assessment reports

NASPAA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Analysis of student, subject, and faculty evaluations

I. year – full-time studies

Data source and methodology

The present assessment report is based on the subject and teacher evaluations of full-time students of the Master of Public Governance and Leadership (MPGL) in the autumn semester of the 2025/2026 academic year. The data was collected using a uniform questionnaire, on a five-point Likert scale (I strongly disagree – I fully agree) and with open-ended questions.

During the analysis, 6 statements were examined at the subject level and 5 statements at the teacher level. For each chart, the number of respondents is n = 11, which covers the relevant part of the entire grade.

In the course of the analysis, the category "agreement" was interpreted by merging the answers "I rather agree" + "I fully agree". The evaluation was made by processing quantitative (charts) and qualitative (textual student comments) data together.

Connect to learning outcomes

The analysis relates to the following general training competencies:

strategic and analytical thinking,

comparative and international approach,

critical analysis and problem-solving,

communication and collaboration,

professional commitment and motivation to learn.

Subject and teacher evaluations are suitable for examining the extent to which the training supports the realization of these learning objectives.

Subject evaluations – results and interpretation

Strategic and Regional Studies

Average subject assessment rate: ~92%

This subject shows an outstandingly high level of student satisfaction, with a low neutral and negligible rejection response rate in all the dimensions examined.

In connection with learning outcomes, strategic thinking, the analysis of complex problems and the understanding of decision-making logic also appear.

Student feedback: "More class hours!". Students are not only satisfied with the subject, but also express additional demands, which is a strong indicator of the relevance of the subject and its alignment with the learning goals.

Strategic issues for Europe

Average Agreement: ~91%

The subject has consistently received high ratings, especially in terms of the relevance of the content and the clarity of the learning objectives.

Feedback received from students: "Friday evening was not good for most people." The quality of the content and methodology is strong, the criticism is not professional, but organizational, which does not affect the quality of learning outcomes, but the learning environment.

Proposed action:

reviewing timetable placement,

If this is not possible, the sessions can be structured into shorter, interactive blocks.

Strategic questions of national politics

Average Agree: ~83%

The results are positive overall, but a higher neutral response rate can be observed for some statements.

Feedback from students: " 90 minutes is too short to discuss a topic; having 180 minutes per topic would be useful." The content of the course is complex and discursive in nature, which requires deeper processing than the current time frame provides.

Proposed action:

principle of less subject / greater depth,

better alignment of contact time and processing expectations.

International economy

Average Agree: ~82%

The professional assessment of the subject is steadily high, and students consider the curriculum to be in line with the educational goals. The course adequately supports the development of an international and global approach, primarily with incremental development opportunities.

Related student feedback: "The instructor replied to the e-mail late." While students are satisfied with the professional content of the subject, there is a lack of accessibility and communication outside the classroom. This affects the perception of the quality of student services.

Proposed action:

clarification of teachers' communication standards (e.g. recording response deadlines).

Comparative government

Average Agree: ~71%

Based on the diagrams, this subject shows the greatest uncertainty on the part of the students (high yellow/neutral bars).

The high neutral ratio – even in the absence of negative text comments – indicates that the requirements or the objectives of the subject were not completely clear to the students. It is not a question of rejection, but of a lack of information transfer.

Proposed action:

a more detailed elaboration of the subject syllabus and evaluation criteria, and their presentation at the beginning of the semester.

Instructor Assessments Summary

Overall, instructor ratings show a positive picture, with differences for individual instructors.

Outstanding result:

Prof. Dr. Boglárka Koller (~95% agree)

Strong, stable performance:

dr. Bálint Teleki (~87%)

Development potential (higher neutral ratio):

Enikő Győri, Fanni Tanács-Mandák, Erzsébet Nagyné Rózsa (~75–76%)

Focus of student feedback:

communication,

timing of feedback,

the number of contact hours.

Proposal for an action plan

Action	Justification	Responsible
Timetable review based on student feedback	Student feedback on lack of concentration and difficulties with late hours.	Head of Study Department / Program Director
Methodological correction (Deep Dive sessions)	Need for deeper professional debates; According to the students, 90 minutes is not enough for meaningful immersion.	Instructors of the subjects
Tightening the communication protocol	Complaining about late e-mail responses, ensuring the quality of student services.	Program Director
Clarification of requirements in syllabus	Due to the greater dispersion of transparency issues, there is a need for clearer communication of expectations.	All instructors

Conclusion

The feedback from full-time students in the first year clearly supports that the training fundamentally supports the expected and defined learning outcomes. The evaluations not only identify strengths, but also designate specific, feasible development directions, thus ensuring the continuous quality improvement of the training.

NASPAA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Analysis of student, subject, and faculty evaluations

I. year – part-time studies

Data source and methodology

The present assessment report is based on the subject and teacher evaluations of the Master of Public Governance and Leadership (MPGL) in the first year of part-time studies and in the autumn semester of the 2025/2026 academic year. The data was collected using a uniform questionnaire, on a five-point Likert scale (I strongly disagree – I fully agree) and with open-ended questions.

During the analysis, 6 statements were examined at the subject level and 5 statements at the teacher level. For each chart, the number of respondents is n = 8, which covers the relevant part of the entire grade.

Connect to learning outcomes

The analysis relates to the following general training competencies:

strategic and analytical thinking,

professional commitment and motivation to learn,

comparative and international approach,

critical analysis and problem-solving,

communication and digital collaboration.

Subject and teacher evaluations are suitable for examining the extent to which the training supports the realization of these learning objectives.

Subject evaluations – results and interpretation

Strategic questions of national politics

Average subject assessment rate: ~90%

The assessment of the subject is very positive. The clarity of learning goals and contribution to training goals were agreed by 100% of students. The lowest score was given to the question methods that fit the learning goal. Consequently, it can be stated that the professional relevance of the subject is high, but fine-tuning of the methodology is recommended.

Strategic issues for Europe

Average subject assessment rate: ~94%

There was 100% positive feedback in almost all categories. The clarity of the assessment criteria was positively assessed by 87.5% of the students. It is an outstandingly successful subject for students studying in a correspondence work schedule.

International economy

Average subject assessment rate: ~63%

The most divisive subject of the semester. The contribution to the educational goals was acknowledged by 87.5% of students, however, a drastic drop can be seen in the clarity of the evaluation criteria: only 37.5% were satisfied, while 37.5% remained neutral. The lack of transparency (lack of clarity of requirements) impairs the assessment of an otherwise useful object.

Comparative government

Average Agreement: ~92%

The result is a difference from the full-time assessments. While this subject created uncertainty in the full-time course, it achieved particularly strong results in the part-time studies (e.g., the clarity of the evaluation criteria received a 100% positive response).

This result suggests that the structure and requirements of the subject were better adopted in the part-time studies schedule (presumably due to the blocked, more concentrated teaching), or the more mature student body was able to identify better with the theoretical framework.

Strategic and Regional Studies

A perfect result was achieved in the case of the object. All questions asked (goals, requirements, methods, resources) were answered positively by 100% of the respondents. This course is the benchmark for the semester.

Instructor Assessments Summary

Outstanding result:

Csaba Ernő Zalai (~100%)

All questions received 100% positive answers, including 75% completely agreed. Practical instruction and direct style were valued to the maximum.

Strong, stable performance:

Dr. Antal Szerletics (~88% agreement)

Stable, high performance. 87.5% of students were satisfied with their professional preparedness and support for the requirements. The proportion of neutral answers here is low (12.5%), which indicates a better relationship.

Fanni Tanács-Mandák (~93% agreement)

One of the highest rated instructors. Especially in the case of the question the instructor was open and available, she achieved 100% satisfaction, which means that the students appreciated his helpfulness.

Variable perception (higher "neutrality" ratio):

Prof. Dr. Boglárka Koller (~63% agreement)

The pattern of "distancing" can be seen in the rating. Exactly 37.5% of the answers to each question were neutral. There is no professional rejection, but due to the lack of personal connection, some of the students were unable to form an opinion or the students did not participate in the given session held by them.

Dr. Bálint Teleki (~63% agreement)

The same pattern as in the previous case. 37.5% neutral votes in all dimensions (availability, respect, methodology). This can also be explained in this case by the fact that the professional content has passed, but the interaction is low-level.

Enikő Győri (~63% agree)

In her case, the same assessment was made, which can also be explained by the reasons indicated above.

Erzsébet Nagyné Rózsa (~63% agreement)

The pattern seen in the subject of Strategic issues for Europe returns: 37.5% of students answered neutrally to all questions.

Gábor Pál (~63% agree)

It is also characterized by neutrality (37.5%), without professional criticism, but with low student involvement.

Requiring increased attention and support:

Prof. Dr. Péter Halmai (~60% agreement)

His professional authority is not disputed by the students, but only 50% of the positive answers to the question the instructor was open and available.

Text feedback: "Unreachable and does not respond to enquiries, sometimes for up to a month. Great expertise, but zero cooperation.”

A strong communication blockage was observed based on student evaluations.

Proposal for an action plan

Action	Justification	Responsible
Establishing communication standards	Due to the accessibility difficulties indicated in the International economy subject (50% satisfaction), it is worth considering formulating a recommended response deadline (e.g. 3-5 working days) for correspondence teachers.	Program Director
Increase transparency	In order to reduce the 37.5% uncertainty measured in the subject of International economy, the requirements must be fixed in writing at the beginning of the semester.	Instructor of the subject
Encourage online interactivity	In order to reduce the "high neutrality" (distancing) experienced by several lecturers and to increase student involvement in the period between contact lessons.	Affected instructors

Conclusion

The autumn semester of the first year of the part-time course is based on strong professional foundations, but the quality of the student experience varies by subject and teacher. Despite this, there are a number of subjects and instructors here that prove that a direct, supportive atmosphere can be created in the correspondence course as well, while students receive a strong professional knowledge. The development needs are purely limited to the service level (speed of communication, availability, transparency of evaluation), which can be effectively remedied by administrative measures.

NASPAA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Analysis of student, subject, and faculty evaluations

II. year – full-time studies

Data source and methodology

During the analysis, 6 statements were examined at the subject level and 5 statements at the teacher level. For each chart, the number of respondents is n = 9, which covers the relevant part of the entire grade.

Connect to learning outcomes

The analysis is related to the following general training competencies of the programme:

public service commitment and ethics,

public policy planning and analysis,

critical thinking and analysis,

communication and collaboration,

problem-solving,

professional commitment and motivation to learn.

Subject evaluations – results and interpretation

The Political philosophy of governance

Average subject assessment rate: ~91%

A satisfaction rate above 90% is considered excellent. Almost all respondents considered the subject useful and in line with the educational objectives. The high rate indicates that the pedagogical goal of the theoretical foundation has been fulfilled despite the feedback on organizational deficiencies.

Feedback from students: "This subject made sense, it was useful [...] [but] during the subject, poor organization caused problems. There was apparently no contact between the instructors [...] one was not built on the other. It happened that we could hear material that had already been heard before."

Students evaluate the professional usefulness of the subject and the set of requirements positively, but the internal coherence and organization of the course are strongly criticized. The feedback points out that due to the lack of coordination between teachers, the logical building of the curriculum is compromised, which leads to unnecessary repetition and fragmentation.

Proposed actions:

close coordination of the content of the subject teachers before the semester in order to filter out duplications,

structural restructuring of the curriculum to ensure linear interdependence.

Strategic governance and public policy planning

Average subject assessment rate: ~72%

The result of 72% is the limit of the "to be improved" category. Nearly 30% of the responses were neutral or negative. This is a sign of "hidden dissatisfaction" that stems from a loss of motivation due to mechanical tasks without feedback.

Student feedback received: "Unfortunately, I didn't like this class [...] The problem with the break [and the lack of information] was typical." // "There could have been some variety in the processing [...] which moves the imagination." // "It was unnecessary that we had to make one-page assignments hour after hour, for which [...] no one said anything."

The student experience was ruined by organizational and communication errors (unexpected start times) and monotonous tasks without feedback. Although the professional preparedness of the instructors was acknowledged, the majority felt that the weekly written assignments were demotivating due to the lack of meaningful reactions and the monotony of the types of tasks.

Proposed actions:

stricter coordination of timetable changes and start times with students;

the introduction of more creative forms (video, presentation, project work) instead of/in addition to weekly written reports;

setting expectations for teachers regarding the substantive evaluation of submitted works.

Institutions and Actions of Government

Average subject assessment rate: ~96%

The result of 96% is the peak performance of the semester. Experiential learning (institutional visits) proved to be the most effective method. Practically everyone in the group of 9 respondents expressed maximum satisfaction.

Feedback from students: "I liked the structure of the lessons, I would like to highlight the organized visit to the institution [...]" // "The subject is useful, they just want to condense too much material. With so much material logically structured, it is not possible to learn it in such a long time."

The practical elements of the course (specifically the visit to the institution) were well received, and the students appreciated the direct experience. At the same time, the amount of the curriculum has been sharply criticized: in the available time frame, the transfer of current theoretical knowledge seems crowded, which hinders deeper understanding and logical construction.

Proposed actions:

further provision of institutional visits and practical programme elements;

review of the stock on the basis of the principle of 'less is sometimes more,

if the curriculum cannot be reduced, the number of contact hours or the distribution per semester should be reviewed.

The practice of performance measurement of public governance and administration

Average subject assessment rate: ~32%

Two-thirds of the responses were negative or neutral. Due to the technical errors of the WIW system, the subject could not meet the training objectives, and the acquisition of competencies was impaired.

Student feedback received: "The worst subject during the training [...] We are set up like guinea pigs. [...] The WIW system [...] does not work, it has done nothing but hinder the work. [...] They demanded measurements from us, the methodology of which they did not teach us. [...] I would have much preferred to spend my energy on my thesis."

Based on the feedback, the implementation of the course is at a critical level. The students' frustration was mainly caused by the forced use of an immature IT system under development (WIW), which was a technical barrier to learning. In addition, it is a serious pedagogical error that the system of requirements (complex statistical analyses, 20-page length) was not in line with the knowledge transferred (lack of methodological foundation) and the available time frame.

Proposed actions:

development of the WIW system, and while development is in progress, it is advisable to use the software as a demonstration tool and not as a standalone student workspace in the course;

reducing the length and complexity of the submission, adjusting to the actual workload of the students;

integrating the specific practical training required for the requested statistical analyses into the curriculum or simplifying the task to the level of the submitted material.

Good and Sustainable Development

Average Agreement: ~57%

The students do not clearly see the professional relevance of the subject within the training as a whole, so some of the answers were neutral.

Student feedback received: "In my opinion, this lesson is not related to the governance and leadership training. The material of this lesson [...] can be transferred to another lesson." // "Basically, I didn't see much point... but I have to admit that I enjoyed making [the project] and managed to gain useful knowledge." // "The PDF format of the compulsory book is not easy to read, it is not searchable."

There is a duality in the feedback, as students dispute the independent raison d'être of the subject in the model curriculum and would rather imagine it integrated into other subjects. At the same time, paradoxically, the concrete practical task (feasibility study, project) was explicitly enjoyed and considered to be a competence developer. On a technical level, the quality of the digitized curriculum (PDF) hinders preparation.

Proposed actions:

the integration of the essential content of the subject into a larger professional block (as a module instead of a stand-alone course) should be considered;

if the subject remains independent, the instructor should communicate the points of contact with the specialty-specific goals more strongly;

to provide a readable, searchable format for compulsory literature.

Instructor Assessments Summary

Overall, instructor ratings show a positive picture, with differences for individual instructors.

Outstanding result:

Dr. Klaudia Horváth (100% agreement)

Each question (n=9 students x 5 questions) received only positive answers for two subjects. Her person means safety and help for students in the midst of the difficulties of the subject.

Szabolcs Szigeti (~100% agreement)

Perfect result. Its methodology (interactivity + field practice) can serve as a benchmark, as it satisfied all student needs.

Strong, stable performance:

Dr. Zsuzsanna Fejes (~89% agreement)

Overall satisfaction is outstanding. 8-9 out of 9 students rated their preparedness and the clarity of the requirements positively.

Dr. Antal Szerletics (~87% agreement)

Stable, high performance. Answers to clear explanations and openness dominated.

Dr. Jenő Szmodis (~80% agreement)

Although it is the lowest in the group, the figure of 80% still falls into the "good" category. The missing 20% is due to comments on dynamics.

Prof. Dr. Magdolna Csath (~85% and 89% agreement):

High recognition for professional knowledge and mentoring attitude in two subjects.

Development potential (higher neutral ratio):

Dr. Anett Horváth (~78% agree)

It is a strong midfield; the majority of students are satisfied with the practical approach.

Changing perception:

Dr. Csaba Fási (~58% agree)

The number of neutral ratings is outstandingly high, but the text comments make it clear that several students did not participate in the session, so they do not have the right impression.

Requiring increased attention and support:

Dr. Norbert Kis (~53%, ~56% and ~76% agreement) and Dr. Tamás Kaiser (~51% and ~53% agreement)

Half of the group was passive or dismissive, indicating a communication gap (distancing, lack of debate culture). In connection with The practice of performance measurement of public governance and administration, students did not feel that they were supportive enough in dealing with technical problems, so dissatisfaction extended to them as well.

Dr. Norbert Kis's rating in the Good and Sustainable Development subject is +20 percentage points higher than in the other courses. The topic of sustainability appeared in a more authentic and transferable way in his presentation.

Requiring comprehensive redesign:

Krisztián Kádár (~42% agreement)

The lowest instructor scores. Trust has been shaken due to the lack of technical assistance.

Proposal for an action plan

Action	Justification	Responsible
Changing the status of the WIW system	The lack of technical obstacles and methodological preparation is an obstacle to completion. Instead of using the system in production, a demonstration application is recommended.	Program Director / Instructor of the subject
Teacher consultations on subject topics	Student feedback on parallel narratives and lack of coordination. The aim is to align the thematic arc linearly and to filter out repetitions.	Instructor of the subject
Implementation of a feedback protocol	The students felt that the submissions were demotivating and "unnecessary" without any meaningful reactions. Requiring instructor feedback for each task.	Program Director
Institutional visits and extension of practice	The outstanding reception of field exercises proves that direct experience is the most effective method in full-time education.	Program Director
Rationalization and quality improvement of curricula	In the case of some subjects, the question of subject autonomy and the integration of the material into other courses, as well as the improvement of the technical quality of digital learning materials, were raised.	Program Director / Instructor of the subject
Strengthening break schedules and timetable planning	In several subjects, complaints were received about the lack of breaks and unexpected start times, which impairs concentration and planning.	Study Department

Conclusion

The subject and teacher evaluation of the full-time students in the Master of Public Governance and Leadership (MPGL) in the autumn semester of the 2025/2026 academic year shows a double picture.

The "human side" of the training passed the exam with distinction, which shows a clear strength. The majority of faculty provide a high level of mentoring, a student-centered attitude, and credible professional guidance. The incorporation of practice-oriented elements (institutional visits) has been proven to increase student satisfaction and the effectiveness of competence acquisition.

However, in the case of technical and methodological subjects, several things appeared as risks. Structural deficiencies (errors in the WIW system, lack of feedback) carry significant quality assurance risks, among others. These not only impair satisfaction, but also jeopardize the transfer of professional competences.

In the next semester, the emphasis should be on removing technical obstacles and unifying the feedback culture.

ASPAA ASSESSMENT REPORT

Analysis of student, subject, and faculty evaluations

II. year – part-time studies

Data source and methodology

The present assessment report is based on the subject and teacher evaluations of the second year, part-time students of the Master of Public Governance and Leadership (MPGL) in the autumn semester of the 2025/2026 academic year. The data was collected using a uniform questionnaire, on a five-point Likert scale (I strongly disagree – I fully agree) and with open-ended questions.

During the analysis, 6 statements were examined at the subject level and 5 statements at the teacher level. For each chart, the number of respondents is n = 12, which covers the relevant part of the entire grade.

Connect to learning outcomes

The analysis is related to the following general training competencies of the programme:

• public service commitment and ethics,

• public policy planning and analysis,

• critical thinking and analysis,

• communication and collaboration,

• problem-solving,

• professional commitment and motivation to learn.

Subject evaluations – results and interpretation

The Political philosophy of governance

Average subject assessment rate: ~96%

96% of students rated the subject positively, and 100% of respondents agreed with the clarity of learning objectives. The results show that the discursive methodology used instead of frontal education was extremely effective.

Feedback from students: "It was very interesting to discuss and discuss examples of moral dilemmas."

Strategic governance and public policy planning

Average subject assessment rate: ~89%

The contribution to the educational goals was positively evaluated by 91.7% of the students. The most sensitive point is the proportionality of the requirements (83.3%), where there are also uncertain (neutral/slightly agreed) voices, but this does not reach the critical level. No separate text comment has been received for this subject.

Institutions and Actions of Government

Average Subject Assessment Rate: ~99%

This is the benchmark subject of the semester. In terms of training objectives, learning objectives, methods and resources, 100% of the students were satisfied. There was no negative criticism.

The practice of performance measurement of public governance and administration

Average subject assessment rate: ~68%

This subject received the lowest rating. On the questions clarity of requirements and contribution to educational objectives, more than 30% of students were neutral or dissatisfied. Based on the results, the subject in its current form does not fully meet the expectations of the students and the professional goals.

Student feedback received: "I received a very good mentor, so it was easier to prepare the submission. The guest speakers have great knowledge, I was happy to listen to them."

A contradiction can be observed between the organization and personal conditions of the subject. While the structure of the course received more negative evaluations based on the statistics, the students rated the professional content (mentor, guest lecturers) as excellent. The problem is therefore administrative and communicative, not professional.

Proposed actions:

the complete redesign of the subject data sheet and the system of requirements in order to clarify the student's burdens and goals;

adapting course administration to the practical nature while maintaining an excellent mentoring system;

a more precise definition of the role of guest lecturers in the exam requirements.

Good and Sustainable Development

Average subject assessment rate: ~89%

The subject brought the expected level, the provision of resources and the teaching methods were adequate. There is less uncertainty in the assessment of the proportionality of the requirements, but this does not reach the critical level.

Instructor Assessments Summary

Overall, instructor ratings show a positive picture, with differences for individual instructors.

Outstanding result:

Dr. Anett Horváth (100%)

The instructor received the maximum score for each question from each student. It is a prime example of professional preparedness and a student-centered attitude.

Excellent results:

Dr. Norbert Kis (~98% agree)

It is particularly strong in the area of "creating an atmosphere of respect and accessibility. The students appreciated the partnership.

Strong, stable performance:

Dr. Antal Szerletics (~90 agreement)

A balanced, high-quality education, where professional thoroughness dominated.

Dr. Jenő Szmodis (~92% agreement)

Reliable professional work, an atmosphere of respect is given. However, there was a certain lack of methodological variety, and some students would have liked to have taken more practical elements.

Dr. Tamás Kaiser (~82% and 77% agreement)

Although the atmosphere of respect is given, nearly 20% of students were reticent in terms of methodology and contribution to goals.

Proposal for an action plan

Action	Justification	Responsible
Revision of the subject structure The practice of performance measurement of public governance and administration	Since a satisfaction of 68% indicates a risk, it is worth considering adapting the course requirements to the professional content praised by the students (mentoring).	Program Director
Formulating a communication recommendation	Due to accessibility difficulties, it would be advisable to communicate a recommended response deadline (e.g., 48 hours) to the correspondence teachers.	Program Director
Sharing good practices	It is recommended to present the successful methodology of The Political philosophy of governance subject to colleagues at the departmental meeting.	Instructor of the subject

Conclusion

The correspondence evaluations of the autumn semester of the 2025/2026 academic year show a double picture.

The subjects and instructors that provide the backbone of the training passed the student evaluation with flying colors. Student feedback confirmed that a practice-oriented, debate-based and partnership educational model is the most effective in work-based training. The atmosphere of respect received high marks in all courses examined.

In the case of a single subject (The practice of performance measurement of public governance and administration), a problem can be identified (~68%), where students questioned both the professional usefulness of the subject and the proportionality of the requirements.

‹ › ×