Course Evaluation Evidence for Central European Accreditation: Czech NAÚ, Hungarian MAB & Slovak SAAVŠ

For quality-assurance directors and institutional-research leads in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia, accreditation increasingly turns on one question: can you show that student feedback is collected systematically, analysed credibly, and acted on — and can you prove the loop closed? All three national agencies build their standards on the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015), so the evidence expectations rhyme across borders even though the procedures differ. This guide maps what the Czech National Accreditation Bureau (NAÚ), the Hungarian Accreditation Committee (MAB) and the Slovak Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (SAAVŠ/SAAHE) look for, and shows how to produce it.

The short answer: each agency assesses your internal quality system, not just individual programmes. Student course evaluation is one of the core mechanisms that system must demonstrate — but ratings alone are not evidence. What auditors want is the full cycle: standardized collection, defensible analysis, documented decisions, and proof of follow-through over time.

The three agencies at a glance

	Czech Republic — NAÚ	Hungary — MAB	Slovakia — SAAVŠ / SAAHE
Body	Národní akreditační úřad pro vysoké školství (National Accreditation Bureau)	Magyar Felsőoktatási Akkreditációs Bizottság (Hungarian Accreditation Committee)	Slovenská akreditačná agentúra pre vysoké školstvo
Established	2016 (succeeded the Accreditation Commission of 1990)	1993	2018 (Quality Assurance Act)
Core remit	Institutional accreditation, programme accreditation, external evaluation of internal QA	External evaluation of education, research and internal QA systems	External QA; assesses internal-system and study-programme standards
Framework	Standards for Accreditation, aligned with ESG / EHEA	ESG-based accreditation procedure	Standards for the Internal System & Study Programme, following ESG 2015
ENQA / EQAR	ENQA member, EQAR registered	ENQA member, EQAR registered	ENQA member, EQAR registered
Notable feature	Methodological support for internal QA	Uses national/international student assessments and Graduate Career Tracking	Runs a national student-satisfaction survey ("Akademická štvrťhodinka") feeding review panels

Agency names, dates and remits as published by each agency, ENQA and EQAR at time of writing. Always check the current standards version before an audit, as procedures are periodically revised.

What "accreditation-ready evidence" actually means

Across all three systems — and the ESG they share — student feedback evidence has to satisfy four expectations. These map directly to ESG Part 1: 1.3 student-centred learning, 1.4 student admission/progression, 1.7 information management, and 1.9 on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes.

1. Systematic, standardized collection. Feedback is gathered for every programme on a defined cycle, with comparable instruments — not ad hoc, not only where teachers opt in.
2. Credible analysis. Quantitative results are interpreted responsibly (response rates, uncertainty, cohort differences), and qualitative comments are analysed thematically rather than cherry-picked.
3. Documented decisions. It is clear who reviewed the evidence, what they concluded, and what changes were agreed.
4. Closed loop, over time. There is proof that agreed actions were implemented and that subsequent cohorts saw the effect — the part reviewers most often find missing.

A pile of Likert averages fails three of these four. This is where the method of evaluation, not just the tool, determines whether an audit goes smoothly.

Mapping each requirement to concrete Koji outputs

Koji is an AI-native course-evaluation platform built on moderated conversational interviews. The table below maps common Central European accreditation expectations to the specific evidence a Koji-based process produces.

Accreditation expectation (NAÚ / MAB / SAAVŠ, via ESG)	Concrete evaluation output
Systematic collection across all programmes (ESG 1.9)	Standardized interview protocol run on a fixed cycle, with comparable structure across courses, cohorts and campuses
Student-centred learning evidenced (ESG 1.3)	Conversational interviews that capture how students experienced learning and assessment — the reasons, not just scores
Credible qualitative analysis	Automatic thematic analysis with traceable themes back to anonymised excerpts, defensible against "you only quoted the angry students"
Responsible quantitative interpretation	Response-rate reporting, cohort breakdowns and longitudinal trends rather than bare averages
Documented decisions and follow-through (ESG 1.9)	Native action tracking: who decided what, and whether it was implemented
Information management (ESG 1.7)	Centralised, exportable records suitable for self-evaluation reports and review-panel scrutiny
Comparability for multi-campus / transnational provision	Consistent, standardized AI moderation applied to every student, reducing variability between groups
Longitudinal cohort reporting for periodic review	Trend reporting across academic years to evidence that changes had effect

The differentiator for an audit is standardization plus depth. Because the AI moderator probes consistently, every cohort is questioned the same way — which is exactly the comparability reviewers want — while still capturing the qualitative why that static Likert surveys miss. And because action tracking is native, the closed-loop evidence is a report, not a reconstruction from committee minutes.

Country-specific notes

Czech Republic (NAÚ). NAÚ accredits both institutions and study programmes and conducts systematic external evaluation of internal quality systems, offering methodological support for internal QA. For institutional accreditation in particular, you must show your internal system works — student feedback that visibly drives programme review is strong evidence here. Document the cycle, the analysis, and the resulting changes for each evaluated programme.

Hungary (MAB). MAB evaluates the operation of institutions and their internal quality-assurance systems within the ESG framework, and explicitly recognises feedback mechanisms including national and international student assessments and the Graduate Career Tracking System (Diplomás Pályakövetési Rendszer). Course-level qualitative evidence complements these national datasets: where DPR tells you what graduates experienced at a distance, in-course conversational evaluation tells you why, in time to act. Aligning the two strengthens a MAB self-evaluation.

Slovakia (SAAVŠ/SAAHE). SAAVŠ assesses compliance of the internal system with its Standards for the Internal System and Standards for the Study Programme, and it runs its own national student-satisfaction survey ("Akademická štvrťhodinka" / "Quarter to Quality Education"), whose results feed review panels assessing accreditation applications. Because the agency itself uses survey data, institutions are wise to bring richer, course-level qualitative evidence that goes beyond satisfaction scores — showing not just that students are satisfied but what drove specific improvements.

When a different approach may fit better

In the spirit of honesty for an evidence-driven audience: if your institution's immediate accreditation gap is purely a national-survey participation requirement (as with Slovakia's centrally run survey), you may not need an additional platform to satisfy that specific line item — participation is mandatory regardless of tool. Likewise, if you already operate a mature, well-documented evaluation cycle on an existing EU-hosted survey platform and your reviewers have not flagged qualitative depth or closing-the-loop as weaknesses, the case for change is weaker. Koji's advantage is sharpest where reviewers have noted thin open-text evidence, inconsistent collection across programmes, or unproven follow-through — the failure modes that recur in ESG-based reviews. Match the investment to the gap.

A practical evidence checklist

Before a NAÚ, MAB or SAAVŠ review, confirm you can produce, for each programme:

• The evaluation instrument and the cycle on which it runs (standardized across programmes).
• Response rates and how you account for non-response in interpretation.
• A thematic analysis of qualitative feedback with traceable, anonymised excerpts.
• A record of decisions taken in response, with owners and dates.
• Evidence that agreed actions were implemented and the effect on later cohorts.
• Longitudinal trends spanning at least one full review period.

If any line is missing, that is your priority before the panel arrives.

Related Resources

• Course evaluation evidence for NVAO accreditation
• Turning student feedback into ESG accreditation evidence
• Course evaluation evidence for Baltic accreditation (HAKA, AIKA, SKVC)
• Course evaluation evidence for Polish accreditation (PKA)
• Course evaluation evidence for Romanian accreditation (ARACIS)
• Course evaluation evidence for the European Approach to joint programmes

The conversational interview engine behind Koji's education product is the same one used for customer and user research on the main Koji platform — applied here to produce accreditation-grade evidence for European quality assurance.

Preparing for a NAÚ, MAB or SAAVŠ review? See how Koji turns standardized, conversational course feedback into the closed-loop evidence Central European reviewers expect.