix].
AHO has established the following composition for its evaluation panels:
- Academic staff member from the programme
- External academic staff member from a Norwegian/Nordic educational institution
- Representative from professional life
- Student representative
An administrative resource from AHO is not a member of the panel but serves in a support capacity.
The programme evaluation shall cover all four aspects of quality in AHO’s systematic quality assurance work:
- Structural quality
- Intake quality
- Learning quality
- Outcome quality
The panel shall also assess the programme’s learning outcome descriptions and how the curriculum fulfils these.
Evaluation and recommendations shall focus on the following questions:
Relevance
- The relevance of the programme for professional and social life.
- To what extent does the programme include courses and academic components that address industry-specific themes?
- Connection to the field of practice: Relevant assignments from the professional field and the use of guest lecturers from relevant sectors of society.
- How are new forms of learning, assessment, and teaching facilitated in the development of the programme?
Learning Outcomes
- Do the learning outcome descriptions provide a clear picture of the competence students bring into further studies or the workforce?
- Are the learning outcome descriptions well-anchored within the academic community?
- To what extent do the learning, teaching, and assessment methods support the learning objectives?
- Is there coherence and progression in the learning outcome descriptions at both course and programme levels?
Student Satisfaction and Learning Environment
- To what extent does the programme facilitate the student's active role in their own learning process?
- To what extent is the programme characterised by an inclusive and motivating learning environment, and what expectations and requirements are set for student effort?
- How are students involved in the academic community?
Work Process
Phase and Task | Responsibility |
|---|---|
Preparation | |
| Appoint evaluation panel | Head of Department with Programme Committee (PS)/Management Group |
| Draft mandate | Head of Department with PS/Management Group |
| Collect foundational material | Student Advisor, PS, and administrative resource |
Execution | |
| Review of material, institutional visit | Evaluation Panel |
| Drafting of report | Evaluation Panel |
Follow-up | |
| The panel presents its findings to the PS/Management Group | Evaluation Panel |
| Review report and draft proposed action plan | Head of Department with PS/Management Group |
| Adopt action plan | Rector’s Management Group |
| Inform the Board of the PPE results and action plan | Rector |
Preparation
Suggested documents for the committee to receive:
- Programme description including course descriptions.
- Course descriptions.
- Relevant teaching plans from courses within the programme.
- Links to information pages on www.aho.no.
- Description of the department’s organisation and the composition of staff and their competencies.
- Admission and completion/progression data (FS/DBH).
- Grade distribution (FS) (failure rates).
- Relevant course evaluations and course reports.
- Current examples of examination papers and other assessment methods.
- Minutes from Programme Committees that have handled course content and reviewed evaluations.
- Results from the National Student Survey (Studiebarometeret) and other learning environment surveys.
- Summaries from student representative meetings.
- Diploma projects – reports and assignments (links to aho.no and Adora/Brage).
- Examiner guidelines for diplomas.
- Feedback from diploma examiners.
- Results from the most recent Graduate Survey.
- Other relevant and specific documents.
Evaluation
- The evaluation panel reviews the submitted material, conducts institutional visits with interviews, and holds discussions within the panel.
- The chair of the panel, or the person assigned the secretarial function, will—in collaboration with the rest of the panel—draft an evaluation report to be approved by the entire panel.
- The final report must be sent to AHO no later than six months after commencement.
Follow-up
AHO will process the evaluation report in its academic bodies and inform the AHO Board.
Remuneration for participation in the evaluation panel
Members are remunerated equivalent to 20–25 hours of work, depending on the size of the programme. This timeframe shall cover the entirety of the evaluation work, including reading and meetings.
Travel expenses and any accommodation will be covered in accordance with Government Personnel Regulations. Remuneration will be paid once AHO has received the report. The panel's chair and secretary receive an additional 10 hours for the completion of the report.