• Español

Master's Degrees

  1. Home
  2. Quality
  3. Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance

1. Those responsible for the internal quality assurance system (SGIC)

The sole person responsible for ensuring the internal quality of the degrees taught at the School of Philology will be the Dean or the person delegated by them, who will chair the Center's Quality Committee, which has regulations approved on January 31, 2019.

School's Quality Committee

The School's Quality Committee is ultimately responsible for the quality of the degrees. This Committee, approved by the Center Board, is specifically dedicated to ensuring the quality of the degrees. Its operation is subject to specific regulations to be approved by the Board. This Committee is made up of its chair, the person responsible for quality for each degree, who must be a professor, and a representative from each of the University Community groups (professors, students, and administrative and service staff), elected by the Faculty Board. External agents are invited to attend decision-making and improvement proposal meetings on an ad hoc basis, depending on their professional expertise. These agents may be chosen from among experts appointed by regional or state evaluation agencies or experts in quality evaluation from other universities, or representatives of professional associations, companies, or organizations related to the degree program.

 

The School's Quality Committee (hereinafter, Quality Committee) has the following functions:

  1. Establishing the Center's quality policy, in accordance with the UCM's quality policy.
  2. Establishing and modifying the quality objectives for each degree program taught at the Center, after consulting with the Degree Program Quality Committee.
  3. Monitoring and coordinating the Center's Internal Quality Assurance System.
  4. Managing and coordinating all aspects related to this system.
  5. Monitoring and evaluating the quality objectives of all the Center's degrees.
  6. Making proposals for improvement, implementing them, and monitoring them.
  7. Preparing an annual report on its activities and a plan for improving the degrees, which must be approved and disseminated by the Center's Board.


The Quality Committee for the Master's Degree in Research in English-Language Literatures and Cultures consists of:

  • Chair: The degree coordinator, Dr. Laura de la Parra Fernández (PDI, Department of English Studies).
  • Secretary: Dr. Cristina Salcedo González (PDI, Department of English Studies).
  • Member 1: Dr. Rebeca Gualberto Valverde (PDI, Department of English Studies).
  • Member 2: David Amezcua Gómez (PDI, Department of English Studies).
  • Student representative.
  • Administrative staff representative: Antonio Solís Lozano (Administrative staff, Department of English Studies)
  • External member: Dr. Paula Barba Guerrero (PDI, Department of English Philology, University of Salamanca).

The functions of the Master's Degree Quality Committee will be as follows:

  1. Proposing the quality objectives of the degree program, or their modification, where appropriate.
  2. Collecting information and evidence on the development and implementation of the degree program (objectives, teaching and learning development, and others).
  3. Managing the degree program's information system.
  4. Making proposals for improvement.
  5. Preparing an annual report on its activities and propose a plan for improving the degree program to the Center's Quality Committee, which must be studied and approved by the Center's Quality Committee and the Center's Board.
  6. Monitoring and evaluate the quality objectives of the degree program.

With regard to the functioning and decision-making of the Center's Quality Committee and the Master's Degree Quality Committee:

  • Meetings shall be held every four months, preferably at the beginning, middle, and end of the academic year, without prejudice to the possibility of extraordinary meetings being called if circumstances so require.
  • Decisions will be taken by simple majority, except in the case of a proposal to discontinue a degree program, in which case an absolute majority will be required and, in addition, the reasoned proposal must be endorsed by the Department Council and the Center Board. The measures adopted will be communicated to those involved and, if necessary, to the Faculty Board for ratification.

 

Procedures for the Evaluation and Improvement of the Quality of Teaching and Faculty

2.1. Quality of Teaching

The School’s Quality Committee shall prepare an annual report on the progress of the Master’s program, gathering information from:

  • The School’s Student Affairs Office and academic management software programs (GEA).

  • The Academic Coordination and Management Service.

  • The School administration where the degree is based: Faculty of Philology.

  • The Master’s Quality Committee.

  • Other information-gathering procedures included in the Degree Information System.

This report shall include and analyze information on the following aspects:

  • Dissemination of the academic program.

  • Student access and admission, including welcome and mentoring plans.

  • Coordination among the program’s teaching staff.

  • Academic guidance for students and career orientation.

  • Program resources and infrastructure.

  • Structure and characteristics of the teaching staff and support personnel.

  • General information on enrollment and teaching group structure, student mobility, visiting faculty mobility, and related matters.

The School’s Quality Committee shall draft a proposal for improvements to be submitted to the School Board for approval. The monitoring of the implementation of approved improvements shall be carried out by the School’s Quality Committee, which shall prepare the corresponding follow-up report and disseminate it as specified in the Information System.

 

2.2. Faculty Evaluation and Quality

The model for evaluating teaching activity at the UCM—Docentia-UCM Program—was approved by the Governing Council on July 5, 2016. The DOCENTIA-UCM model was verified by the Fundación para el Conocimiento Madrid+D in 2016, and its certification was issued in the Final Report of the Evaluation Committee of the Madrid Knowledge Foundation on December 9, 2022.

Faculty members shall be evaluated at least every three years. The effects and consequences of the evaluation for faculty members and for the degree program shall be those established by the Universidad Complutense de Madrid under the Docentia Program.

 

2.3. Satisfaction of Stakeholders Involved in the Degree

The Complutense Office for Quality and the University’s IT Services make annual satisfaction surveys available to faculty, students, and support staff of programs adapted to the European Higher Education Area. The UCM Office for Quality designs the questionnaires and processes the collected information.

The Master’s Quality Committee in Research in Anglophone Literatures and Cultures receives and analyzes the results of these surveys, together with other data and indicators provided by the Degree Information System, in order to develop proposals for review and improvement of the program.

 

2.4. Procedure of action

The system for handling complaints and suggestions (legitimacy, submission procedures, deadlines, and processing) shall essentially follow the procedure established by the UCM University Ombudsperson, as set forth in Title V (Articles 25–32) of the Regulations of the University Ombudsperson of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, approved by the University Senate on November 16, 2005. Likewise, in processing cases before the School Committee, all legally established guarantees for administrative procedures shall be observed.

 

2.4.1. Complaints and Suggestions

  1. Complaints shall be submitted in writing by the interested party and must include personal details, the sector of the university community to which they belong, and an address for notification. The complaint must clearly specify the facts giving rise to it, the grounds and scope of the claim, and the request addressed to the Committee. Complaints may be submitted in any format; however, forms to facilitate submission will be made available on the School’s website. Interested parties may request these forms from the Quality Committee, as well as guidance in completing them, or may submit their own written complaint.
  2. The School’s Quality Committee shall register all complaints and send acknowledgment of receipt. For this purpose, the Committee shall maintain its own confidential registry, separate from the general registry system of the Universidad Complutense.
  3. The Committee shall not admit anonymous complaints, those lacking sufficient grounds or specific claims, or those whose processing would infringe upon the legitimate rights of third parties. In all cases, the reasons for non-admission shall be communicated in writing.
  4. The Committee shall not examine complaints that are pending judicial or administrative resolution and shall suspend proceedings if, during processing, an administrative or judicial procedure is initiated. However, this shall not prevent investigation of general issues raised in the complaint.
  5. Once admitted, the Committee shall initiate the appropriate investigation and inform any individuals who may be affected. During the investigation phase, relevant actions shall be undertaken, including review of documentation and personal interviews. The Committee may also request external reports where appropriate.
  6. Upon conclusion, the Committee shall notify the interested parties and communicate its resolution to the affected university body, including any recommendations for remedying identified deficiencies.
  7. A resolution shall be issued within three months from the date the complaint was admitted.

 

2.4.2. Suggestions

A Suggestion Box shall also be made available to faculty, students, and administrative and service staff for proposals aimed at improving the quality of the degree.

Decisions and resolutions of the Master’s Quality Committee shall not be considered administrative acts, shall not be subject to appeal, shall not be legally binding, and shall not in themselves modify decisions or resolutions issued by University governing bodies.

The procedure for filing complaints shall comply with Law 30/1992, of November 26, on the Legal Regime of Public Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure (Official State Gazette of November 27, 1992), as amended by Law 4/1999, of January 13 (Official State Gazette of January 14, 1999).

All information and analysis concerning satisfaction surveys and the handling of suggestions and complaints shall be incorporated into the Degree Information System. This information shall be used by the Quality Committee in its reports and proposals for revision and improvement of the curriculum and submitted to the School Board for implementation, with the aim of achieving continuous improvement in training satisfaction.

 

2.5. Achievement of Learning Objectives and Learning Outcomes

The overall and final educational objectives of the Master’s program are assessed through the Master’s Thesis, as well as through data collected in teaching quality evaluations, faculty assessments, and graduate employability surveys. The following indicators shall also be used, together with faculty and student feedback from satisfaction surveys:

  • Efficiency rate: percentage ratio between the total number of credits established in the curriculum and the total number of credits in which graduates have enrolled throughout their studies in a given academic year.

  • Dropout rate: percentage ratio between the total number of students in a new-entry cohort who should have completed the program in the previous academic year and who did not enroll either in that year or the preceding one.

  • Graduation rate: percentage of students who complete the program within the time established in the curriculum (d) or within one additional year (d+1), in relation to their entry cohort.

  • Academic performance rate: percentage of credits passed in relation to credits enrolled.

 

3. Procedure to Ensure the Quality of Mobility Programs

Mobility programs shall be monitored and evaluated to enable continuous improvement through review and enhancement proposals by the Master’s Quality Committee. Information shall be collected and analyzed as follows:

  • Individual reports from participating students, specifying:
    a) the degree of alignment between the activity and the program’s expectations;
    b) satisfaction of outgoing and incoming students;
    c) satisfaction with program management.

  • Reports from mobility coordinators or program directors, specifying the degree of compliance with planned activities and proposals for improvement.

The School’s Quality Committee shall analyze the information collected and implement actions to correct or improve mobility programs as needed.

 

4. Procedures for Analyzing Graduate Employability and Satisfaction with Training

Two years after the graduation of the first cohort of the Master’s in Research in Anglophone Literatures and Cultures, surveys promoted by the University Rector’s Office, with participation from the Office for Quality, shall be conducted to determine graduate employability rates and satisfaction with the training received.

The Master’s Quality Committee shall evaluate this information and submit improvement proposals to the Faculty Board for approval and implementation. The findings shall also be communicated to the Master’s Committee and the Department Council to adopt measures aligned with labor market needs and ensure successful graduate integration.

 

5. Procedure for Analyzing Satisfaction of Stakeholders and Criteria in Case of Program Discontinuation

5.1. Satisfaction of Stakeholders

An Information System shall be created to systematically collect data necessary for monitoring and evaluating the quality of the degree and its development, as well as improvement proposals. The Master’s Quality Committee shall receive technical support from the UCM Office for Quality, particularly in implementing the Docentia Program, satisfaction surveys, and employability measurement.

The Academic Management Office shall provide enrollment and records data to prepare the relevant indicators.

The Information System shall include:

  • Annual report on program performance.

  • Improvement proposals and follow-up actions.

  • Faculty evaluation through the Docentia Program.

  • Coordination meetings and annual planning.

  • Satisfaction survey results.

  • The complaints and suggestions system.

  • Academic management database information.

  • Graduate employability survey results.

Evaluation results shall be reviewed annually by the Master’s Quality Committee, which shall propose corrective measures as needed.

Throughout the academic year, faculty and tutors shall encourage students to contribute suggestions for improvement. These suggestions and complaints shall be compiled in a report submitted to the School’s Quality Committee.

 

5.2. Specific Criteria in the Event of Program Discontinuation

Grounds for discontinuation of the Master’s in Research in Anglophone Literatures and Cultures include:

  • Failure to pass the accreditation evaluation process (Article 27 of Royal Decree 1393/2007) without remediation through an adjustment plan.

  • Substantial curriculum modifications altering the objectives or nature of the degree (Article 28 of Royal Decree 1393/2007).

  • A reasoned request by the Faculty Board or by the UCM Governing Council or the Community of Madrid, in accordance with legal authority.

In the event of discontinuation:

  • No new students shall be admitted.

  • Specific tutoring and guidance actions shall be implemented for students retaking subjects.

  • Students’ right to assessment shall be guaranteed until examination opportunities established in UCM regulations are exhausted.

 

5.3. Dissemination of Results of the Internal Quality Assurance System

The School shall be responsible for disseminating quality results obtained through the Internal Quality Assurance System. Relevant information shall be made available to the university community and society through the website.

At least, the following information shall be published:

  • The internal monitoring report of the degree and UCM’s internal monitoring report.

  • Information related to the characteristics of the degree.

  • Registration in the RUCT and results of verification, monitoring, and accreditation renewal processes conducted by the external agency.