1. INTRODUCTION

Quality assurance is in the core of Aigaia’s School of Art & Design mission to “offer the highest quality of art & design tertiary education and produce excellent contemporary art & design in a unique friendly, warm and professional environment providing the society with artists of highest ethical standards, in order to be established as the leading specialised School of Art & Design in Cyprus”.

Aigaia’s Quality Assurance and Enhancement Handbook (QAH) focuses on quality assurance related to learning and teaching including the provided learning environment and demonstrates the institution’s commitment to providing high quality education in line with its mission.

This QAH is consistent with the internal quality assurance procedures in the directives and guidelines provided by the Agency of Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education (DIPAE) and the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Within this context it draws together in a single location the policies, processes, standards, guidelines and procedures which constitute Aigaia’s School of Art & Design Quality, Monitoring, and Enhancement framework and its role is crucial in supporting our institution to ensuring the qualifications achieved by students and their experience in Aigaia remain at the forefront of education provided.

This QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK is also published in our website in the following link:

https://www.aigaia.com.cy/aigaiaqah

2. AIGAIA SCHOOL OF ART & DESIGN

Aigaia School of Art & Design is an Art & Design Institution in Nicosia, the first specialised art & design school in Cyprus, providing tertiary education for students from Cyprus or abroad. Its aim is to associate its brand name with the highest standards of visual arts education and with the production of excellent contemporary art & design in general. Its premises are in Agioi Omologitae area, in an enlisted building which was renovated – extended according to Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports (MoECSY) relevant requirements and laws, in order to be used explicitly as an Art School. It combines traditional and contemporary architecture and offers all the necessary facilities for the implementation of visual arts education. Inside the premises, an ancient monument co-exists with the traditional and contemporary characteristics of the building.

The team of academic staff are art skilled professionals who share the enthusiasm and vision of its founders, with a background in art teaching. A key issue in this effort is the unique family oriented environment of education and the warm and friendly and at the same time professional approach to our students. Aigaia School of Art & Design provides all the necessary conditions for individual approach and student centered learning and all of its students are proud studying at Aigaia.

2.1 MISSION

Offer the highest quality of art & design tertiary education and produce excellent contemporary art & design in a unique friendly, warm and professional environment providing the society with artists of highest ethical standards, in order to be established as the leading specialised School of Art & Design in Cyprus.

2.2 ORGANISATIONAL CHART

AIGAIA SCHOOL OF ART & DESIGN

3.1 QAE POLICY

Aigaia’s School of Art & Design Quality Assurance and Enhancement Policy is assure quality related to learning and teaching in the institution by:

• promoting continuous improvement and enhancement,
• promulgating good practice,
• adopting a rigorous and robust approach to the academic standards of its programmes of study and awards
• Adopting and publishing a transparent, clear, singular and definite set of Assessment regulations
• ensuring quality of research and administrative services and
• providing evidence of quality to stakeholders.

This Policy relates to all actors within Aigaia including students and staff as well as external stakeholders such as external examiners and other external partners of Aigaia.

3.2 VALUES & PRINCIPLES

Our QAE Policy is based on the following values and principles:

• fulfilment of needs and expectations of students, all other stakeholders and society.
• standards
• social responsibility
• transparency
• accountability
• development of a quality culture
• continuous improvement and enhancement
• academic integrity and freedom and vigilance against academic fraud
• students’ representation and engagement
• external examination
• Compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG)and the relevant national legislation and directives and guidelines of the Cyprus Agency of Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education (CYQAA)

As determined by ESG, Aigaia’s School of Art & Design QAE Policy has formal status, forms part of our strategic management and is made public through this QAE Handbook. Our QAE Policy and related processes form the main pillars of our quality assurance system for continuous improvement and accountability of our Institution. It supports the development of quality culture in which all internal stakeholders assume responsibility for quality and engage in quality assurance at all levels.

The internal QAE processes through which our QAE Policy translates into practice are analysed in this QAE Handbook.

4.1 GENERAL

The Board will consider and approve any proposals for a new qualification/program of study. It will consider proposals in the context of the existing Institution’s qualifications.

In particular the Board will consider the proposed qualification in terms of:

• The characteristics and level of the proposed qualification that would both distinguish it from existing qualifications and relate it to them.
• The rationale for the new qualification and the likely demand for and recognition of the proposed qualification by institutions, students and employers.

For any new programs of study designed for Aigaia School of Art & design need to go through a number of internal & external reviews which will develop and determine whether it can be submitted for accreditation to the National Agency responsible for ensuring the quality of higher education in Cyprus. (http://www.dipae.ac.cy).

All programs of study include a designed curriculum and set detailed syllabus for each of the course offered, compulsory or elective. Hence, any major changes to the indicative curriculum, or syllabus of a course is a modification of and must go through a review – both internal and external – and approval process.

Any new courses added to the curriculum, must also be reviewed and approved before added to the program of study.

4.2 PROCEDURE

Before a new program of study can be introduced it must go through discussions in the various committees and the Board of the Institution in order to obtain approval for consideration and development.

A suggestion for a new program of study may originate from a variety of sources: e.g. a member of the academic staff, administration member, a student or an external source (i.e. external examiner). A suggestion for a new program of study may arise for various reasons, for example, identified need in the market; student feedback; strategic opportunity; suggestion from an external examiner growth etc.

Suggestions for a new program of study should be submitted to the Board of the Institution initially, including in writing the following:

• Title, aims and general description of the program
• Target market and evidence of market demand
• Any need for additional special resources, workshops, staff etc

The Board will then review the proposal within 3 weeks in terms of:

• The characteristics and level of the proposed qualification that would both distinguish it from existing qualifications and relate it to them.
• The rationale for the new qualification and the likely demand for and recognition of the proposed qualification by institutions, students and employers.
• If initially approved will then be given to the Academic committee for further detailed review.

The Academic Committee reviews (at the next monthly Academic Committee meeting) the proposal and appoints a working group to prepare a more structured and detailed proposal using the Application for Evaluation- Accreditation – Program of Study form from DIPAE website.

When the form is completed it is then given to the Internal Quality Committee for review and evaluation in close conduct and consultation with the external examiner at their next meeting. If a meeting is not scheduled on time, it will be arranged no later than the next three weeks.

After the review of the Internal Quality Committee any changes, improvements, additions etc are done by members of both the committees or by inviting any other member of the Academic staff team that can prove valuable to the completion of the application for approval.

When this procedure finishes and when it undergoes the final internal evaluation and approval by the Board, then the form is submitted by the Director Aigaia School fo Art & Design, to DIPAE for external review and approval.

The external review leads to the approval (accreditation) of the new program.

It is noted that students are actively involved in this process mainly by their participation in all involved bodies of the institution, i.e. Board, Committees.

5.1 GENERAL

Aigaia can make changes to its courses from time to time in light of experience and with a view to enhancing the quality of their provisions. Changes can be made to the content, structure, teaching and assessment, at any time, for one or more of the following reasons:

• To keep to external professional, accrediting or other requirements
• To improve the quality of the course
• To make sure that the curriculum is current and relevant to the intended learning outcomes and standards, set by relevant professional bodies.
• To put in place the results of feedback internal and external stakeholders including external examiners and academic advisers
• To put in place the results of student feedback, for the benefit of the students

5.2 PROCEDURE

In order to do so, a procedure must be followed which generally include:

• Suggestion that may originate from anyone involved with the particular course or program of study.
• The suggestion with the changes must be given to the Internal Quality Committee to review and evaluate and if approved it is then given to the Academic Committee.
• The Academic Committee creates a work group that can make the changes possible. When the work goup finalises the development/changes/additions etc of the program of study the document is given back to the Internal Quality Committee for final approval. The minutes should clearly state what changes were made-how successful they are (Academic Director responsibility).
• If approved it is then submitted to DIPAE for external evaluation and approval.

As explained above, any major changes to the syllabus of a course in an existing and therefore accredited program constitutes modification of a course and must therefore go through a formal internal and external approval process.

5.3 ON-GOING MONITORING AND PERIODIC REVIEW OF PROGRAMMES

5.3.1 GENERAL

Programme monitoring and review is the process by which the institution:

• discharges its responsibility for setting and maintaining academic standards
• assures and enhances the quality of learning opportunities within the institution
• provides a mechanism for the dissemination of good practice internally

Aigaia School of Art & Design adheres to the principles required by the Agency of Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education (DIPAE) and the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Areaand:

• maintains strategic oversight of the processes for, and outcomes of, programme monitoring and review to ensure that processes are applied systematically and operated consistently
• takes deliberate steps to use the outcomes of programme monitoring and review for enhancement purposes
• defines the processes for programme monitoring and review and communicates them clearly to all internal staff and external bodies involved (i.e. External Examiners)
• evaluates the process for programme monitoring and review
• involves external stakeholders and draws widely on internal and external expertise
• involves students in all aspects of programme monitoring and review

The process is undertaken annually. The Board and the Committees involved evaluate and reflect on their academic provision and highlight where the student learning experience can be enhanced and identify areas of good practice. This is a core activity and whilst all staff collectively have a responsibility to uphold standards some Committees have specific roles in the Annual Monitoring process which are analysed in the following paragraphs.

Annual Programme Monitoring is a continuous enhancement process carried out ‘in-year’, formally commencing at the beginning of each new academic session.

5.3.2 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – PROCESS

In accordance with Institution guidance, the Academic Committee will complete an Annual Programme Analysis which considers the following key performance indicators (KPIs):

• consistency with the Mission – Strategy of the Institution
• review of the previous year’s realisation / progress of Annual Programme Analysis findings, including areas identified for development in the new academic year
• trends in admission, progression and awards statistics
• fulfilment of needs and expectations of students, all other stakeholders and society
• trends in graduate employment, including the most recently available graduate employment statistics. Anonymous evaluation by students and evaluation / recommendations by academic staff are seriously considered
• External Examiner comments and final report(s), and the Institution’s response to the Examiner(s)
• equality and diversity
• comparability – parity of the standards of the academic program with similar validated academic programs within the sector
• compliance with requirements of Agency of Quality Assurance and Accreditation in Higher Education (DIPAE) and the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area including possibleRecommendations of a DIPAE / External Evaluation Committee

For audit purposes, evidence of consideration of Key Performance Indictors (KPIs) including any proposals for programme change will be provided within the minutes of the Academic Committee and the Committee should retain the complete evidence-base on which the considerations were founded.

The annual review should be completed substantially by June of each academic year.

The monitoring process must identify and highlight any updates to the programme since approval/last review.

The outcome of the monitoring process will be the improvement of the academic programme and consequently the enhancement of its quality by addressing all those issues arising including but not limited to where:

• students have shown dissatisfaction with an academic programme (or associated courses)
• progression rates are lower than previous academic year and / or expected
• an External Examiner has expressed concern in relation to the quality and/or standards of an academic programme.
• confirmed programme specification or proposals for change to the programme structure and/or learning outcomes.
• the identification of wider issues for consideration by the institution and/or internal / external stakeholders.

The outputs from programme monitoring and review will be considered at committee (Academic – Internal Quality) and Board level.

They are analyzed by the Internal Quality Committee before making suggestions to the Academic Committee and to the Director of the specific programme of study.

The Director of the specific program of study – within the Academic committee’s guidelines and assistance and in compliance of the Quality Committee suggestions – can make changes to the program, provided they do not constitute major changes to the curriculum of the existing, accredited program. The same applies to major changes to a course syllabus. If the Director of the specific program of study recommends that major changes are made to any of the courses, then this constitutes a modification of a course or program and must therefore go through a formal internal and external approval process as previously described. Once the Director of the specific program completes the process it is then discussed at the Academic Committee before it is submitted for approval to the Board of the Institution.

Once approved by the School Board, this report will be back to Academic and Internal Quality Committees or any other Committees concerned (i.e. Administrative Committee) as appropriate to realise its findings. A progress report should be submitted to the Board at the end of first semester of next academic year.

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The statements and procedures that follow, apply to all students undertaking the Short Cycle EQF 5 Programs of study at Aigaia School of Art & Design. The assessment is based on a Common Marking (Grading) Scheme CMS that leads to Pass, Merit, Distinction.

All staff involved in the delivery of the programs should be familiar with this document, and it is the responsibility of the Director of the Program of Study, to ensure that all relevant staff complies with these procedures and regulations.

The Director of the Program of study, is responsible to organise appropriate training at least once at the beginning of each semester to ensure that all assessors are familiar and able to deliver clear and fair assessment throughout the learning period of the courses they teach. This includes training on written feedback.

The programs are delivered in a way that encourages students to take an active role in creating the learning process, and so the assessment of students reflects this approach.

The implementation of student-centred learning and teaching respects and attends to the diversity of students and their needs, enabling flexible learning.

• different modes of delivery
• flexibly use of a variety of pedagogical methods
• regular evaluation and adjustment of the modes of delivery and pedagogical methods
• sense of autonomy in the student
• ensuring adequate guidance and support from the teacher
• mutual respect within the student-teacher relationship
• appropriate procedures for dealing with students’ complaints

Considering the importance of assessment for the students’ progression and their future careers, quality assurance processes for assessment take into account the following:

• assessors are familiar with existing assessment methods
• assessors receive support in developing their own skills in this field
• criteria for and method of assessment and grading are published in advance
• the assessment allows students to demonstrate the extent to which the intended learning outcomes have been achieved
• students are given feedback, which is linked to advice on the learning process
• assessments are always carried out by more than one assessor in line with conflict of interest policy and procedures
• the regulations for assessment take into account mitigating circumstances
• assessment is consistent, fairly applied to all students and carried out in accordance with the stated proceduresand according to the ESG
• a formal procedure for student appeals is in place

6.2 RECOGNITION OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PRIOR LEARNING

RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING AND PREVIOUS STUDIES is an assessment process, which makes use of the evidence from a student’s previous non-certificated and certificated achievement(s) to demonstrate competence or achievement within a course or qualification.

Through the RPL process, evidence of a student’s previous achievement(s) (learning) is assessed against the assessment criteria of an assignment and/or course.

Process:

• Check that the evidence provided by the student has been achieved before the start of our program of study.
• Help the student in gathering evidence by creating an assessment plan or tracking document.
• Evaluate all the evidence using the learning outcomes and assessment criteria from the course being claimed.
• Ensure if there any gaps in the students’ work, then further assessment methods must be used to create enough evidence to be able to award the learning outcomes and assessment criteria for the whole course.
• Keep records of assessment against previous studies and so that these are available.
• Evidence collected will be assessed through the same quality assurance procedures used for any other internal quality assessment methods.
• Explain to student the process of exemptions.
• Verify that the credits claimed for exemptions are of equivalent value to the credits of Aigaia’s qualifications. To verify this check the level and Credit value.

6.3 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

ASSESSMENT THROUGH ASSIGNMENTS

• Assignments are designed, taken after the content of each course, or part of the course if several assignments are used, by teaching staff, as part of the design for the delivery of the program for each academic year. They will include clear assessment criteria (same as the course syllabus) and methodology appropriate to its level, learning outcomes (same as the course syllabus) length of study, assignment requirements, a timetable of assessment (assessment plan) and given written feedback.

• The assessment component is the evidence to be produced to demonstrate that the learning outcomes for the course have been achieved. This may take a variety of forms (portfolio, an artefact, a written report, a performance, a presentation, a research file, digital submissions, online publications etc). All learning outcomes must be passed to successfully complete each course.

Each Lecturer/ Assessor is encouraged and supported to design and produce creative and innovative assignments as long as they are fit for purpose and include all the above essential content.

Some types of assessment:

• written reports, essays
• creation of planning documents
• portfolios/ performance / artefacts
• projects
• academic posters, displays, leaflets
• presentations/ seminars
• recordings of interviews/role plays
• work placement logbooks and reflective journals
• records and annotations / self-reflection
• discussions
• time-constrained assessment
• team assessment
• simulated activity

The type(s) of assessment selected must:

• allow the student to provide all the evidence required for the learning outcomes and the associated assessment criteria at all grade levels
• allow the student to produce evidence that is their own independent work
• allow a verifier to independently reassess the student to check the assessor’s decisions.

An assignment may take a variety of forms, including practical and written types. An assignment is a distinct activity completed independently by students (either alone or in a team).

An assignment is issued to students as an assignment brief with a hand-out date, a completion date and clear requirements for the evidence that students are expected to provide. There may be specific observed practical components during the assignment period. Assignments can be divided into separate parts and may require several forms of evidence. A valid assignment will enable a clear and formal assessment outcome based on the assessment criteria.

All assignments go through the process of Internal Verification as many times as deemed necessary to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Internal Verification of the assignments is done by an assigned Internal Verifier or verification team (appointed by the IQC) and handed out to the students only when the IV process is confident that the assignment is fit for purpose.

6.4 ASSESSMENT DECISIONS THROUGH APPLYING INDIVIDUAL COURSE-BASED CRITERIA

Assessment decisions are based on the specific criteria given in each course syllabus and set at each grade level. The criteria for each course have been defined to ensure that standards are consistent in the program.

The following template (modified for each course, according to number of LOs, AC, P, M and D descriptors) is used to describe the LOs and AC at each grade level: P, M, D.

Accordingly, a different Assessment form is used for each individual course that includes a simple tick box of all Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria that apply.

Assessors must show how they have reached their decisions using the criteria in the assessment records. When a student has completed all the assessment for a course then the assessment team will give a grade for the course.

In practice, this model of assessment means that a student must achieve all of the required learning at a (grade) level and below to be awarded the grade. Thus, for a student to achieve a Pass, they must achieve all of the requirements that define the Pass. To achieve a Merit, students must achieve all of the requirements that define Pass and Merit. For Distinction, the student must achieve all Pass, Merit and Distinction requirements.

• To achieve a Pass for an individual course, a student must have satisfied all the Pass criteria for the learning outcomes, showing coverage of the course content.
• To achieve a Merit for an individual course, a student must have satisfied all the Merit criteria (and, therefore, the Pass criteria) through high performance in each learning outcome.
• To achieve a Distinction for an individual course, a student must have satisfied all the Distinction criteria (and, therefore, the Pass and Merit criteria), and these define outstanding performance across the course as a whole.

Note: The lowest achievement in a single learning outcome will set the overall course achievement.

The award of a Pass is a defined level of performance and cannot be given solely on the basis of a student completing assignments. Students who do not satisfy the Pass criteria should be reported as Ungraded.

6.5 THE ASSESSMENT TEAM

• The Director of program of study has overall responsibility for the program, its assessment and internal verification, record-keeping and liaison with the External Examiner. The Program Director acts as an assessor, supports the rest of the assessment team, makes sure they have the information they need about all assessment requirements, and organises training.

• Internal Verifiers (moderators) (IVs) oversee all assessment activity in consultation with the Program Director. They check that assignments and assessment decisions are valid and that they meet all IVs will be standardised by working with the Program Director. Normally, IVs are also assessors, but they do not verify their own assessments.

• Assessors set or use assignments to assess students to the EQF required Before taking any assessment decisions, assessors participate in standardisation activities led by the Program Director. They work with the Program Director and IVs to ensure that the assessment is planned and carried out in line with the setrequirements. Placement assessments must be carried out by appropriately qualified assessors.

• External Examiner (EE) will sample student work across assessors, see evidence of internal verification of assignments and assessed decisions.

6.6 FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

Formative assessment is primarily developmental and designed to give written feedback to students on their performance and progress. It takes place before the summative assessment and as such it does not confirm achievement of grades. Assessment designed formatively should develop and consolidate knowledge, understanding, skills and competencies. It is a key part of the learning process and can enhance learning and contribute to raising standards.

Through formative assessment tutors can identify students’ differing learning needs early on in the program and so make timely corrective interventions. Tutors can also reflect on the results of formative assessment to measure how effective the planned teaching and learning is at delivering the course syllabus.

6.7 SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT  

Summative assessment is where students are provided with the assignment grades contributing towards the overall course grade (if the course consists of more than one assignment). For summative assessment to be effective it should also give students additional written and constructive feedback to support ongoing development and improvement in subsequent assignments and courses. All formative assessment feeds directly into the summative assessment for each individual course and lays the foundations on which students develop the necessary knowledge and skills required for the summative assessment. Each student should receive one set of written summative feedback that clearly corresponds with the assessment criteria.

6.8 WRITTEN ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK

Effective written assessment feedback is part of continuous guided learning which promotes learning and enables improvement. It also allows students to reflect on their performance and helps them understand how to make effective use of feedback. Constructive and useful feedback should enable students to understand the strengths and limitations of their performance, providing positive comments where possible as well as explicit comments on how improvements can be made. Feedback should reflect the learning outcomes and assessment criteria to also help students understand how these inform the process of judging the overall grade.

The timing of the provision of feedback and of the returned assessed work also contributes to making feedback effective. Specific turnaround time for feedback should be agreed and communicated with both tutors and students. Timing should allow students the opportunity to reflect on the feedback and consider how to make use of it in forthcoming assessments, taking into account the tutor’s workload and ability to provide effective feedback.

Written feedback from all assessors is Internally Verified through the Internal Verification process.

6.9 STUDENT PREPARATION

To ensure that effective assessment takes place, students have to understand their responsibilities for assessment. From induction onwards, students should be supported to be motivated to work consistently and independently in order to achieve the requirements of the assignments, courses and therefore the requirements of the program to the appropriate level, Short Cycle, EQF 5. They need to understand how assignments are used, the importance of meeting assignment deadlines, and that all the work submitted for assessment must be their own. A student handbook, explanations and discussions should include:

• how assignments are used for assessment
• how assignments relate to the individual courses and the program of study
• how they should use and reference source materials, including what would constitute plagiarism.
• assessments method, time, type
• how students must submit assignments
• consequences of submitting late work,
• procedure for requesting extensions for mitigating circumstances

6.10 STUDENT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE (APPEALS AGAINST ASSESSMENT DECISIONS)

Students who have an objection for the grade or the assessment decision and feedback given by the assessment team, have the right within 5 days after the announcement of the results to request in writing, reassessment of the grade or evaluation respectively, by submitting a relevant request to the Program Director. The assessment team is required to examine the objection and respond to the student within 3 days of the submission of the request.

Further to the assessment decisions, student grievance procedures can aim for: 

Improvement of Grade – Evaluation 

A student can improve their assessment decision of any assignment or course, by attending the assignment or course again.

6.11 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES – SETTING ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT DATE

Students must have a clear understanding on the importance of completing assignments by the set deadlines, explained and communicated during the assignment hand out.

No student can be absent from assessments that have already been announced, or violate the deadline of submitting a work for an assignment or course. In such a case the student will fail the assessment.

Students may be given authorised extensions for legitimate reasons, such as illness, at the time of submission. For assessment to be fair, it is important that students are all assessed in the same way and that some students are not advantaged by having additional time or the opportunity to learn from others.

In the event of unavoidable absence from assessments or in the event of an extremely serious reason, which prevents submission of work for an assignment or course, the student should inform the Program Director in advance who informs his/her assessors respectively. The assessors concerned have the jurisdiction and responsibility to request, if they deem necessary, the necessary supporting documents – including medical certificates – in order to present to the assessment team and decide accordingly. If it is decided that the student is justified, then a new assessment date or submission date for any assignment or course, is given to the student, within 5 days from the predetermined date.

6.11.1 POLICY

Defining “mitigating circumstances”
Mitigating circumstances are defined as “recognisably disruptive or unexpected events, beyond the student’s control, that might have a significant and adverse impact on their academic performance.”

“Beyond the student’s control” means that a student cannot have reasonably prevented them from happening.

“A significant and adverse impact on their academic performance” means that the circumstances were disruptive enough to have a meaningful adverse impact on a student’s academic ability.

Aigaia School of Art & Design applies the principle that a student who attends, submits or participates in any form of assessment shall be considered by the institution to be in a position to do so.

6.11.2. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CRITERIA

Because each student’s circumstances are unique to his/her individual situation, and circumstances can impact on individuals in different ways, it is not possible to provide a full list of circumstances that would be considered valid. Aigaia has produced guidance on acceptable medical evidence that provides examples of the different types of circumstances that would usually be considered acceptable and the evidence needed to support the claim. The following are examples of the kind of circumstances that are likely to be considered by the institution:

Circumstance	What evidence is required? Please note any medical certificate should be from a CY- based medical practitioner or one recognised by CY authorities.
Illness	Confirmation of the illness, the impact the illness would have/has had on the affected assessment(s) and the dates concerned. This should be provided on an original medical certificate
Hospitalisation	Confirmation of the illness, the impact the illness would have/has had on the affected assessment(s) and the dates concerned. This should be provided on an original medical certificate/letter.
Family illness	Confirmation of the illness, the impact that this would have/has had on the affected assessment(s) and the dates concerned. This should be provided on: an original medical certificate/Personal Doctor letter
Bereavement	A letter confirming the death from an independent person (usually not a family member) with their contact details provided and including a view on the closeness of the relationship to the student. A death certificate or order of service are other forms of acceptable evidence, and are all that would be required where the closeness of the relationship is evident (e.g. for a close relative – a parent, sibling, or child). Where the closeness of the relationship is less obvious, a certificate/order of service also should be accompanied by a letter from an independent person, as outlined above
Acute Personal Difficulties	Confirmation of the circumstances, the impact that these would have/have had on the affected assessment(s) and the dates concerned. This should be provided on an original medical certificate/personal doctor letter
Pregnancy-related illness	The requirements for illness, hospitalisation etc. should be followed if there is a specific incident during pregnancy
Victim of crime	Police report (including a crime reference number). If the incident has resulted in the student seeking medical attention then the requirements for illness should be followed
Domestic Disruption including divorce/separation	Confirmation of the circumstances, the impact that these would have/have had on the affected assessment(s) and the dates concerned. This should be provided on a letter from a national or an independent authority (e.g. social worker, counsellor etc),  a police report (Inc. crime reference number)
Court Attendance	If required to attend a tribunal or court as a witness, defendant (not for ‘Criminal Conviction’) a solicitor’s letter including the dates of the legal proceedings and the requirement for you to attend or a letter from the court
Military Service	A letter from the National Guard General Staff, or Ministry of Defence or Military Branch / Unit
Road Traffic Incident	If been involved in a road traffic incident, either as a passenger or as the driver, evidence must be provided detailing the time and place that the incident occurred including a police report,  letter from Insurance
Representing the institution or Country at a significant/ prestigious event	A letter of confirmation from the relevant organising body and a supporting statement from the student explaining why the event should be considered as significant/prestigious. Student athletes with an international commitment should supply third-party evidence of their national sports commitment.

 

6.11.3. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

The following are examples of the kind of circumstances that are likely to be considered unacceptable. However, the institution will consider every case individually and on its own merit.

• Transport issues: It is student’s responsibility to arrive at the assessment on time, irrespective of the form of transport used or relied upon. Exceptions to this might be industrial action or other significant disruption that is beyond student’s Evidence of any significant disruption would be required.
• Holidays: All holidays and vacations should take place at a time that will not impact on student’s availability to study or undertake or prepare for an assessment(s)
• Misreading the examination timetable or submission deadline: It is student’s responsibility to ensure that he/she has an accurate understanding of the location, time and duration of all formal assessments.
• IT and/or computer failure: It is student’s responsibility to ensure that all work which is electronically stored, generated and/or submitted is sufficiently backed up and the correct piece of work is submitted in the correct format.
• Foreseeable/preventable circumstances: Where the circumstances are within student’s control.
• Scheduling of assessments/deadline: Deadlines or exams being close together
• Not disclosing circumstances: The Institution can only consider circumstances if they are disclosed in accordance with the regulations. If a student has good reason, which can be documented, for not disclosing his/her circumstances he/she should speak to his/her personal tutor.

6.12 LATE SUBMISSIONS

There may be a penalty to assignments that are submitted beyond the published deadline. However, if a late submission is accepted, then the assignment should be assessed normally, when it is submitted, using the relevant assessment criteria, with any penalty or cap applied after the assessment.

Where the result of assessment may be capped, due to late submission of the assignment, the student should be given an indication of their uncapped grade, in order to recognise the learning that has been achieved, and assessment feedback should be provided in relation to the uncapped achievement.

As with all assessment results, both the uncapped and capped grades should be recorded and ratified by an appropriate assessment board, taking into account any mitigating circumstances that may have been submitted. 

6.13 ISSUING ASSESSMENT DECISIONS AND FEEDBACK

Once the assessment team has completed the assessment process for an assignment or course, the outcome is a formal assessment decision. This is recorded and reported to students. The information given to the student:

• must show the formal decision and how it has been reached, indicating how or where criteria have been met
• may show why attainment against criteria has not been demonstrated
• must not provide feedback on how to improve evidence but can suggest how to improve in the future.

6.14 RESUBMISSION OPPORTUNITY

An assignment provides the final assessment for the relevant learning outcomes, and is normally a final assessment decision. A student who, for the first assessment opportunity, has failed to achieve a Pass for that course specification (UNGRADED) shall be expected to undertake a reassessment.

• Only one opportunity for reassessment of the course will be permitted.
• Reassessment for coursework, project or portfolio-based assessments shall normally involve the reworking of the original task.
• A student who undertakes a reassessment will have their grade capped at a Pass for that course.
• A student will not be entitled to be reassessed in any component of assessment for which a Pass grade or higher has already been awarded.

6.15 REPEAT COURSES

In cases of students who, for the first assessment opportunity and resubmission opportunity, still fail to achieve a Pass for that course specification:

• at the discretion of the Assessment Board, decisions can be made to permit a repeat of a course
• the student must study the course again with full attendance and payment of the course fee
• the overall course grade for a successfully completed repeat course is capped at a Pass
• courses can be repeated only once.

6.16 INTERNAL VERIFICATION (MODERATION) REGULATION POLICY

Internal verification is the quality assurance system to monitor assessment practice and decisions internally. Verification is the process through which the Institution assures itself that all the assignments are fit for purpose and all assessment decisions and grades awarded are fair, and represent an accurate assessment of student’s performance against the all Learning Outcomes. It provides confidence that assessment is consistent and reliable.

It is a fundamental principle of the Institute’s assessment process that assessment must be complete, and a final gradeagreed, before any grades or feedback is shared with the students. Each course assessor is responsible for confirming the grade on any course. The purpose of verification is to ensure that these grades are accurate prior to be published.

It ensures that:

• Assessment plans and assignment briefs are in place to ensure full coverage of the program at the level of the qualification, Short Cycle EQF Level 5
• Assessment instruments are fit for purpose
• Assessment decisions accurately match student evidence to the course grading criteria and assessment guidance
• Assessors are standardised and assessment and grading are consistent across the program.
• The quality of written feedback is up to standard and that the feedback is critical, constructive and useful.

It is essential that internal verification is planned for at the start of a program. An internal verification schedule must be agreed, to ensure that:

• All assignment briefs are internally verified before distribution to students
• A sample of assessment decisions is internally verified, covering every course, every Assessor and a range of student achievement (e.g. Ungraded, Pass, Merit, Distinction).

6.17 CALCULATION OF GRADES

1^st Year completion

Pass qualification grade

To achieve a Pass by the completion of the 1^st Year of the Short Cycle EQF Level 5 Diploma Programs of study at Aigaia, a student must:

• Successfully complete and achieve all 60 ECTS
• Complete a valid combination of compulsory and specialist courses as described in the curriculum of the Program.
• Provide evidence for each learning outcome and associated assessment criteria for the chosen combination of courses.

Qualification grades above Pass grade

• A Merit or Distinction grade for the 1st Year is based on the student’s performance on all courses and the calculation of qualification grades as below:

Points per ECTS		Point boundaries
Ungraded	< 4	Ungraded	< 210
Pass	4	Pass	210-299
Merit	6	Merit	300-419
Distinction	8	Distinction	420 +

 

Overall qualification calculation of the grade

1^st & 2^nd Year 

• The calculation of the overall qualification grade is based on the student’s performance in all courses and semesters. Students are awarded a Pass, Merit or Distinction qualification grade using the points gained through all 120 ECTS, based on their achievement in each individual course. The overall qualification grade is calculated based on the calculation of qualification grades table.

Calculation of the final grade / Conditions for the award

• Successfully complete and achieve all 120 ECTS, according to the Sort Cycle EQF Level 5, as described in the EQF.
• Complete a valid combination of compulsory and specialist courses as described in the curriculum of the Program of Study.
• Provide evidence for each learning outcome and associated assessment criteria for the chosen combination of courses.

Certification:

Students who successfully complete the Program will receive:

1. Diploma of achievement with final achieved grade
2. Study Transcript with Grade Analysis on all courses studied by each individual student and based on the Singular CMS for all courses and final Calculation as: Pass/Merit/Distinction
3. European Diploma Supplement – in the format of the following link:

http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/EHEAParis2018_Communique_AppendixIV_952782.pdf

Detailed supplement with short contextualising exit references for each graduate, stating where they are ranked in relation to the rest of the cohort  (i.e. 4th out a cohort of 15).

7.1 ROLE

External Examiners at Aigaia School of Art & Design are auditors of the assessment process and also mentor, support and offer their expertise for academic programs and course review. Their role is to monitor the academic standards of awards at institution and specifically to confirm that:

• The standards for the courses/awards are set and maintained at an appropriate level;
• The standards for the courses/awards are comparable with similar courses/awards within the sector and parity with other institutions with validated Level 5 courses is proved;
• The structure and nature of the assessment permits students to demonstrate their level of achievement and they are related written feedback is provided;
• The processes for assessment, examination and the determination of awards are sound and fairly conducted; and
• There is consistency between the institution regulations, ESG provisions and relevant national legislation and directives and guidelines of CYQAA

Also contribute to academic programs and course review / preparation – validation of new academic programs.

7.2 PRINCIPLES

Aigaia School of Art & Design appoints External Examiners according to the following principles:

• A minimum of one External Examiner is required per program of study and/or course in order among others to:
  • review and validate courses and academic programs or approve them in case of introduction of new ones;
  • review assessment of final projects and / or courses, either theoretical or practical (different external examiner)
• Both the practice and theory elements of all courses must be reviewed.
• External Examiners must have expertise in the subject area for the course(s) to which they are appointed;
• An External Examiner may be appointed to more than one course and/or program of study.

7.3 APPOINTMENT – SELECTION CRITERIA

The Academic Committee is responsible for identifying and suggesting through the Director of Academic Studies External Examiners to the Board for approval according to the following criteria:

• Have competence and experience in the subject area(s);
• Have either relevant academic qualifications to at least the level of the course(s) being externally examined or extensive practitioner experience;
• Have competence and experience relating to designing and operating assessment;
• Have fluency in one of the languages of the program of study they are appointed to;
• Have awareness of current developments in the design and delivery of relevant curricula;
• Have competence and experience relating to the enhancement of the student learning experience.

External Examiners must not be:

• A member of the Board of the institution or any of its collaborative partners;
• A current employee of the institution or one of its collaborative partners;
• Anyone with a close professional, contractual or personal relationship with a member of staff or student involved with the program of study and or course(s) unless a period of five years has elapsed;
• Former staff or students of the institution unless a period of five years has elapsed;
• Part of a reciprocal arrangement involving cognate programmes at another institution;

The appointment of an External Examiner will be for one year in the first instance. Before the commencement of next academic year the extension to employment will be decided by the Board accordingly. Towards this, the Internal Quality Committee identifies all Examiners whose contracts are due to expire at the end of the academic year as well as new courses due to commence in the following year that will require the appointment of an External Examiner. Director of Academic Studies seeks nominations from respective Programme Directors and contacts proposed External Examiners to assure that they meet the necessary criteria and submit their CV. The final selection of the External Examiners is decided by the Board of the School.

If an External Examiner fails to submit a written report or fails to fulfil any of his or her other duties, the appointment may be terminated. Identification of any conflict of interest will also result in termination. External Examiners failing to fulfil their duties will be contacted in writing and advised of the nature of the failure and provided with an opportunity to rectify the situation within 10 working days. If after that time the External Examiner has still not fulfilled their duties, the Director of Academic Studies will write to them confirming the termination of their contract. Nominations for a replacement External Examiner will be sought from the relevant Programme Director immediately.

If an External Examiner considers it necessary to resign (e.g. because of a change in their main employment which leads to a conflict of interest), they should inform the institution immediately. If resignation takes place mid-year, a notice period of 60 days is applicable to allow for a replacement examiner to be appointed.

7.4 INDUCTION

Aigaia School of Art & Design provides an induction for new External Examiners. In this framework an induction pack will be prepared which will include the role and duties of the External Examiner, the assessment process, student’s handbook, QAE handbook, previous year’s external examiner’s report(s) (not applicable for new academic programs), Aigaia’s regulations, policies and procedures and other other useful documents/forms (a link to the induction pack will be timely provided to each one of the Examiners according to their role respectively).

The induction of all new Examiners at local level is carried out by the Director of Academic Studies and the Director of Program of Study and they look in details at the curriculum, the most recent validated programme specification and a copy of the current course documentation program / course structure etc. This can be done either face to face at the first visit or earlier – if deemed necessary – by video call.

Annually thereafter, External Examiners should expect to receive any updates to the course structure and documents. New External Examiners should comment on their induction in their first written report.

7.5 REPORT

External Examiners are required to submit an annual written report. This report must be submitted to Academic and Internal Quality Committees within three weeks after their onsite visit. A report would normally be written for each course (unless otherwise agreed) or for each new academic program in case of preparation – validation of new academic programs.

In their report External Examiners are also expected to confirm among others whether the standards for the course – or for the new academic program being prepared – are set and maintained at an appropriate level, and confirm comparability – parity of its standards with similar validated academic programmes within the sector, together with recommendations for improvement and proposed solutions (if the answer is “no”). External Examiners will be also asked to confirm in each External Examiner’s report, whether the issues raised in the previous year’s report have been responded to.

On receipt, External Examiners’ Reports are circulated to the Internal Quality and Academic Committees. The Chair of each Committee will circulate onwards to all Members of the committees respectively and all internal stakeholders concerned.

This will trigger a response where significant concerns are identified by the respective Director of Program of Study or Director of Academic Studies accordingly. The Board of the institution is officially briefed and discuss the External Examiner’s Report during its first meeting after the report is received.

8.1 EXPECTATIONS

Studying at Aigaia is challenging, rewarding and a place of respect and integrity. We expect all staff and students to embrace the values of the academic community. Students can reflect this by producing assessments in which the work submitted cites the correct sources and is the student’s own work. Students are expected to take responsibility for theiracademic work and to comply with the school’s standards and requirements. Help to gain an understanding of theexpectations of the academic community is widely available and students are encouraged to make use of a variety of resources (see end of this document). Students who fail to take responsibility for their academic work are undermining the fundamental values of the academic community to which they belong.

It is understood that for some students the cultural shift to tertiary education is significant and the institution remindsstudents that they must take responsibility to familiarise themselves with and abideby the rules, regulations and ethical standards that are associated with a education at Aigaia. Students at Aigaia are part of an academic community that values trust, fairness and respect and actively encourages students to act with honesty and integrity.

8.2 ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Academic integrity is a central component of a student’s education. Both students and faculty are responsible for ensuring the academic integrity of the institution.

We expect all students to maintain a high standard of academic integrity at all times. This means that students should demonstrate honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility in their academic work. Academic integrity is central to academic life, and should be a guiding principle of studying at Aigaia.

In practice, this means that students should take full responsibility for their own work; fully acknowledge the work of others where it has contributed to student’s own; and actively avoid any actions which seek to give the student, or anyone else, an unfair advantage over others. Students must report any findings honestly; and follow the academic, professional and ethical conventions which are relevant to their work.

Apart from meeting students’ obligations as part of an academic community, acting with integrity also enables studentsto develop and demonstrate the professional skills and values which are expected by employers and which will be crucial in students’ subsequent professional life.

Students should read this policy carefully, and if anything is unclear they should contact the Director of their Program of Study for advice.

8.3 ACADEMIC JUDGEMENT

Academic judgement is a judgement that is made about a matter where only the opinion of an academic expert issufficient. Academic judgement is developed over time and is defined by disciplinary expertise in teaching, learning and assessment in a higher education’s setting. Academic members of staff Aigaia have significant knowledge and expertise in detecting acts of academic misconduct.

The majority of students embrace and respect the values of their academic community but there might be a smallminority who may try to gain an unfair advantage by cheating. An unfair advantage is one that is not available to allstudents within the confines of a coursework assignment,such as purchasing essays or using prohibited materials. Academic staff may call upon an electronic software or other means to assist them in the process of matching text to theoriginal source. Academic judgement combined with the detection software is considered to be a successful way toensure that acts of academic misconduct seldom go undetected.

8.4 ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

Academic misconduct is the term used for any action or behaviour which breaches the expectation of academic integrity as set out above. Aigaia School of Art & Design takes academic misconduct very seriously. If an allegation of academic misconduct is upheld, a range of penalties may be issued, depending on the severity of the case. In extremely serious cases, a student may be excluded from the course, or final award may be withheld. If the offence does not come to light until after a student has finished studies, Aigaia reserves the right to investigate and, if appropriate, to rescind his/heraward.

Any behaviour through which a student seeks to gain an unfair advantage, either for him/herself or for another student, may constitute academic misconduct. The list below gives the most common examples, and a brief definition of each:

8.4.1 PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism is the most common form of academic misconduct, and may arise intentionally or otherwise (e.g. or lack ofunderstanding). At Aigaia plagiarism is defined as the taking of another person’s thoughts, words, results, judgements, ideas, images, paintings, practical work etc, and presenting them as your own. Examples of plagiarism include but are not limited to:

• Copying: a student should not copy someone else’s work, writing, practical work or thoughts and pass this off as their own, even if s/he has their permission. This includes using images and audio-visual presentations without acknowledgement;
• Incorrect referencing: a student should not insert the writing or thoughts of others into their written work without the correct referencing;
• Copying and pasting: a student may not copy text verbatim or closely paraphrase a source text and pass this off as their own, without using quotation marks and citing the original source;
• Paraphrasing: a student should avoid closely paraphrasing someone else’s work (e.g. by changing the words or the order of the words slightly) and should always acknowledge the source using the appropriate citation conventions.

Whilst it is an accepted part of academic study to research the ideas of others to develop someone’s own learning, it is essential to acknowledge sources in presenting work for assessment. Students must credit the author:

• When quoting or refering to words or ideas taken from a book, magazine, newspaper, song, TV programme, film, web page, letter or any other source;
• When reproducing diagrams, pictures or illustrations, paintings, practical work etc;
• When using information gained by interviewing somebody.

A source does not need to be acknowledged when a student is writing about his/her own experiences, observations or conclusions, or when a student is using common knowledge. Common knowledge is usually interpreted as something the reader will already know or could easily find in general reference sources, or common-sense observations.

8.4.2 SELF-PLAGIARISM

Self-plagiarism is submitting material for academic credit which has been submitted, previously or simultaneously, for academic credit from Aigaia or any other awarding body, or work produced by the student for other purposes (e.g. published articles). Previously submitted work may be included as long as permission to do so has been granted and where such work is properly referenced so that it is clear it has previously been submitted, or where resubmission of previously failed work has expressly been permitted.

8.4.3 COLLUSION

Submitting work which a student claims to be his/her own, but which has been completed in partnership with someone else (whether or not they are a student Aigaia), except where this is explicitly allowed for in the assignment brief. This may include where others have helped the student, for example with technical elements of the practical work.

8.4.4 FALSIFICATION OR FABRICATION

Falsification is claiming to have done something a student has not done. This could be any form of data collection (such as observations, research or interviews) which a student has not undertaken; or continuing his/her work after the submission deadline and falsely claiming that it was submitted in timely fashion (for example, by adding work to a submission within the studio). Fabrication is reporting data which a student has made up or otherwise know to be false, including fraudulent consent forms.

8.4.5 CHEATING

Cheating is adopting working methods that are outside the spirit of the institution Regulations and involve acting in a dishonest way to gain an unfair advantage compared to other students.

8.4.6 CONTRACT CHEATING

Includes purchasing or commissioning an assessment from a professional writing service or third party and presenting it as your own and commissioning a third party to translate an assessment from one language to another. It also includes the use of a professional writing service or third party to edit an assessment or parts of it to cause changes to the structure or content. Aigaia only allows the use of proof-reading to check spelling and basic grammar.

8.5 INTRODUCTION TO GOOD ACADEMIC PRACTICE

We recognise that students may not be familiar with academic conventions or good academic practice when they join Aigaia. As the penalties for academic misconduct can be severe, we have a responsibility to ensure that all students are introduced to good academic practice, and warned about practices to avoid, at the start of the academic year (induction week) and course.

All students should have had an introduction to academic integrity policy before they submit their first piece of work for assessment. This is scheduled to take place during the induction week of new students at Aigaia when all Quality Assurance and Enhancement matters will be analysed.

8.6 ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT PROCEDURE

There are three stages to the procedure. The penalties available at each stage are different, which means that the most serious cases will be considered at Stage Three, where the penalties are most severe.

We recognise that in the early part of studies a student might make mistakes, but we expect the student to learn from these mistakes and not to repeat them. As a student progress through the academic program, we expect thedemonstration of high levels of academic integrity at all times. If there is evidence that a student deliberately sought to gain an unfair advantage, we will take this very seriously.

Aigaia can conclude the process after any stage, either by imposing a penalty or by dismissing the allegation. Normally, allegations will commence at Stage One and will only progress to the next stage if it is considered that the case may warrant a more serious penalty than it is able to impose. Aigaia reserves the right to escalate a case immediately to a higher stage (either by starting at Stage Two, or by moving directly from Stage One to Stage Three). This will be exceptional, and will only be where there is strong evidence of very serious academic misconduct. If Aigaia makes this decision, we shall explain to the student why we have decided to do this.

Notes will be taken of all meetings under this procedure, but no sound or other recording equipment shall be used without the consent of the Chair at each stage.

A student can appeal the decision to impose a penalty at any stage. This will automatically move the case to the next stage of the procedure.

If a student’s case is referred for investigation, we will not confirm any grades for the course until a decision has been made. The student shall continue working on any other assessments not affected by the allegation, and submit these to deadline. The student will receive results as normal for any courses that are not being investigated.

If a second allegation is made while an investigation against a student is ongoing, both allegations will normally be considered as part of the same case. If an allegation relates to more than one student, each student will be asked to attend individual investigations and no outcome will be agreed until all cases have been investigated.

Each case will be investigated strictly on its merits; any previous allegations against a student will not be relevant. However if it is decided that a student has committed an offence, we will take this into account when determining the penalty. A second offence is likely to receive a significantly more serious penalty than a first offence, even if the facts of the case are the same.

If a student is invited to attend a meeting under this procedure, but is not available at the time, s/he should notify the institution as soon as possible. If the student has good reason for not being able to attend, we will re-arrange; this will usually be within one week. We will normally only re-arrange a meeting once.

If a student does not notify in advance that s/he is unable to attend the meeting and s/he does not attend, the meeting will go ahead in his/her absence and a decision will be made in his/her absence based on the information available.

If a student withdraws from a course while an investigation is continuing, we will continue the case to a conclusion (even if the student decides not to attend any hearings). We will notify the student of the outcome.

STAGE ONE: DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM OF STUDY (D/POS) INVESTIGATION

If any member of staff suspects that academic misconduct has occurred, they must inform the D/PoS, explaining their reasons and any evidence in support of the allegation. This may include the report from an electronic search or online plagiarism service.

If the D/PoS considers that there is a case to answer, they will meet with the student and with the relevant tutors. This meeting is an initial opportunity for the student to respond to the allegation. The student will be given at least 5 working days’ notice of the meeting, and s/he will be provided with details of the allegation including any evidence. The student will have the chance to submit any evidence in support of his/her case. S/he may be accompanied by a fellow student or member of the Students’ Union (if in place); but they are not permitted to answer questions on his/her behalf. The student will be provided with the notes of this meeting.

The purpose of the meeting is to investigate the allegation of academic misconduct. If the allegation relates to plagiarism, for example, the D/PoS will usually seek to determine the Student’s understanding of the subject area, and the argument(s) presented in the work. They may ask a range of questions about the work. Allegations of collusion, or of ethical misconduct, will follow the same process but it is likely that the D/PoS will wish to ask different questions.

The D/PoS will consider all the evidence and will determine the outcome. This will be communicated to the student within five working days. In reaching a decision, the D/PoS will also consider whether the student acceptsthe allegation, and his/her engagement with the process. The following outcomes are available at Stage One:

• There is no case to answer, and the allegation is dismissed. The work will be marked at face value, and no record of the allegation will be kept.
• The case is upheld but is considered a matter of poor academic practice with no intention to gain an unfair advantage. The work will be marked at face value, but any sections which are covered by the academic misconduct charge will be disregarded. This may mean that the work does not meet the minimum pass mark, as it may not demonstrate one or more of the learning outcomes. In this case, the student will have the usual retrieval opportunities available, in accordance with the academic regulations.
• The case is upheld and is deemed serious / there was intent to gain unfair advantage. The case is automatically referred to Stage 2. This includes all cases where a student has previously been found to have committed academic misconduct (even where this was a matter of poor academic practice), and this is a further offence.

STAGE TWO: CONSIDERATION BY THE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE

Stage Two investigations are required where there the D/PoS believes that a student may have intended to gain unfair advantage, and / or that the student deliberately engaged in academic misconduct. Usually this will be a referral from Stage One, but there may be occasions where a case is taken straight to Stage Two (for example where there is very strong evidence of an intent to mislead).

The meeting at Stage Two is chaired by the Chair of the Academic Committee with all members of this committee present. While the process is similar, the range of penalties available at Stage Two is significantly greater.

The Academic Committee will invite the student to a meeting to discuss the case. The student will be given at least 5 working days’ notice of the meeting, and he/she will be provided with details of the allegation including any evidence. S/he may be accompanied by a fellow student other than the students’ representative to the Committee or member of the Students’ Union (if in place); but they are not permitted to answer questions on his/her behalf. The student will be provided with the notes of this meeting.

If the case has already been considered at Stage One, the notes and outcome of that meeting will also be available to the Committee; the Committee will not normally seek to repeat that investigation, but will wish to consider whether there are additional factors to take into account.

If the case has not been considered at Stage One, the Committee will investigate the allegation of academic misconduct. If the allegation relates to plagiarism, for example, the Committee will usually seek to determine the student’s understanding of the subject area, and the argument(s) presented in the work. They may ask a range of questions about the work. Allegations of collusion, or of ethical misconduct, will follow the same process but it is likely that the Committee will wish to ask different questions.

The student will have the chance to submit any evidence in support of his/her case. S/he may also call witnesses if they have relevant information to present; the student must notify the Committee in advance if s/he wish to call witnesses.

The Committee will consider all the evidence and will determine the outcome. This will be communicated to the student within five working days. In reaching a decision, the Committee will also consider whether the student has accepted the allegation; his/her engagement with the process; the extent and severity of the misconduct; and his/her academic level and experience. The following outcomes are available at Stage Two:

• There is no case to answer, and the allegation is dismissed. The work will be marked at face value, and no record of the allegation will be kept.
• The case is upheld but is considered a matter of poor academic practice with no intention to gain an unfair advantage. The work will be marked at face value, but any sections which are covered by the academic misconduct charge will be disregarded. This may mean that the work does not meet the minimum pass mark, as it may not demonstrate one or more of the learning outcomes. In this case, the student will have the usual retrieval opportunities available, in accordance with the academic regulations.
• The case is upheld, and a minimum pass mark should be awarded for the unit.
• The case is upheld, and the student is deemed to have failed the unit. S/he will be required to retrieve the assessment, with a maximum available mark of the minimum pass mark. The Committee will determine whether this reassessment should be a Retake (final opportunity).
• The case is upheld, and the student should be required to repeat the course and all associated assessment, with a maximum available mark of the minimum pass mark. This penalty will normally be applied where there is evidence that the student has failed to engage meaningfully with the course, and does not have a basic understanding of the key concepts.
• The case is upheld and the Committee considers that it is sufficiently serious that it should be referred to Stage 3. This may include cases where a student has previously been found to have committed academic misconduct (even where this was a matter of poor academic practice), and this is a further offence, especially where the second offence is deemed serious, and with a clear intent to gain unfair advantage.

In referring a case to Stage 3, the Committee will also forward its recommended penalty, together with its rationale for this penalty.

If the process is complete at this stage, and a penalty has been imposed, the outcome will be reported to the Board. The penalty will normally appear on the student’s academic record.

STAGE THREE: CONSIDERATION BY THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

Stage Three investigations only take place where a case is referred from Stage 2. The Committee will meet as soon as is practicable, and normally within ten working days of the referral.

The student will be given at least five working days’ notice of the Committee meeting. The documentation will comprise the recommendation from the Stage Two, together with the notes of that meeting. All members of the Committee will receive a copy of this in advance.

The student is not normally allowed to provide additional evidence at this stage. If there is a good reason why this evidence could not have been provided any earlier, the student should be allowed to present it; this will be at the discretion of the Committee.

If the student wants the Committee to hear his/her version of events, he/she is expected to attend the meeting. The student may be accompanied by a fellow student other than the students’ representative to the Committee or member of the Students’ Union (if any); but they are not permitted to answer questions on his/her behalf. If the student does not wish to attend the meeting, s/he can submit a statement at least 2 working days in advance. The student should be aware that if he/she decides not to attend the meeting s/he will not able to answer any questions that the Committee may want to ask. It is important that the student inform the Committee accordingly whether s/he is expect to attend.

The case, including the recommendation from Stage Two, will be presented by the Chair of Academic Committee. The Disciplinary Committee will then consider any submission the student may wish to make (either in person or in writing), and they may wish to ask questions to ensure they understand the case properly.

Once the Committee is satisfied that it has heard all the evidence, it will continue its deliberations in private. In reaching a decision, the Committee will consider whether the student has accepted the allegation; his/herengagement with the process; the extent and severity of the misconduct; and the student’s academic level and experience. The possible outcomes available at Stage Three include all those outcomes available at Stage Two and in addition:

• A requirement that the student repeats the full year of study, with all marks capped at the minimum pass mark.
• Immediate termination of studies at Aigaia with credit awarded, including any credit achieved at the student’s current level of study (but not for the course/s in question). If this penalty is imposed, the student will not be permitted to enroll at Aigaia in future.
• Immediate termination of studies at Aigaia, but with no credit awarded for the level at which the offence occurred. If this penalty is imposed, the student will not be permitted to enroll at Aigaia in future.

The student will be notified of the outcome in writing within five working days of the meeting. If a penalty is imposed, this will normally appear on the student’s academic record.

• Review by the Board

If the student is dissatisfied with the outcome of the case, s/he can appeal by requesting a review by Board. The student must write a letter formally requesting a review, which must be submitted within ten working days of the date of notification of the decision.

The student may appeal on the following grounds:

• That due process was not followed, and that this had a material bearing on the outcome of the hearing
• That the penalty imposed is inconsistent with the severity of offence
• That new evidence has since become available which is pertinent to the case, but was not available at the time of the hearing
• That the decision of the Disciplinary Committee was perverse, taking into account all the evidence presented.

The Board will conduct a full review of the documentation relating to the case, including all documentation considered by the Disciplinary Committee, and its decision. The Board will not normally meet with the parties concerned, but may request a meeting with the Chair of the Disciplinary Committee to request clarification of any points the student raises in his/her letter, or to discuss the impact of any new evidence. The Board will reach a judgement on the balance of the evidence, and will either confirm the decision of the Disciplinary Committee, uphold the appeal and impose a lesser penalty or uphold the appeal and dismiss the case.

The Board will write to the student and the Chair of the Disciplinary Committee to confirm their decision. This will normally be within 10 working days of receipt of the letter of appeal although, there may be occasions where a longer time period is required, and in these cases the Board will contact the relevant parties to explain the circumstances. The final decision will be communicated to all relevant parties.

This is the final stage of the procedure within Aigaia. If the student is still dissatisfied, s/he may be entitled to refer the case according to his/her legal rights which in any case are reserved.

All members of Aigaia’s community including staff, students, visitors and contractors have a responsibility to treat others fairly and respectfully regardless of the characteristics which may define their identity. These include the legally protected characteristics which are: Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and Civil partnership, Pregnancy and maternity, Race, Religion or belief (including lack of belief), Sex and Sexual orientation. Aigaia has committed to provide a working and learning environment founded on dignity, respect and equity where discrimination of any kind is treated with the utmost seriousness.

9.1 STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Aigaia School of Art & Design is committed to providing a high quality student learning experience, enabling the development of professionally qualified graduates and/or graduates ready to continue their academic studies at a higher level. It values the transformative power of education, and believes that this transformation is most likely to be achieved when students are fully engaged in the creation and shaping of their learning experience.

Aigaia will promote a range of opportunities to engage all students, individually and collectively, as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience for both current and future cohorts. It aims to encourage the continuous improvement in the student learning experience, developing transferable skills for employability and ensuring all students have access to fair and consistent mechanisms for having a voice. Specifically the aims of student engagement activity at Aigaia are:

• To encourage and enable student involvement in institution’s decision-making processes, through both representation and feedback;
• To secure and sustain an environment in which all students, regardless of discipline, level of study, background or characteristic, are able to participate fully in a high-quality educational community, and to fulfil their potential;
• To provide an environment which is student-centred and encourages active participation in learning, including student involvement in the design of their learning experience.

Aigaia School of Art & Design will create and maintain an environment within which students and staff engage in discussions that aim to bring about demonstrable enhancement of the educational experience.

This is recognised and embedded within our institution’s structures processes where students participate in:

• committees, including the Board and academic committee, internal quality committee, administrative committee, disciplinary committees.
• periodic course reviews to provide feedback on the student experience
• curriculum development
• student satisfaction surveys etc

Students representatives are elected by their fellow students at the start of each academic year, to represent the student voice to the institution’s Board and committees and are responsible for representing the issues and concerns of their fellow students within their cohort.

Course representatives should gather feedback from classmates and and raise issues in respective committees which include course facilities, access to resources, contact hours with tutors, links to employers and the industry, assessment, evaluation, timetabling, Academic Development, Quality Assurance, student satisfaction surveys etc.

Students have the opportunity to provide anonymously qualitative statements in free-text boxes within different surveys on their experience of the institution as well as a statement on what they think should  change / improve about their experience of the institution.

9.2 COMPLAINTS

9.2.1 PRINCIPLES

Aigaia School of Art & Design aims to provide a high standard and quality of service. However, we recognise that things can go wrong and when they do students may have legitimate reason to complain about provision of academic courses, facilities, services or staff. 

We aim to ensure that student complaints are treated seriously and dealt with promptly, fairly and consistently. We also aim to learn from the outcomes of complaint investigations in order to help improve the institution services and enhance the student experience.

Wherever possible, students’ concerns about their course, services provided by the institution or any other aspect of their experience at Aigaia should be dealt with promptly at the earliest opportunity and through informal discussion. Where students wish to raise a complaint, they must do so by following the steps outlined in this policy.

Underlying principles regarding complaints are but limited to:

• Complaints are dealt without recrimination. This means that students making complaints will not suffer disadvantage or reproach and their studies at Aigaia will not be prejudiced as a result of making a complaint.
• Aigaia, its students and staff have rights and responsibilities under this procedure. Consequently, students who have complaints must make them in good faith and without malice.
• All complaints investigated under this Student Complaints Policy will be treated confidentially. However, where necessary to conduct a fair investigation of the complaint, a copy of the written complaint (with any enclosures) will be forwarded to any member(s) of staff concerned in the complaint as part of the investigation.
• Anonymous complaints will not normally be considered. However, in exceptional cases, anonymity may be granted to a complainant and/or witnesses. In all such cases, the institution will be mindful of the need to act fairly in the interests of all parties concerned in the 

9.2.2 PROCEDURE

The Internal Quality Committee will monitor and review the number, level and type of complaints that are made over the course of each academic year. This data will form part of the measures used to assess and enhance the institutionsservices and the student experience. A report will be submitted annually to the Board.

Aigaia School of Art & Design defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction caused by a service of the institution, either failing to match the standards of service promised or failing to match the standards that it would be reasonable to expect.

Examples of grounds for complaint may include the following:

• A failing in Aigaia’s academic or support service
• Failure to meet obligations including those outlined in course/student handbooks and other materials provided by Aigaia
• Direct or indirect discrimination arising from disability
• Misleading or incorrect information in prospectuses or promotional materials or other publications of the institution
• The conduct of a member of staff

In order to raise a complaint students must be registered on one of the institution’s courses. If they have completed their studies and are therefore no longer registered, they will normally be allowed one further calendar month from the last day of their last term in which to raise a complaint.

Consideration of late complaints will only be given very exceptionally and in extreme circumstances, such as serious illness or hospitalisation during the time from a student’s last day present on the course, and where evidence of a valid reason for any delay is provided.

Complaints may be raised by an individual student or a group of students. Where a group complaint is raised, the group will normally be asked to nominate a lead correspondent as the main channel of communication between the institutionand the group. Complaints raised by third parties will only be accepted where express written consent has been given for the third party to act on behalf of the student(s).

If a student has any queries about this policy and how it might apply to them, they are able seek advice from the Director of Administration and Finance.

In the following paragraphs, the procedure which has to be followed in order for a complaint to be raised and submitted formally is thoroughly outlined as follows:

Aigaia School of Art & Design believes that most difficulties can be resolved at an early stage by talking informally with the individual(s) most concerned with the issue at the earliest opportunity. For example, if the complaint concerns academic matters, the student(s) may wish to talk to their Course Director,the Director of Program of Study or to the Director of Academic Studies. If the complaint is about a service, then the student(s) should talk to an appropriate member of staff from that service.

Where a student has attempted to resolve matters by informal discussion but is not satisfied with the outcome, the student may wish to initiate the complaints process by submitting in writing his/her complaint to the Academic Secretariat. A complaint should be raised within one calendar month of the actions or events that prompted the complaint. Consideration of late complaints will only be given very exceptionally and in severe circumstances.

 Receipt of complaints will be acknowledged by the Secretariat within 2 working days and a Local Investigating Officer (LIO) will be assigned by the institution depending on the nature of the complaint. 

Following the investigation, the LIO will make one the following determinations:

• that there is substance to all or part of the complaint; or
• that there is no substance to the complaint. 

The LIO will also determine what action(s) should be taken to address the cause of the difficulties that led to the complaint. This may include where there a finding of no substance, but the investigation identifies improvements to a service that would avoid similar future complaints.

Complainants will normally be provided with a proposed resolution to their complaint in writing (normally by email) within 2 weeks of raising a complaint. Occasionally complaints may take longer than this to investigate and/or resolve and in these circumstances complainants will be informed of any likely delay at the earliest opportunity, together with an indication of the anticipated timescale for response which in no case will exceed 1 month from the day of raising the complaint.

If students are dissatisfied with local attempts to resolve their complaint and wish to take the complaint further, they should send their complaint to the Director of Administration and Finance together with a copy of the written response received from LIO at the earliest stage of complaint. This complaint should be raised within 1 week from receiving the written response from LIO and within one month from the last day of the student’s last term.

At this stage, when submitting their complaint Student Complaint Form, the following information should also be provided:

• details of the complaint
• an outline of the steps that have already been taken to try and resolve the complaint and why the responses received are not considered satisfactory
• the desired resolution

Students must provide evidence to support their complaint. This could include witness statements, emails or written correspondence that support the complaint. Unless clearly stated that further evidence is to follow, investigation of this stage will not consider evidence submitted after this time. It is important for students to keep a copy of the form and any other documentation submitted for their records.

The Director of Administration & Finance will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 2 working days and appoint an impartial member of staff to act as the Investigating Officer (IO) who will be unrelated to the area under investigation.

Where a complaint is against a member of staff, a copy of the complaint (with any enclosures the institution considers appropriate) will normally be sent to them for their response.

Following the investigation, the IO will make one the following determinations:

• that there is no substance to the complaint
• that there is substance to all or part of the complaint; or
• that there is no substance to the complaint 

If the complaint is considered to have substance, the student(s) will be informed of the means to resolve or redress the complaint. If the complaint is deemed to have no substance, the student(s) can expect to be given an explanation. In all cases the student(s) will be informed in writing of the outcome of the complaint investigation within 15 days of submitting the complaint to the Director of Administration and Finance.

If the student is not satisfied with the decision taken in respect of the complaint they may be able to request a Case Review. The student(s) may only request a Case Review on one or more of the following grounds:

• any procedural irregularity which has materially disadvantaged the student in the investigation or outcome of the complaint;
• the emergence of new and relevant material that supports the complaint, that was not available at the time the complaint was first submitted;
• that the decision was unreasonable in all circumstances.

At this stage review will not consider issues that were not cited for investigation in the previous stage(s). Any request for review must be made in writing to the Internal Quality Committee within 15 days of the date of the letter informing the student(s) of the outcome of the formal investigation of their complaint and clearly set out on which ground(s) the review is being requested.

The Internal Quality Committee will appoint a nominee to review the case against the grounds set above. On completion of the review, the Internal Quality Committee’s nominee will make one of the following determinations:

• that the complaint has been investigated in accordance with institution’s procedures, that no new and relevant material has been presented and a reasonable outcome has been recommended.
• that the complaint has not been investigated in accordance with institution’s In this case the complaint will normally be referred back to previous stage of the process to be re-investigated by a new IO.
• that new and relevant material has come to light. In this case the Internal Quality Committee’s nominee may either recommend a new outcome or refer the complaint back to previous to be re-investigated by a new IO.
• that the recommended complaint outcome or resolution was not reasonable. In this case, the Internal Quality Committee’s nominee may recommend an alternative resolution.

The student(s) should be notified of the outcome of the review within 15 days and will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter (CoP). Where it is not possible to review a complaint within this timeframe, the student(s) will be informed of any likely delay at the earliest opportunity.

This is the final stage of the procedure within Aigaia. If the student is still dissatisfied, s/he may be entitled to refer the case according to his/her legal rights which in any case are reserved.

10. RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Aigaia’s continuing development and success is highly dependent on recruiting, engaging, developing and retaining staff who have the skills, knowledge, experience and dedication to deliver our mission to:

“offer the highest quality of art & design tertiary education and produce excellent contemporary art & design in a unique friendly, warm and professional environment providing the society with artists of highest ethical standards, in order to be established as the leading specialised School of Art & Design in Cyprus”.

This Policy provides a framework which supports equality of opportunity for job applicants and all our staff, and values the principles and requirements of our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy. It should be noted that recruitment and development should be in line with the conflict of interest policy of the school.

Our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy affirms our commitment to ensuring that no applicant for job recruitment or for studying at Aigaia or appointee is discriminated against on the grounds of: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; ethnic; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation.

Further to recruitment, this policy covers staff development and how this is promoted and supported this our institution.

10.2 STAFF RECRUITMENT

10.2.1 JOB DESCRIPTION AND PERSON SPECIFICATION

A Job Description and Person Specification is produced or updated for any vacant post that is to be filled. The Job Description sets out the main tasks of the job. The Person Specification states both the justifiable essential and desirable criteria in terms of qualifications, experience, skills and abilities, and personal qualities, all of which are directly related to the job and applied equally to all applicants.

In case of an academic staff post, Aigaia School of Art & Design will ensure by the appropriate Person Specification all successful applicants’ competence:

• as established researchers and/or practitioners in their ADM field
• as experienced/trained teachers in ADM
• to achieve the objectives and planned learning of the programmes of study offered by Aigaia and to ensure quality and sustainability of the teaching and learning.

The Job Description and Person Specification is being reviewed before finalisation in order to identify and address any issues that might prevent or deter disabled people from applying for the job.

Each post will be allocated a pay grade that sets out the minimum and maximum salary for that particular post together with details about conditions for salary increase. This salary increase is conditional upon the employee having a successful appraisal after 9 months (one academic year) of his/her employment.

A successful appraisal requires the following (this non-exhaustive list that may be amended by the Administrative Committee after the approval of the Board):

• The employee has been positively evaluated by his/her immediate supervisor and the Director of Academic Studies and/or Director of Administration & Finance accordingly.
• The appraisal documentation has been signed by both the appraiser and appraisee;
• The employee has met all compulsory training and any other specified requirements; and
• There are no causes of concern recorded by the appraiser within the appraisal.

10.2.2 ADVERTISING

Posts will be advertised in such media publications that are appropriate to the audience, that are likely to produce the best candidates (subject to budget considerations) and that will encourage applications from all sectors of the community, thereby reflecting our commitment to equality and diversity.

Details will also be posted on our website.

At the discretion of the Board, some posts will only be advertised internally, in order to provide staff with opportunities for career development. If a post is only advertised internally, this will be undertaken by circulating an email to all staff with details of the post.

10.2.3 APPLICATIONS

Applications are normally made by submitting a letter of application (addressing all the essential and desirable criteria in the Person Specification) and a CV.

Among others, within the spirit of our Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy:

• we do not ask applicants any questions about health or disability during the application and selection process.
• we fully support the rehabilitation of offenders and in this framework we will not deny an applicant the opportunity to better their life through employment on the grounds that the applicant has a criminal conviction. Some posts may involve frequent working with students. For this category of post, if an offer of employment is made, this offer will be made conditional on providing a certificate of (clean) criminal record. If any convictions are disclosed on the certificate, we would make an assessment to determine whether the convictions are such that, from a safeguarding perspective, the applicant could put the wellbeing of our students in danger. We will make clear in any job description and advertisement whether this exception applies.

It should be noted that all our employees are subject to our Staff Disciplinary and Performance Procedures that provide a framework to deal with any cases of staff misconduct.

10.2.4 SHORTLISTING

A decision on whether or not to shortlist an applicant is an open and fair one based exclusively on the information contained in the applicant’s letter of application and CV. An assessment is made initially against the essential criteria in the Person Specification. If too many applicants satisfy the essential criteria, an assessment is then made against the desirable criteria in order to determine the shortlist.

To avoid any unintended or unconscious bias, shortlisting will be carried out by at least two people and one of these will normally be the person to which the successful applicant will report provided that the conflict of interest policy of the institution is met.

10.2.5 SELECTION PROCESS

The primary selection process mainly includes an interview, the format of which will be the same for all candidates. Similarly, the same core interview questions will be consistently applied to all and will be based solely on the selection criteria. This ensures that all applicants are given the same opportunity to demonstrate that they are the best candidate for the post. In addition, depending upon the post and in special circumstances a shortlisted applicant may be required to make a presentation.

Interview is normally conducted by 3 persons and one of these will normally be the person to which the successful applicant will report provided that the conflict of interest policy of the institution is met. The composition of the interview team should include a representative from the Administrative and/or Academic Committes. It should be noted that composition of interview team should be in line with the conflict of interest policy of the institution.

The interview team, formally submits its interview report to the Board of the Institution which among others includes recommendation for appointment. After considering the interview team’s report the Board confirms its decision for appointment. Copies of the advertisement, lists of applicants, lists of applicants short listed, the report of the interview team and the minutes of the Board are retained.

Two references are required, but these are only requested after an applicant is offered a position. The offer will be made subject to the references being satisfactory.

10.2.6 COMPLAINTS

Any selection or appointment decision made is final and cannot be challenged. Any complaints made can only be in relation to the processes followed and should be sent to the Director of Administration and Finance for review. This review can only result in possible changes to processes and not a change in selection or appointment decisions.

10.3 STAFF DEVELOPMENT

We are committed to the development of all our staff to ensure each can play their part in enhancing our students’ educational experience. Our commitment to staff development is evidenced by the following:

• We provide comprehensive internal staff development and training opportunities for all our staff.
• Aigaia supports and provides remunerated training time within workload plans for its staff, i.e attend online courses as part of their professional development time like:
  • Contemporary Approaches to University Teaching (HE) (38 hrs) offered by CAULLT – Council of Australian University Leaders in Learning and Teaching
  • Get Interactive: Practical Teaching with Technology, coursera, Offered by University of London, Bloomsbury Learning exchange (15 hrs).
  • Introduction to Teaching and Learning for RQF Higher Nationals, Pearson Education
  • Introduction to teaching and Assessing the RQF Higher Nationals in Art & Design, Pearson Education
  • Assessment Planning and Assignment Writing Art Design RQF BTEC Higher Nationals, Pearson Education
  • Grading Standardisation Workshop for BTEC Higher Nationals Art and Design (RQF), offered by Pearson Education
• staff will be allocated remunerated time in order to work and research personal themes, topics, processes, techniques, issues and generally develop their personal interests and critically reflect on their personal practice.
• Teaching staff is trained in practice by progressively being engaged in teaching at lower educational levels provided by Aigaia, before being ready and consistently adequate to teach at Visual Arts Diploma 120 ECTS, Short Cycle EQF 5 or on any other educational programme of higher level provided by Aigaia.
• Staff Mentoring Scheme is provided for all new staff, including a comprehensive induction and the early flagging of staff development needs.
• Training of every member of Staff in QAE is provided as part of contract (for new staff) and as a % of their workload.

11. POLICY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

11.1 INTRODUCTION

Aigaia School of Art & Design recognises that its employees have diverse interests and contacts within the local, national and international community and it considers that links between its employees and outside bodies are often in the public interest as well as beneficial to the institution and to individuals. However, it also recognises that it is possible that such connections may give rise to potential conflicts of interest.

Aigaia recognises that, in general, individuals will recognise conflicts of interest and will want to ensure that there can be no perception of their receiving an inappropriate advantage and that they are personally beyond suspicion. It also recognises that, in most cases, potential conflicts of interest will be easily avoided or resolved by informal action either by the individual concerned or through discussion with their supervisor.

11.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Policy is to:

• assist in identifying conflicts of interest
• establish a system for disclosure of conflicts of interest
• provide guidance to those responsible for dealing with conflicts of interest
• assist in the resolution of conflicts of interest in order to protect the institution and its employees and its owners.

11.3 PRINCIPLES

This policy applies to all employees of the institution and relates to any actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest arising in connection with institution activities, provided the preservation of the private nature of the institution.

There is a need to balance the rights and responsibilities of employees and those of the institution in relation to the management of conflict of interest.

Each employee has an obligation to act in the best interests of the institution in relation to their duties, activities and employment.

Aigaia has obligations to its employees:

• not to interfere in their private concerns where these have no bearing on the legitimate interests of the institution; and
• to deal with issues raised under this Policy in a prompt, fair, reasonable and objective manner, paying due attention to the effects of any actions on an employee’s work, career and reputation.

The existence of an actual, perceived or potential conflict of interest does not necessarily imply wrongdoing on anyone’s part. However, any private, personal or commercial interests which give rise to such a conflict of interest must be recognised, disclosed appropriately and either eliminated or properly managed.

11.4 DEFINITIONS

Conflict of Interest: A situation in which an employee has a private or personal interest which is likely to appear to influence the objective exercise of an aspect(s) of their institution duties. For the purpose of this Policy, the term ‘conflict of interest’ includes perceived and potential as well as actual conflicts of interest.

• a perceived conflict of interest is one which a reasonable person would consider likely to compromise objectivity
• a potential conflict of interest is a situation which could develop into an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

Private, personal or commercial interest: A financial or non-financial interest to the employee, or to a relative or friend of the employee.

Financial interest refers to anything of non-trivial monetary value, including, but not limited to, pay, commission, consultancy fees, equity interests, forgiveness of debt, property, royalties, and intellectual property rights.

Non-financial interest refers to any non-financial benefit or advantage, including, but not limited to, enhancement of an individual’s career, education or professional reputation; access to privileged information or facilities.

Relative or friend: Given the private nature of the institution, any member of an employee’s close family (i.e. spouse, civil partner, parents, siblings or children); their partner; close personal friends; any person with whom the employee has an intimate relationship or any other person with whom the employee has a relationship which is likely to appear, to a reasonable person, to influence their objectivity.

The Reviewer: The person to whom the conflict of interest has been disclosed.

11.5 DETERMINING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

In order to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, it should be determined whether the private, personal or commercial interest is likely to interfere, or appear to interfere, with the objective judgement the employee should show in performing their institution duties. An employee must consider if relevant others (e.g. managers, students, customers, colleagues, members of the public) would trust the employee’s judgement if they were in possession of the facts of the private, personal or commercial interest. Could others reasonably conclude that it might influence the employee to act other than in the interests of the institution?

Serious conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, the following points:

• An employee using their institution position to:
  • influence a contract or other favorable terms for a company in which they, or a relative or friend, had a financial interest;
  • influence employment, promotion, admission to a course of study, educational progression or other financial or non-financial benefit for a relative or friend despite the interest of the institution and its owners; or
  • obtain financial or non-financial benefits for him/herself or for a relative or friend in return for providing advantage, or potential advantage.
• An employee compromising research objectivity or independence in return for financial or non-financial benefit for them or for a relative or friend.
• An employee using institution resources or confidential information obtained through their institution position for personal financial or non-financial benefit, or benefit to a relative or friend.
• An employee conducting business, employment or activity outwith the institution, which adversely affects the employee’s ability to perform their duties.

If an employee believes there may be a conflict of interest, but is unsure, they should assume that there is a conflict of interest and act accordingly. Similarly, if a manager becomes aware of a possible conflict of interest, which the relevant employee appears not to have considered, the manager must bring it to the employee’s attention for appropriate consideration.

11.6 DISCLOSURE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The responsibility for identifying and avoiding conflict of interest, in the first instance, lies with the individual employee. If a conflict of interest situation arises, the employee must disclose the conflict of interest in writing, and seek a resolution. They must then take no part in the matter(s) relating to that interest unless, and until such time as the potential conflict is resolved.

Conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the employee’s line manager, except where the interest relates to institution activities outwith the control of that manager, in which case the conflict must be disclosed to the person responsible for those activities and the line manager must also be informed.

Where there is any doubt who is responsible for the activity, disclosure must be made to the line manager. Where an employee identifies a potential conflict of interest, but does not wish to reveal the details to their line manager and has been unable to withdraw from the situation, they should seek advice from the Director of Administration and Finance.

Disclosure must include sufficient information to enable appropriate resolution, which is likely to include: the type of potential conflict of interest, the nature of the activity, a description of all parties involved, the potential financial or non-financial interests or benefits, and any other relevant information.

The confidentiality of disclosures will be respected as far as possible; the information will only be shared with those with a need to know. The Reviewer must keep a written record of the disclosure and all subsequent related actions and decisions. The Reviewer will provide the employee with a written record of the decision made, including where the decision is that no action is required.

Failure to disclose an actual or perceived conflict of interest, or to cease involvement in the situation until the conflict has been resolved, constitutes a breach of the employee’s contract of employment and may result in disciplinary action, and in serious cases could result in dismissal. In determining whether disciplinary action is appropriate, consideration will be given to the extent to which the employee could reasonably have been aware of the actual or perceived conflict of interest and/or made a reasonable decision not to declare it.

11.7 RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Once a conflict has been disclosed, the Reviewer is responsible for resolving the conflict of interest as soon as is reasonably practicable. Until that time, the employee must take no part in the particular activity relating to the potential conflict. Every effort should be made to reach agreement with the employee regarding the solution. Resolution of the conflict may not go beyond the scope of the employee’s contractual obligations (explicit or implicit) without the employee’s agreement.

Advice should be sought from colleagues in the relevant professional areas, as appropriate. Where the Reviewer is unable to decide how to resolve the conflict of interest, or, particularly in more significant cases, wishes to have the advice and authority of a more senior colleague (or where the Reviewer also has a conflict of interest), the matter must be referred to the Reviewer’s manager, who will then become the Reviewer.

Where a resolution cannot be reached within one working week, the Reviewer must make a preliminary decision – after a Board approval – to either:

• permit the employee to continue the activity in the interim, possibly with modifications; or
• require the employee to continue to suspend involvement in the relevant activity pending final resolution.

The employee must be notified of the preliminary decision within one working week and reasons must be provided where they are required to continue to suspend involvement in the activity.

In most cases, the solution will be one of the following scenarios provided that it does not go beyond the scope of the employee’s contractual obligations:

• Agreement that there is no conflict of interest, or that it is not sufficient to be of any concern to the institution.
• Agreement to allow the activity to continue with modifications. Options for modifications include:

• disclosure of all pertinent information to other relevant individuals;
• exclusion from, or third party review of any decision-making/authorization;
• revisions to the research proposal or other plans;
• reduction of involvement in the activity;
• close monitoring of the activity;
• termination of involvement by others (e.g. a relative or friend) in the activity;
• divestiture of relevant personal interests; and/or
• reimbursement by the employee to the institution for indirect costs or for the use of facilities.

The employee will cease to be involved in any way with the activity presenting the conflict of interest. Where no alternative can be agreed upon, this will be the solution, by default provided that does not go beyond the scope of the employee’s contractual obligations and/or the interest of the institution as expressed by its owners.

In any meeting for the purpose of agreeing a solution to the conflict, the employee is entitled to be accompanied.

Where agreement cannot be reached, and the employee is not satisfied with the decision, they may take the matter up to the Board.

In all cases, in order to protect the interests of the employee, the Reviewer and the institution, the Reviewer must keep a record of the disclosure and solution to the conflict of interest, and provide a copy to both the employee and the relevant Director of Administration and Finance for appropriate filing. This includes where the decision is to take no action. Where a conflict of interest is ongoing, it is important that the current and future line managers are aware of it. The line manager (if different from the Reviewer) must be informed and must keep a record to pass to their successor (normally on the personal file), with the knowledge of the employee.

If the conflict of interest ends, the employee must inform the Reviewer in writing. The Reviewer will assess the situation and any arrangements previously put in place, and inform the employee of the outcome of this review in writing. The employee will and the Director of Administration & Finance will both receive a written record of the decision.

APPENDIX “1”: Course / Teaching Evaluation Questionnaire for (Visual Arts Diploma 120 ECTS, Short Cycle EQF 5 Students

Your participation in the evaluation process of the courses of the Visual Arts Diploma 120 ECTS, short Cycle EQF 5 is volunteer and anonymous. By completing the questionnaire, you contribute significantly to the continuous improvement of the quality of the educational process and the services provided by Aigaia School of Art & Design.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please rate the following statements by blackening the relevant circle (●)

•  Please carefully complete all sections.
•  Your qualitative comments, which you can provide in section F, are especially valuable.

 

A. Evaluation of the Course……………………………………………………………………

How satisfied are you with:

	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
the Program content?
how well the subject was covered in the Program time available?
the results and quality of the Program in relation to your expectations?
the usefulness of the Program in relation to your (anticipated) professional needs?
how does this Program fit in the academic context to help you fulfil your future academic and/or employment plans?
how would you rate the Program overall?

 

B. Evaluation of the Instructor …………………………………………………………………

Please evaluate the instructor by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

The instructor:

	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
has a broad and deep knowledge of the subject.
provides sufficient teaching materials.
explains and answers questions clearly, using relevant examples when applicable.
motivates students to learn and participate.
provides sufficient support and feedback (both verbal – written) for the learning process?
provides both written and verbal feedback about student’s performance.
fulfils his/her obligations (is punctual and consistent with regards to lectures, office hours, grading).
how would you rate the instructor overall?

 

C. Evaluation of the teaching and learning materials

How satisfied are you with the:

	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
teaching and learning materials for the course?
case studies / exercises?
projects (team and/or individual)?
bibliography / references?
how would you rate teaching and learning materials overall?

 

D. Learning Outcomes

Indicate to what extend you have benefited from the course in terms of the following areas:

	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
Knowledge and understanding of the course subject, in accordance with the course syllabus.
problem solving abilities.
ability to collaborate and work in teams.
specialised knowledge.
ability to locate and analyse information related to the course subject.

 

 

E. Workshops

How satisfied are you with:

	Very Satisfied	Satisfied	Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very Dissatisfied
the instructor who taught the workshop session?
the role of the workshop in helping you better understand the course?
how would you rate the workshop overall?

 

 

F. Additional comments about the Course

Did the material taught in this course overlap with other courses?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Any other positive / negative remarks about the course

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Comments on your experience at Aigaia – what do you think should change / improve

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

AIGAIA_INSTITUTION SATISFACTION SURVEY

AIGAIA_STAFF SATISFACTION SURVEY

AIGAIA_PROGRESSION INFORMATION SURVEY

AIGAIA_SPECIFIC COURSE CONTENT_SATISFACTION SURVEY