Program Self-Evaluation

— ,

Self-Evaluation of the Program

The self-evaluation of a Graduate Program can be understood as a dynamic, self-managed process owned by the academic community, which holds title to the evaluation itself. It involves members of academia and external participants — faculty, students, graduates, staff, and others — and its main objective is to evaluate the performance of a Stricto Sensu Graduate Program. Its contribution to raising quality standards in the training of master's graduates, increasing scientific production in Manufacturing Engineering, and articulating the program's impact on both scientific and non-scientific communities is therefore highly relevant.

It is with this objective that the self-evaluation of FURG's Graduate Program in Mechanical Engineering has been constructed, in such a way as to enhance the production of knowledge and academic training in line with the principles of Manufacturing Engineering.

Specific Objectives

  • Promote a diagnosis through internal and external evaluations to improve self-knowledge and foster self-criticism;
  • Propose development conditions in agreement with the Program's interested community and strengthen its scientific and social commitment;
  • Raise the level of training of Mechanical Engineering master's graduates and scientific production.

Self-Evaluation Principles

  • Comprehensiveness: all aspects and dimensions related to the Program (e.g., teaching, supervision, research, management, class quality, scientific production, physical and research infrastructure) are part of the self-evaluation;
  • Progressivity: all elements will be evaluated, but at gradual moments and depths;
  • No reward or punishment: the self-evaluation process is not linked to punishment or reward mechanisms. Instead, it supports the formulation of policies, actions, and measures aimed at improving the Program;
  • Voluntary participation: participation (faculty, students, graduates, and other actors) must be voluntary. The aim is to establish a culture of evaluation, which only succeeds with the voluntary cooperation of those involved both in carrying out the procedures and in using the results;
  • Legitimacy: voluntary participation ensures legitimacy, supported by a methodology that produces adequate indicators, reliable information, and decision-making aimed at improving the Program;
  • Continuity: this principle enables data comparability over time, revealing the effectiveness of measures adopted in response to results.

Internal Self-Evaluation Committee

The self-evaluation program is led by an Internal Self-Evaluation Committee, composed of the following members:

  • One president and one vice-president;
  • One faculty representative of the Program;
  • One representative of the Program's administrative staff;
  • One student representative of the Program.

The members of this committee are appointed by the Program's Collegiate. The Committee's functions are:

  • Coordinate the evaluation processes;
  • Systematize and provide information requested by external Program evaluations;
  • Establish evaluation subcommittees when necessary;
  • Prepare and analyze reports and opinions;
  • Propose projects and actions that improve the Program and its self-evaluation process.

The current Committee is composed of:

  • President: Prof. Dr. Luciano Volcanoglo Biehl
  • Vice-President: Prof. Dr. Henara Lillian Costa Murray
  • Faculty representative: Prof. Dr. Jorge Luis Brás Medeiros
  • Administrative staff representative: Amanda Porciuncula Moraes
  • Student representative: Francielle Blota de Oliveira

Self-Evaluation Dimensions

The self-evaluation of PPMec is structured along three dimensions:

  1. Graduate Program

This dimension aims to evaluate the functioning, structure, and planning of PPMec with respect to its profile and objectives. The criteria are:

  • Articulation, adherence, and updating of the concentration area in relation to research lines, ongoing projects, curricular structure, and infrastructure with respect to the Program's objectives/mission;
  • Profile of the faculty body and its compatibility with the Program's proposal;
  • Strategic planning of the Program, including alignment with the institutional strategic planning and management of future development, infrastructure improvements, and student training linked to knowledge production;
  • The processes, procedures, and results of the Program's self-evaluation, focused on student training and knowledge production.
  1. Training

This dimension focuses on the quality of the human resources trained by PPMec, considering faculty performance and the knowledge production directly associated with research and training activities. Criteria:

  • Performance of permanent faculty regarding research, training activities, and intellectual production;
  • Quality and adequacy of dissertations in relation to the Program's concentration area and research lines;
  • Quality of the production of students and graduates of the Program.
  1. Impact on Society

This dimension addresses the impacts generated by human-resource training and the Program's knowledge production. It also includes criteria related to impact, internationalization, and the social outreach of the Program. Criteria:

  • Impact and innovative nature of intellectual production;
  • Graduates of the Program in relation to the training received;
  • Impact of the Program's social and economic insertion;
  • Internationalization and visibility.

Self-Evaluation Methodology

Self-evaluation is a dynamic process of data collection, dissemination of information, and formulation of improvement proposals. At PPMec, self-evaluation is conducted in annual cycles, according to an implementation schedule. At the end of each cycle, the Internal Self-Evaluation Committee must present and follow up on the implementation of the improvement actions.

The general structure of the Program's self-evaluation includes:

  • The criteria that constitute each dimension;
  • The evaluation items that constitute each criterion;
  • Performance indicators per criterion;
  • Implementation activities for evaluating each item;
  • Periodicity of the evaluation;
  • Operational responsibility for the evaluation.

Implementation Cycle

The self-evaluation process is based on annual cycles, encompassing:

  • Review of results from past evaluations to correct potential issues in the self-evaluation process;
  • Construction of the annual action plan of the Internal Self-Evaluation Committee, defining the strategies and schedule to be used;
  • Improvement of the instruments used for evaluating and diagnosing the proposed dimensions;
  • Engagement of those involved with the Program to stimulate the participatory and continuous nature of the evaluation;
  • Annual self-evaluation, including data collection per defined indicators and the application of the surveys;
  • Critical evaluation of the Program in order to present partial results;
  • Analysis and interpretation of the data obtained, through tabulation, critical review of the results, and quantitative-qualitative analysis;
  • Preparation of the self-evaluation report with improvement suggestions for the Program;
  • Dissemination of the self-evaluation results to the Program's community.

Evaluation Instruments

The self-evaluation is carried out through information collection (controls) and the application of questionnaires directed to internal actors (e.g., students and faculty) and external actors (graduates and community). The success of information collection depends on the availability of information and systems that facilitate collection, storage, processing, and analysis. The success of the surveys depends on the engagement of those involved and on the importance they place on participation. The following evaluation instruments have been designed:

  • Survey: general conditions of PPMec (faculty and students);
  • Course evaluation survey;
  • Student satisfaction survey;
  • Graduate survey;
  • Community perception survey.