Quality Assurance of University Training The challenges of Formative Evaluation

Main Article Content

Farida Bouarab-Dahmani
Razika Tahi


Jacques Dejean [Dejean 04] affirms that "the quality of a service cannot be assessed in the same way as that of a product". Quality is an "ability to satisfy expressed or implicit needs" (ISO 8402 Standard) of customers . Quality assurance consists of implementing "all of the pre-established and systematic actions necessary to give the appropriate confidence that a product or service will meet the given quality requirements" (ISO 9000 Standard). It involves controlling the production process, from design to after-sales (compliance with ISO 9001, the most demanding standard), in order to limit sources of non-quality and to show the client that everything has been done to minimize the risk of dissatisfaction.
Training is an intangible asset, the quality of which is not easy to assess. It is difficult to objectify and the "satisfaction" of its "customers" goes against all demagoguery if we do not want to have a reductionist vision of the quality of training.
The training is co-produced by the various actors it concerns [Laurens 99]. It cannot therefore be fully programmed like a classic industrial process.
The quality of training cannot be obtained at the first try, it is workable and can be achieved after an iterative process. Each feedback loop carries a certain number of corrective or progressive actions to have a higher quality. To be objective, these corrective actions must come from a formative evaluation involving all the training stakeholders.
We will start our communication with an overview on the evaluation of university training, drawing particularly on European and American experiences. The following point presents the main lines of a quality assurance training approach for the case of the Algerian University. This approach is based on the consolidation of the respective formative evaluations of the different training lessons. Some indicators of a criteria evaluation grid are proposed in the fourth point with an example to concretize our proposals.

Article Details

How to Cite
Bouarab-Dahmani, F., & Tahi, R. (2014). Quality Assurance of University Training: The challenges of Formative Evaluation. The Journal of Quality in Education, 4(5), 11. https://doi.org/10.37870/joqie.v4i5.48


[Abrami 90]. Abrami, P.C. et d’Apollonia, S. (1990). The Dimensionality of ratings and their use in personnel decisions. Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 43, 97-111.

[Bernard 92]. Bernard, H. Processus d’évaluation de l’enseignement : Théorie et pratique. Laval : Éditions Études vivantes. 1992.

[Bernard & Al. 00] : H. Bernard, N. Postiaux, A. Salsin. Les paradoxes de l’évaluation de l’enseignement universitaire. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, Vol. XXVI, n°3, 2000, p.625-650.

[Bernard & Bourque 99]. Bernard, H. et Bourque, S. (1999). Portrait des politiques et des pratiques d’évaluation, d’amélioration et de valorisation de l’enseignement des universités québécoises. Res Academica, 15(1-2), 33-60.

[Bernard & Trahan 99]. Bernard, H. et Trahan, M. (1988). Analyse des politiques institutionnelles d’évaluation de l’enseignement des universités canadiennes. La revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur, XVIII(3), 51-67.

[Centra 93]. Centra, J.A. Reflective faculty evaluation. Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco (CA) : Jossey-Bass. 1993

[CRÉPUQ 96]. CRÉPUQ. Rapport sur les politiques et pratiques des établissements universitaires du Québec en matière d’évaluation et de valorisation de l’enseignement. Montréal : CRÉPUQ. 1996

[Dejean 04] : Jacques Dejean. « De Berlin à Bergen, nouveau enjeux de l’évaluation », Actes du colloque Dijon, juin 2004 - page 22.

[Donald 91]. Donald, J.G. The Commission of inquiry on Canadian university education: The quality and evaluation of teaching. Revista Iglu, 1, 157-173. 1991

[Donald & Saroyan 91]. Donald, J. et Saroyan, A. Assessing the quality of teaching in Canadian university. Commission of inquiry on Canadian university education, Research Report, no 3. 1991.

[Laurens 99] : Patrick Laurens, « La qualité de la formation au-delà d’une logique de conformité », Communication et organisation, 15 (1999), Qualité et communication.

[Marsh 87]. Marsh, H.W. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 255-388.

[Mispelblom 95] : Frederik Mispelblom. « Au-delà de la qualité. Démarches qualité, conditions du travail et politiques du bonheur », Paris, Syros, 1995.

[Scriven 81]. Scriven, M. . Summative teacher evaluation. In Handbook of Teacher Evaluation (p. 244-271). Beverly Hills (CA): Sage. 1981

[Wright 1995]. Wright, A. Teaching improvement practices : Successful strategies for higher education. Bolton (MA) : Anker Publishing Co. 1995