Course Evaluation Evidence for Greek Accreditation (HAHE / ETHAAE): A Buyer's Guide

Greek universities preparing for accreditation by the Hellenic Authority for Higher Education (HAHE / ΕΘΑΑΕ, "ETHAAE") face a recurring problem: their student course-evaluation data exists, but it is hard to turn into the comparable, qualitative, action-linked evidence that an external panel actually wants to see. This guide maps HAHE's ESG-aligned requirements to concrete course-evaluation outputs, and shows where a modern evaluation platform helps — and where your existing MODIP processes remain essential.

The short answer

HAHE accredits both your Internal Quality Assurance System (IQAS) and your study programmes, on a roughly five-year cycle, against criteria harmonized with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015). Student feedback sits at the centre of several ESG standards. The accreditation panel is not just looking for satisfaction scores — it wants evidence that you systematically collect student feedback, analyse it meaningfully, and act on it, then review whether the action worked. Course-evaluation evidence that is standardized across departments, qualitatively rich, and linked to documented actions is far stronger than a folder of average Likert scores. That is the gap a tool like Koji is designed to fill, complementing — not replacing — your MODIP and OMEA governance.

How Greek accreditation works (briefly)

HAHE is Greece's autonomous quality-assurance authority, established in 2020 as the successor to the earlier agency (HQA/ADIP, operating since 2006), and supervised by the Ministry of Education. It is a member of ENQA and registered on EQAR, which means its accreditation is recognised across the European Higher Education Area.

Two bodies inside each institution do the internal work:

• MODIP (ΜΟΔΙΠ) — the institution-level Quality Assurance Unit, responsible for organising and operating the internal QA system and its supporting information system.
• OMEA (ΟΜΕΑ) — department-level Internal Evaluation Teams, which organise and monitor the completion of student course-and-instructor evaluation questionnaires and feed the results back to faculty.

In practice, students typically complete anonymous course-evaluation questionnaires around weeks 8–11 of each semester; OMEA coordinates this, MODIP aggregates it, and an external Panel of Independent Experts reviews the resulting evidence during accreditation. The trend, as HAHE itself signals, is toward evaluating qualitative outcomes rather than inputs.

Mapping ESG requirements to course-evaluation evidence

Because HAHE's criteria are harmonized with ESG 2015, the most useful way to prepare is to map each relevant ESG standard to the evidence your course evaluation should produce.

ESG standard (Part 1)	What HAHE panels look for	Course-evaluation evidence	Concrete Koji output
1.1 Policy for quality assurance	A documented, operating QA policy	Evidence the policy is used, not just written	Standardized evaluation running every term, with audit trail
1.3 Student-centred learning, teaching & assessment	Students experience appropriate teaching, fair assessment, and are heard	Qualitative evidence of the student experience of teaching and assessment	Conversational, themed evidence on teaching and assessment with representative quotes
1.7 Information management	Systematic collection, analysis and use of data	Reliable, comparable feedback data over time	Longitudinal, standardized dataset with automatic thematic analysis
1.9 Ongoing monitoring & periodic review of programmes	Programmes are monitored and revised based on feedback	Evidence feedback drives programme change	Action tracking linking findings to documented changes
2.x External QA / follow-up	Institution acts on recommendations and shows follow-up	A documented "you said / we did" loop	Closing-the-loop reporting per programme and cohort

The pattern is consistent: HAHE is less impressed by scores and more impressed by a functioning cycle — collection, analysis, action, review. Most institutions can show collection. Fewer can show analysis that goes beyond averages. Very few can show, in one place, that specific feedback led to a specific change that was then re-evaluated. That last step is where accreditation evidence is usually weakest, and where it is most worth strengthening.

Why the questionnaire-only approach falls short for accreditation

Traditional MODIP questionnaires are good at producing numbers. But an accreditation panel reading "Q7 averaged 4.1" learns almost nothing about why a programme works or does not. The valuable evidence lives in open-text comments — which, under a manual process, are often left uncoded because OMEA volunteers do not have time to theme hundreds of responses every semester. The result is a thick evidence file that is long on Likert tables and short on the qualitative narrative that demonstrates ESG 1.3 in action.

Three specific weaknesses recur:

1. No probing. A static questionnaire cannot ask "why?" when a student flags a problem, so the evidence stays shallow.
2. Inconsistent qualitative analysis. When themes are coded by different people in different departments, cross-programme comparability — which HAHE values — breaks down.
3. A broken loop. Feedback is collected but the link to action, and the re-evaluation of that action, is rarely documented in a way a panel can audit.

How Koji strengthens HAHE evidence

Koji is an AI-native course-evaluation platform built on a conversational interview engine (the same engine behind user and customer research on the main Koji platform). For Greek institutions, it maps onto HAHE requirements as follows:

• Standardized, bias-aware moderation gives every student a consistent, neutral interview — improving comparability across departments, exactly what MODIP needs for institution-level reporting.
• Conversational probing surfaces the why behind ratings, producing the qualitative evidence ESG 1.3 expects.
• Automatic thematic analysis themes open responses with representative quotes and sentiment, so OMEA and MODIP get an analysed synthesis instead of a backlog of raw comments.
• Longitudinal cohort reporting shows trends across semesters and cohorts, supporting ESG 1.7 information management and ESG 1.9 periodic review.
• Action tracking documents the closing-the-loop narrative — the "you said / we did" trail an external panel can audit.

When your existing MODIP process is the right tool

To be fair and precise: a modern evaluation platform does not replace MODIP or OMEA, and there are cases where your current system is what you need.

• Statutory numeric KPIs. If HAHE or your MODIP OPS mandates a fixed institutional questionnaire instrument and specific numeric indicators for statutory reporting, keep it — those KPIs may be required exactly as defined.
• Governance and legal responsibility. Accreditation governance, the formal internal-evaluation report, and the relationship with HAHE remain the responsibility of MODIP and the institution. A tool provides evidence; it does not provide accreditation.
• Established trust. If your community already trusts a particular questionnaire, the pragmatic path is to complement it — add conversational, qualitative depth and automatic analysis alongside the statutory numbers, rather than ripping out a working process.

The strongest accreditation submissions usually combine both: required numeric indicators from your established instrument, plus standardized qualitative evidence and a documented action loop that demonstrate the QA cycle is genuinely working.

A practical checklist for HAHE preparation

• Confirm which numeric indicators are required by your MODIP/HAHE process and keep producing them.
• Add a standardized qualitative layer that probes the why and themes responses consistently across departments.
• Ensure every significant finding is linked to a documented action — and that the action is re-evaluated next cycle.
• Build longitudinal views so the panel sees trends, not just one-off snapshots.
• Keep an audit trail: who was asked, when, how anonymity was preserved, and how data is handled under GDPR.

A worked example: from MODIP questionnaire to HAHE evidence

Consider a mid-sized department preparing for programme accreditation. Under a questionnaire-only process, OMEA collects 600 anonymous responses across eight modules. The numeric indicators are reported cleanly, but the 600 open-text comments sit largely unread because no one has time to code them. The internal-evaluation report ends up dominated by Likert tables, and when the external panel asks "how do you know students experience teaching as student-centred, and what did you change last cycle?", the honest answer is thin.

Now run the same eight modules with standardized conversational evaluation. The 600 responses are automatically themed — say, "assessment timing," "feedback turnaround," and "lab-session pacing" emerge as the dominant issues, each with representative anonymised quotes and a sentiment trend. OMEA selects "feedback turnaround" as a priority, the department commits to a two-week marking standard, and the action is logged. Next semester, the same evaluation shows the theme's prevalence falling. The accreditation file now contains exactly what HAHE's ESG-aligned criteria reward: collection, meaningful analysis, a documented action, and evidence the action worked — the full quality cycle, auditable in one place.

The numeric indicators have not gone away; they sit alongside this narrative. The difference is that the panel can now see the cycle turning, which is the single most persuasive thing an accreditation submission can demonstrate.

Related Resources

• Course Evaluation Evidence for NVAO Accreditation
• Turning Student Feedback into ESG Accreditation Evidence
• Course Evaluation Evidence for Italian Accreditation (ANVUR / AVA)
• Course Evaluation Evidence for Spanish Accreditation (ANECA)
• Course Evaluation Evidence for Romanian Accreditation (ARACIS)
• Course Evaluation Evidence for UK Accreditation (TEF / QAA)

See how Koji supports Greek accreditation evidence at edu.koji.so.