Course Evaluation Evidence for A3ES Accreditation (Portugal): A Quality-Assurance Guide

In one sentence: For A3ES — Portugal''s Agência de Avaliação e Acreditação do Ensino Superior — student course-evaluation feedback only becomes useful accreditation evidence when it is collected systematically across every curricular unit, analysed consistently, and demonstrably acted upon; this guide maps each A3ES/ESG expectation to the concrete outputs an institution needs, and shows where a modern AI-native evaluation engine like Koji removes the manual work.

Who A3ES is and what it assesses

A3ES is Portugal''s independent quality-assurance agency, a full member of ENQA and registered on EQAR, which signals that its processes meet the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG 2015). Its mission is to improve the quality of Portuguese higher education and to integrate Portugal into the European quality-assurance system. A3ES runs two distinct but connected processes that both depend on student-feedback evidence:

1. Study-programme assessment and accreditation. Compulsory ex-ante accreditation of new programmes and ex-post assessment/accreditation of existing degree programmes across all three cycles (licenciatura, mestrado, doutoramento). The self-assessment report (relatório de autoavaliação) must show how the programme is monitored and improved — including evidence from pedagogical surveys (inquéritos pedagógicos) and what changes that feedback produced.
2. Institutional assessment and certification of the internal quality-assurance system (SIGQ). A3ES assesses whether an institution''s SIGQ — its rules and procedures for evaluating programmes and activities — is fit for purpose. From the second assessment cycle (2022 onward), the previously voluntary audit/certification of internal QA systems was integrated into institutional assessment. SIGQ benchmarks are explicitly built on ESG 2015 and the Bologna framework.

In both processes, A3ES applies explicit, published criteria from its evaluation manuals, and student feedback sits at the centre of the evidence base.

Why raw survey data is not yet evidence

Most Portuguese institutions already run inquéritos pedagógicos every semester. The problem A3ES reviewers repeatedly probe is not collection — it is the quality loop: is the feedback representative, is it analysed consistently, and can the institution show that it acted on it and reviewed the effect? A folder of average Likert scores per curricular unit, with low response rates and unread free-text comments, is weak evidence. What earns accreditation is standardised collection, credible analysis, and a documented, closed loop.

Mapping A3ES / ESG expectations to concrete outputs

The table below maps the expectations A3ES evaluators look for (aligned to ESG 2015 Part 1) to the evaluation outputs that satisfy them. Specific reference-standard numbering should always be checked against the current A3ES manual for your process, but the underlying ESG alignment is stable.

A3ES / ESG expectation	What evaluators look for	Concrete evaluation output	How Koji produces it
Pedagogical surveys / student feedback (ESG 1.3, 1.7)	Systematic feedback across all curricular units, with adequate response and depth	Standardised per-unit evidence with meaningful response	AI-moderated interviews lift depth and engagement per course
Student-centred learning (ESG 1.3)	Feedback informs teaching and learning, not just satisfaction scores	Formative + summative feedback on learning, workload, assessment	Mid-semester formative pulses plus end-of-term evaluation in one engine
Programme design, monitoring and periodic review (ESG 1.2, 1.9)	Evidence that programmes are monitored and revised using feedback	Longitudinal, cohort-level reporting over time	Automatic cohort trend reporting across semesters
Acting on results / closing the loop	Documented actions taken in response to feedback	"You said, we did" records linking themes to actions	Built-in action tracking tied to identified themes
Information management (ESG 1.7)	Reliable, structured data to manage the SIGQ	Exportable, standardised evidence base	Structured, exportable outputs by unit, programme, cohort
Public information (ESG 1.8)	Clear, fair public-facing information	Aggregate, threshold-safe reporting	Aggregated reports with small-cohort protection
Fairness and comparability	Feedback elicited consistently and fairly across units	Bias-aware, standardised collection	Calibrated moderation applied uniformly across courses

From inquéritos pedagógicos to an accreditation-ready dossier

A defensible A3ES evidence trail has four layers, and a modern evaluation engine builds them as a by-product of normal operation:

1. Standardised collection. Every curricular unit is evaluated with the same calibrated logic, so cross-unit comparison is fair. Conversational, AI-moderated interviews also tend to lift both response engagement and the usefulness of what students say, which directly addresses the representativeness question reviewers raise.
2. Consistent analysis. Open-text comments are themed automatically rather than read ad hoc, removing the inconsistency of different coordinators interpreting feedback differently — and removing the manual burden that makes thorough analysis impossible at scale.
3. Closed loop. Each significant theme links to a recorded action and a later review, producing the "you said, we did" documentation that is the strongest single piece of evidence in any quality cycle.
4. Longitudinal reporting. Cohort-level trends over several semesters demonstrate monitoring and periodic review (ESG 1.9), the exact evidence A3ES expects in both programme and institutional assessment.

Honest note: when your existing setup is already enough

A3ES does not require any particular software, and you should not over-buy. If your institution already operates a mature SIGQ with healthy response rates, disciplined manual analysis, and a genuinely documented action loop — and your teams have the capacity to sustain it — your existing tools may already meet the standard. A general survey platform plus rigorous human analysis can pass assessment. The case for a purpose-built engine like Koji is strongest when manual comment-coding has become unsustainable, when response rates and qualitative depth are weak, or when closing-the-loop documentation is the gap reviewers flag. Buy for the gap you actually have, not for the logo on the report.

A practical A3ES evidence checklist

When preparing a relatório de autoavaliação for programme accreditation, or a SIGQ self-assessment for institutional review, the student-feedback section is strongest when it can answer each of these concretely:

• Coverage. Is every curricular unit (unidade curricular) evaluated each time it runs, not just a sample? Reviewers notice gaps.
• Representativeness. What are your response rates, and can you show the feedback is not dominated by a self-selecting minority? Conversational formats that lift engagement help here directly.
• Instrument quality. Do your questions measure learning, workload, and assessment — not only generic satisfaction? A3ES and ESG 1.3 emphasise student-centred learning, not a happiness score.
• Analysis. Are open-text comments analysed systematically and consistently across units, or read ad hoc by whoever has time?
• Action. For each significant theme, can you point to a recorded decision, the person responsible, and a date? This is the single most persuasive piece of evidence.
• Review. Did you check, in a later cycle, whether the action worked? Closing the loop means closing it twice — act, then verify.
• Longitudinal view. Can you show trends across several cohorts to evidence monitoring and periodic review (ESG 1.9)?

Common gaps A3ES reviewers flag

Three weaknesses recur in real assessments, and all three are about the loop rather than the survey. First, feedback collected but not visibly used — scores filed, comments unread, no documented action. Second, inconsistent analysis — different coordinators interpreting free-text differently, so the institution cannot speak about its programmes with one voice. Third, no longitudinal thread — each year''s evaluation treated as a fresh snapshot, with no demonstrable monitoring over time. A standardised, AI-assisted engine addresses each: it forces consistent collection and analysis, captures actions where the next review can find them, and accumulates the cohort-level history that turns isolated surveys into an evidence base.

The shared interview engine

Koji for Education runs on the same conversational AI interview engine that powers the main Koji platform at koji.so for user, customer, and stakeholder research. Portuguese institutions already using that engine for alumni or employer studies will find the course-evaluation product is the same approach tuned to the A3ES quality cycle.

How A3ES fits the wider European quality system

Because A3ES is an ENQA member registered on EQAR, an evidence base built to satisfy its criteria is also portable. The same standardised collection, consistent analysis, and documented action loop that A3ES expects are the same primitives recognised by NVAO in the Netherlands and Flanders, ANECA in Spain, ANVUR in Italy, and HCERES in France, because all of them are anchored in ESG 2015. For Portuguese institutions running joint or international programmes — increasingly common under European University alliances — this matters: investing in a quality cycle that produces ESG-aligned evidence once, rather than rebuilding a bespoke dossier for each agency, lowers the cost of every subsequent review. A purpose-built evaluation engine that captures evidence in this standardised, longitudinal form is therefore an investment across accreditation regimes, not only for A3ES.

Related Resources

• Course Evaluation Evidence for NVAO Accreditation
• Course Evaluation Evidence for Spanish Accreditation (ANECA)
• Course Evaluation Evidence for Italian Accreditation (ANVUR / AVA)
• Student Feedback as ESG Accreditation Evidence
• Closing the Feedback Loop: Course Evaluation Evidence

Ready to build an A3ES-ready evidence base? See how Koji turns inquéritos pedagógicos into standardised, analysed, closing-the-loop documentation — explore Koji for Education.