The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre has conducted an audit of the University of

Jyväskylä and has awarded the university a quality label that is valid for six years from

11 May 2015. The quality management system of the University of Jyväskylä fulfils

the national criteria set for the quality management of higher education institutions,

and corresponds to the European quality assurance principles and recommendations

for higher education institutions.

The object of the audit was the quality management system that the university has

developed based on its own needs and goals. The freely selected audit target chosen

by the university was the Student Life concept.

The following were regarded as key strengths of the quality management system:

͘͘ The university has succeeded in developing the quality management system so

that the system supports daily quality work in a meaningful way and engages the

whole university community in the development of operations. This is reflected in

a strong quality culture and students’ active involvement in development activities.

͘͘ Internal audits, self-assessments and various surveys comprise a well-functioning

core for evaluation and development. The staff finds the self-assessments in

particular as a useful tool in assessing and developing their own activities.

6

͘͘ In the development of the quality management of education, particularly successful

efforts have been made to develop the quality of teaching and teachers’ pedagogical

competencies. The information and feedback systems of education have advanced.

There is a wide range of training opportunities in university pedagogy, and there

is systematic evidence of the development of the teaching staff ’s pedagogical

competencies.

Among others, the following recommendations were given to the university:

͘͘ A broad background material is produced for the management reviews. It is

recommended that the procedure be developed so that a condensed overall picture

on the state of the university, its quality management, and central development

needs is produced as a result of the review. This overview would contribute to

the utilisation of quality management as part of the management process and

to the internal and external communication on the implementation of strategy.

͘͘ The university’s quality management as a whole has been improved by formulating

a clear and coherent quality management manual. The impact of the manual

should be further developed through more concrete definitions of operational

outputs, promotion of the appropriate use of the manual, and clarification of

the comprehensive whole formed by the combination of the manual and unitspecific

guidelines.

͘͘ The university’s quality management functions well in the continuous development

of current duties and operations. There is room for improvement with regard to

forecasting changes in the operational environment, systematic involvement of

stakeholders, and clarification of societal interaction as a whole.