WQ<À)K€=”’G
COBRA
fairtradebabyplanne
er
0
A new quality assurance method at KU Leuven
kwaliteitszorgmethode aan de KU Leuven
Towards a new quality
assurance method at KU
Leuven…
Since the programme reviews are to be substituted by the
institutional reviews, Flemish higher education institutions are
expected to set up a strong internal quality assurance system in
order to ensure the quality of their education.
As a result, KU Leuven worked out a method of quality assurance
that would meet the requirements of the institutional review. This
method was named ‘COBRA’.
This brochure should explain the COBRA model in a pleasant and
concise manner, so that students and student representatives are
ready to play their part in this new quality assurance story at our
university.
Student Council KU Leuven
1
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................3
Basic principles ........................................................................5
The COBRA model ....................................................................7
COBRA 1 ........................................................................................... 8
COBRA 2 ........................................................................................... 9
COBRA 3 ......................................................................................... 10
And afterwards… .............................................................................. 12
Students in the COBRA model .................................................. 13
Summary .............................................................................. 15
2
Introduction
A great change lies ahead for Higher education in Flanders. Previously,
the study programmes at the Flemish institutions of higher education
were inspected on their quality of education, but starting from today
those programmes will no longer be investigated. From now on, the
institutions themselves will be reviewed and instead of assessing the
quality of education, they will evaluate the manner in which the
institutions manage the quality of their institutions. We call this
assessment the institutional review.
In the months leading up to the institutional review, the institutions
are exempted from external programme reviews. The condition for
this is that institutions work on their quality assurance system. As a
preparation to the institutional review, KU Leuven also executed a zero
measurement in order to gauge to what extent it is ready for the
institutional review. In the end, this was also of inspiration to the
university in order to work on the new quality assurance system.
All those evolutions combined led to the birth of COBRA. In the note
where the COBRA model treated the various echelons of the
university, Vice rector Pollefeyt describes it as followed: “in order to
guarantee the assurance of quality within study programmes and to
communicate transparently about the quality of education, we present
the quality assurance method “COBRA” in which we work
cooperatively on a reflection on, and action in education and where the
necessary checks and balances are incorporated. Like the COBRA
artists who brought art back to its source, so does the COBRA method
3
desire to bring education back to her source, meaning: the adequate
and integral development of individuals in a certain academic
discipline.”
4
Basic principles
The COBRA model is built on a number of basic principles:

The COBRA model departs from the vision on education and
students of KU Leuven. This perspective assumes that qualitative
education is based on addressing the students on their
disciplinary future self. This self-image invites the students to give
thought to who they want to become and what they would want
to invest1 in it. By addressing this future self, education triggers
the student and contributes to his/her personal development.

The COBRA model lays the responsibility for educational quality
explicitly with the study programmes, and thus with the
Programme Committee (PC). In the PC, primary actors (which are
students, staff members and lecturers) come together to work on
the quality of education on the basis of a dialogue. Apart from
involving the primary actors, the PC also conducts the dialogue
with (inter)national peers, the work field and alumni.

Because the COBRA model responds to the connection of
programmes with the disciplinary future self of the students and
because it emphatically designs the educational quality through
the PC, COBRA opens up to the diversity of all study programmes
1
More information about this vision and about the policy plan:
kuleuven.be/onderwijs/visie-en-beleid/beleidsplan
5
at KU Leuven. By this we mean that the COBRA model takes the
particularity of each programme into account at the university.

The COBRA model aims to be an integral as well as a cyclic
method. It departs from reflection and from thereon establishes
improvement actions at every level of our university.

The COBRA model deems transparency crucial. A suitable
example is the quality assurance portal. On this online platform,
all reports and documents that are of importance during the
COBRA cycle will be made accessible.

COBRA applies checks & balances. These indicators should help
translating educational quality to a common language, which in
its turn should enable the reflection on education at many
different levels.
6
The COBRA model
The COBRA model
The COBRA model comprises three cycles of reflection and action at
three levels: the study programme, the faculty and university-wide.
The COBRA model departs from the PC, this Programme Committee
handles the problems that can be solved at that level and identifies
the issues which it cannot fix (COBRA 1), after which the PC forwards
these areas of concern to the faculty level.
The faculty reflects on these areas, works out improvement actions
and examines which points of interest need an institution-wide
approach (COBRA 2). These are subsequently upscaled to the level of
the institution.
The Education Council and Student Council of KU Leuven both make
an analysis of the results from the faculties. Then, the Education
Council formulates which matters should be dealt with by the
university. The Executive Board reflects, in dialogue with the Academic
7
Council and the Board of Governors, on the actions which it can take
in order to solve those issues (COBRA 3).
The various levels determined by COBRA, have to ensure that all
boundary conditions are fulfilled in order to give programmes (PC) the
opportunity to provide the best form of education possible.
COBRA 1: the programme level
In short: In COBRA 1 we approach the so-called primary actors:
students, lecturers and staff members. The input that results from the
conversations with these primary actors, is discussed during the PC.
The Programme Committee reflects on the quality of education and
sets up the appropriate improvement plans.
Students: Every year, conversations with students, who are chosen at
random, take place. For the Bachelor’s programmes 2 groups are
invited to the discussion: one group of students from the first phase
and one group of students from the second and third phase. With
regards to the Master’s programmes, bridging programmes and
Advanced Master’s programmes only one group of students is invited.
These conversations are moderated by a student representative, who
is sort of a ‘one year representative’.
Lecturers & Staff members: Two times a year, a group of lecturers and
a group of staff members, both assembled at random, are heard.
A questionnaire was composed from the six questions that will be
asked during each conversation. This list gauges the vision and the
ESG-standards. These standards will be used by the NVAO during the
8
institutional review. Programmes are also allowed to add their own
questions which are deemed relevant by the PC.
Once a year, the PC is to discuss the results from the conversations and
the quantitative data about the programme. This quantitative data is
collected in the programme dashboard and includes for example the
in- and outflow numbers, number of staff members and results from
other questionnaires. The report on this discussion is put on the
quality assurance portal. This report includes at least a table with the
assessments by the PC about education quality (expressed as
‘positive’, ‘okay’ or ‘areas of concern’), a clarification of the table and
the conclusions as well as improvement actions connected to these
assessments.
At least once every three academic years, the alumni, the work field
and (minimum) one international expert are involved in the reflection
on the quality of education in the PC.
COBRA 2: the faculty level
In short: the faculty brings the different discussions in PCs within the
faculty together. Next, it examines which remarks recur regularly and
therefore need the faculty’s follow-up. That’s why the faculty counts
on improvement actions that enable programmes to improve their
education quality.
The faculty starts with an internal preparatory document in which it
assembles the conclusions from the many different PCs. The
quantitative data from the faculty dashboard are also added to this
document. This will serve as a guideline for reflection on educational
9
quality and as an incentive for improvement actions by the board of
the faculty.
By running this phase every year consecutively, it should ultimately
lead to a faculty-specific vision on educational quality. By June 2016,
a first written version should appear on the quality assurance portal.
The report by the board of the faculty, and thus the keystone of COBRA
2, consists of the following items: an overview table with assessments
from the PCs, a reflection by the faculty board, an overview of the
actions that the faculty will take in order to strengthen the boundary
conditions so that the programmes are more able to maintain the
quality of their programmes, and finally an overview of those
boundary conditions that still need work, but in which the faculty has
no say.
COBRA 3: the level of the institution
In short: In COBRA 3 everything comes together at the level of the
university. During phase 1 of COBRA 3, two ‘advisatory bodies’, namely
the Education Council and the Student Council KU Leuven, express their
assessment. These pieces of advice are passed on to the University
Board of Governors, during phase 2. They investigate how they can set
up actions that cater to the concerns expressed during the two previous
COBRA cycles.
The Education Council collects all faculty reports in an overview
document. All assessments by the faculties as well as the boundary
conditions that need adjustment according to those various faculties
are included in this document.
10
The Education Council reviews which points of interest recur in the
different faculties and also the boundary conditions that should be
approached by the university. The Student Council KU Leuven explains
its (written) analysis about educational quality at faculty level during
the discussion in the Education Council.
Once again, a report is written about this conference and is put on the
quality assurance portal. In this report, the Education Council should
include the evaluations from the PCs, their own reflection and
formulated advice on the boundary conditions that need adjustment,
as well as advice on the provided information about the ESG
standards.
At least once every three years, a group of (inter)national experts are
invited who will give advice on the functioning of the quality assurance
method on the basis of all documents available in the quality
assurance portal.
Then, these pieces of advice are passed through the University Board
of Governors. The vice rector Education policy takes these pieces of
advice to the Executive Board2 where the advice is reviewed. Next,
they will provide plans of improvement that fit the current functioning
of the university and they take the boundary conditions that also
needed improvement upon them. The Executive Board sends these to
2 The
Executive Board (GeBu) conducts the daily management of KU Leuven. It includes
the Rector, Vice Rector, the chairperson of the Student Council KU Leuven, the
Managing Director, the Academic Directors and the Government Commissioner.
11
the Academic Council3 and the Board of Governors4 for approval.
Finally, the report on these discussions is written and put on the
quality assurance portal. The report sums up the different actions to
be taken in order to adjust those boundary conditions.
And afterwards…
In order to “close the circle”, the actors from COBRA 3 update the
questionnaire used for the discussions from COBRA 1. By doing this,
the university governance can examine during a new COBRA cycle
whether the improvement actions were useful.
3
The Academic Council includes the rector, vice rectors, deans, four student
representatives and staff representatives. They make decisions about the most
important files at KU Leuven.
4 The Board of Governors of KU Leuven brings external partners together and thinks
about the policy and longterm strategy for KU Leuven.
12
Students in the COBRA model
Studentenbetrokkenheid in het COBRA-model
Throughout the whole COBRA cycle, students are part of the system.
In the figure above, the manners in which they are involved are
illustrated per COBRA cycle.
In COBRA 1 the student appears frequently as a primary actor. They
are heard during the student discussions. These conversations are
discussed in the PC of each study programme and every Programme
Committee basically consists of student representatives (almost 1/3rd
of the group) (with a minimum of 4 students).
At a faculty level, COBRA 2, the faculty board collects the various PC
reports. Students are represented by at least one student in the board
of the faculty. By doing this, students are again involved in COBRA 2.
13
Earlier on, in COBRA 3, we already mentioned two phases. In the first
phase, the advisory one, all faculty documents pass through the
Education Council. Five student representatives reside there, they
were elected by the Student Council KU Leuven. During the discussion
of faculty documents, the Student Council introduces its analysis of
faculty educational quality to the Education Council. Then, the
Education Council passes some advice on to the Board of Governors
after which the Executive Board works out some proposals of
improvement actions. The chairperson of the Student Coucil resides in
the Executive board. The improvement plans are presented by the vice
rector Education Policy and sent to the Academic Council, where four
students reside, for approval. Students are thus intricately involved in
COBRA 3 as well.
14
Timing
A full COBRA cycle is spread over two semesters. COBRA 1 is
completed before the end of the second semester, COBRA 2 & 3
before the end of the first semester of the following academic year.
Timing in a classic COBRA walkthrough
During the academic year of ’15-’16 a walkthrough test will take place.
During this test COBRA 1 will already start from the beginning of the
academic year. By March the COBRA model lands in the third COBRA
cycle.
15
Too long; do read
The COBRA model is a new method for internal quality assurance at
KU Leuven. Its purpose is for the university to optimally manage the
boundary conditions of quality education, so that the study
programmes possess all the tools in order to maintain the highest
quality of education possible. Indirectly, the model also serves to help
KU Leuven get through the institutional review.
The COBRA model relies on three phases. In COBRA 1, the study
programmes are scrutinised. Students, lecturers and staff members
are therefore questioned. The PC collects and discusses these
inquiries. Then, the report on the PC discussion is put on the public
quality assurance portal. This report both includes the issues that the
PC will handle themselves and matters that should be treated by the
faculty, according to the PC.
The faculty board investigates the PC’s reports during COBRA 2. They
look for problems that they can solve by themselves as well as
problems that are in need of university-wide follow-up. A list with
planned actions and problems that should be solved at a university
level is placed on the quality assurance portal.
During COBRA 3, the Education Council formulates some pieces of
advice to the Board of Governors on the basis of the faculty reports.
During the meeting of the Education Council, the Student Council KU
Leuven is also allowed to present their analysis. The vice rector
Education policy submits the advice to the Executive Board which, in
16
its turn, proposes improvement actions to the Academic Council and
the Board of Governors.
Throughout the COBRA cycle, attention is paid to the engagement of
(inter)national experts. The work field and alumni are involved in the
discussion of education quality at the level of the PC. Students are
involved in discussions during the entire COBRA cycle. Finally, all
relevant documents from the whole the cycle are made available on
the online quality assurance portal.
17