An internal degree program evaluation and accreditation takes place every five to seven years, depending on the accreditation term. This ensures continuous quality development for TU Dresden’s degree programs. The exact schedule for evaluation and accreditation is be drawn up by the University Executive Board in consultation with the Faculties and Central Academic Units. The Faculties and Central Academic Units are obliged to evaluate their degree programs in accordance with the schedule and the Principles of Quality Management in Teaching and Learning. If required, the Faculty or Central Academic Unit can arrange an early evaluation in agreement with the University Executive Board. Similarly, the University Executive Board can arrange an early evaluation in agreement with the Faculty or the Central Academic Unit.

An external evaluation can be commissioned by the Faculty, Central Academic Unit, or the University Executive Board. In preparation for this, as with internal evaluations, the Center for Quality Analysis (ZQA) carry out a quality analysis and prepare an evaluation report.

Evaluation and accreditation procedure structure:
1. Commissioning the degree program evaluation
2. Quality analysis
3. Internal Faculty discussion
4. Accreditation
5. Follow-up procedure

(1) Commissioning the degree program evaluation
Based on the schedule or as required, the Faculty or the Central Academic Unit commissions the Center for Quality Analysis (CQA) to evaluate the degree program.

(2) Quality analysis
The ZQA then enters into dialogue with the Academic and Student Program Coordinators who are responsible for the degree program. In this process, program-specific characteristics, subject-specific quality goals, and problems identified by the Faculty are determined and incorporated into the scientific survey tools used by quality analysis.

The ZQA evaluates the degree program in accordance with the university quality goals and, if available, the subject-specific quality goals. The basis for the evaluation is the analysis of university statistical data, available documents (including study documents, the Faculty teaching report and program accreditation reports [if available]) and a survey of students, teaching staff, graduates and students who will de-register in the future. Results of previous surveys (such as course evaluations) are anonymized and included in the quality analysis. The report also contains a statement from Unit 8.4 - Study Programs Affairs on the fulfillment of the formal and structural criteria.

In parallel with the quality analysis procedure, Unit 6.1 Academic Controlling and Quality Management searches for external representatives with professional experience, representatives from the same subject and external students who can be commissioned to prepare an experts’ report. In addition, professional and specialist associations, the Career Service, TU Dresden’s Alumni Relations Office or the Student Accreditation Pool can be consulted, taking the bias criteria into account. The shortlist will be submitted to the Faculty so that they can assess any potential bias. The Faculty may submit a reasoned objection to one or more of the assessors and, if necessary, submit their own nominations. The Commission for Quality in Teaching and Learning reviews the shortlist, taking the Faculty’s objections and nominations into account, and decides on the list of assessors. The assessors are contacted and if they respond positively, receive the study documents and the information about the degree program as supplied by the ZQA. Selected chapters of the evaluation report and results of alumni studies provide the basis for the experts’ report. Moreover, if these are available, the assessor can also view older evaluation reports, statements, catalogs of measures, and reports made by the Faculty or Central Scientific Unit. They can also pose follow-up questions to the Program Coordinators. Coordination is undertaken by Unit 6.1 Academic Controlling and Quality Management.

Following the evaluation, The Center for Quality Analysis prepares an evaluation report containing a comprehensive analysis of strengths and weaknesses, a comparison with other degree programs in the same subject group, and initial proposals for measures to ensure and improve the quality of the degree program. The experts’ report written by representatives from the subject field, representatives with professional experience and external students form a separate part of the evaluation report.

Unit 6.1 Academic Controlling and Quality Management hand the evaluation report over to the Dean of the Faculty or the Director of the Central Academic Unit and the University Executive Board.

(3) Internal Faculty discussion: Statement and catalog of measures
The Dean forwards the evaluation report to the Program Coordinators via the Dean of Studies, initiating an internal Faculty discussion. After intensive examination of the evaluation report results, the Program Coordinators prepare a statement and a catalog of measures for quality assurance and improvement of the degree program. The statement serves to reiterate, substantiate or correct the strengths and weaknesses formulated in the evaluation report and, if necessary, also contains suggestions for the development of the degree program’s quality goals. In turn, the catalog of measures serves to illustrate how current strengths can be consolidated and expanded on in the future and how current weaknesses can be remedied. The catalog of measures can be integrated into the statement, but should be written independently.

The statement and the catalog of measures are presented and explained to the responsible Academic Affairs Committee. The Committee reviews the documents and returns them to the Program Coordinators for revision if changes are necessary. If the vote is in favor, the evaluation report, statement and catalog of measures are forwarded by the Academic Affairs Committee to the Faculty Board with a recommendation. The members of the Faculty Board review the documents at hand and may refer them back to the Academic Affairs Committee if they wish to make changes. If they decide in favor, the statement and the catalog of measures will be sent by the Dean to the Vice-Rector Academic Affairs.

(4)Accreditation
Upon receipt of the statement and the catalog of measures, the Vice-Rector Academic Affairs initiates the accreditation process. For this purpose, the documents, including the evaluation report, are prepared by Unit 6.1 Academic Controlling and Quality Management for the Commission for Quality in Teaching and Learning. Using the submitted documents as the basis, the Commission verifies if TU Dresden’s quality goals have been fulfilled. Furthermore, the Commission evaluates whether the proposed measures are sufficient to achieve the quality goals in the future as well as to ensure and improve the quality of the degree program It may issue accreditation with or without conditions or recommendations. It can also refuse accreditation. Depending on the type and scope of the requirements, these should generally be fulfilled within one year. In some cases, the Committee may set a deadline for fulfilling the requirements. Unless otherwise stipulated by the Committee, degree programs are initially accredited for a period of five years. Each subsequent accreditation is granted for a period of eight years.

The Vice-Rector Academic Affairs informs the Faculty or Central Academic Unit of the accreditation result, as well as any conditions or recommendations that may have been imposed. If the accreditation was successful, the Faculty or Central Academic Unit receives an accreditation certificate. In addition, the Vice-Rector Academic Affairs informs the University Executive Board and the Senate about the Commission for Quality in Teaching and Learning’s decision.

(5)Follow-up procedure
The follow-up procedure depends on the degree program’s accreditation result:

If accreditation was granted
Unit 6.1 Academic Controlling and Quality Management publishes the accreditation decision together with the evaluation report, the Faculty’s statement and the catalog of measures on the Quality Management internet pages. The accreditation status is announced in the Study Information System.

The Dean works together with the Faculty Board and the Academic Affairs Committee(s) to report biennially on the fulfillment of the Faculty’s teaching duties and, in accordance with § 9 para. 3 of the Act on the Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education in the Free State of Saxony (SächsHSFG) and § 8 Evaluation Regulations of TU Dresden, to prepare a teaching report which is submitted to the University Executive Board. In addition to an evaluation of the data relevant to the teaching and study situation, the teaching report contains an ongoing overview of the status of the agreed measures for quality assurance and improvement of teaching as well as the fulfillment of any conditions and recommendations issued by the Commission for Quality in Teaching and Learning. This is followed by the regular meeting between representatives of the University Executive Board, the Dean of Studies, and the Program Coordinators.

The fulfillment of the requirements is reviewed by the Commission for Quality in Teaching and Learning on the basis of a statement by the Faculty or the Central Academic Unit, which is prepared by the Program Coordinators with the support of the Academic Affairs Committee and the Dean of Studies. If the conditions have been fulfilled, the committee extends the degree program accreditation in accordance with the accreditation deadlines. The Vice-Rector Academic Affairs informs the Dean or Director of the outcome of the conditional review and the extended accreditation deadline, if applicable.

If accreditation was not granted
If an accreditation is denied, the University Executive Board decides on the next steps in collaboration with the Faculty. For this purpose, the Vice-Rector Academic Affairs will hold a meeting with the representatives of the faculty (Dean, Dean of Studies, Program Coordinator) or the Central Academic Unit about the quality of the program and the deficiencies uncovered during the accreditation process. Should the necessary measures fail to remedy the deficiencies, the program may be canceled.

Central University Administration supports the entire process by preparing and providing data as well as coordinating and monitoring the process. The entire accreditation process is expected to be completed after two years.