1 / 22

The European Peer Review Procedure in Dutch VET (part 1)

The European Peer Review Procedure in Dutch VET (part 1). Willem de Ridder ROC Aventus. What is a Peer Review?. External evaluation External group of experts, Peers Invited by the institution for a formative evaluation Advantages and benefits: Quality assurance Quality development

nikkos
Télécharger la présentation

The European Peer Review Procedure in Dutch VET (part 1)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The European Peer Review Procedure in Dutch VET(part 1) Willem de Ridder ROC Aventus

  2. What is a Peer Review? • External evaluation • External group of experts, Peers • Invited by the institution for a formative evaluation • Advantages and benefits: • Quality assurance • Quality development • Enhancing accountability/governance • … Peer Review

  3. Peer Review

  4. Desired conditions • Commitment • Object for evaluation • Adequate documentation (self report of source grid) • Relation with the Quality approach • Tasks and responsabilities are clear • Peer Review Facilitator Peer Review

  5. Choosing quality areas • Which quality areas show a good performance? • Which quality areas (might) show problems? • In which quality areas are there developments? • Which quality area’s are most important to our stakeholders? • + What is possible in 2 days? Peer Review

  6. Which CSF are important? • Reliability • correct • complete • Timely • Flexibility • Efficiency • Customer focus • … Peer Review

  7. Selection of the Peers • No: colleagues from own institution • Yes: representatives of previous or following education, companies, institutions etc. • Obligation: Training & procedure (forms) • Thus • Objectivity • No discussion with the turkey about the Christmas meat • A relation with governance Peer Review

  8. Operationalisation For example Management shows commitment Step 1Indicator Step 2Registration /observation # minuten time Times on agenda mentioned importance in interviews remarks in minutes interview:- How do you …? - How important is it for you …? Look at agenda’s Observe Look in minutes Peer Review

  9. Operationalisation Peer Review • How? • Decide what is the right indicator for the criterion • Decide how to observe/measure this • Decide which ‘scores’ are useful and which are not

  10. We use a normative model • An example …. The intake of students • Each process has 4 cycles: • Input (Which measures have been taken?) • Flexibility (Which measures have been taken?) • Learning capacity (Which measures have been taken?) • Output (Which measures have been taken?) 1 2 3 4 Peer Review

  11. The methodology • All choices must have underlying arguments • The Review must be reproducible • Keep the attachments, the work documents and the forms Peer Review

  12. During review • Analyse the findings immediately after each activity/interview and discuss and record them a.s.a.p. • Build up the review results by adapting the overview after each relevant event (use aflip over/flip chart!) • Triangulation! • The opinion of students is very important for we are a student centered organisation. Peer Review

  13. Peer Review

  14. The Peer Team • The Peer Coördinator (chair) • The Evaluation expert /Peer(secretary) • They are involved in all reviews in the institute • The evaluation expert writes all the peer reports • Two Peers • Asked for their expertise by the institution for their expertise in the chosen quality areas • Or • A transnational peer • An expert in gender mainstreaming • All Peers must be able to work according the Peer Review Procedure (and work in tandems) Peer Review

  15. Types of Peer Reviews • Problem-finding Review • What is the problem? • Why is this a problem? • Diagnostic Review • A judgement about the correctness of the diagnosis of a problem • Design/blueprint Review • Will the design work? (problem-finding and diagnosis is already done) Peer Review

  16. A useful Review for the organisation is ... Peer Review • ...relevant • ...solid • ...efficiently obtained

  17. Which additional certainty can a Review provide? • Additional: • Is there a management problem? • Is the diagnosis correct? • Is it possible to implement the designed solution? • Is the designed solution efficient? • Is the designed solution effective? • Will there be adequate control during implementation? Peer Review

  18. About giving advice to the institution No • Procedure x is not followed • ADVICE: follow procedure X! Yes • Not following procedure X is caused by : • Obscurity/lack of clarity in the procedure • lack of clarity in the division of tasks • Insufficient preparation • …. Advice can only been given after investigating the problem and not just on professional judgement alone! Peer Review

  19. Disclosure van sources Persons Interview Reality Observation Instrument Documents Content analysis Peer Review

  20. Analysis of documents • Focussed reading: • Relation to interview questions • Reading assignments • quantitative: look for the relevant information • quantitative: look for the frequency of the relevant information Peer Review

  21. Before the interview • The introduction • Who we are, • Why we are here, who invited us, • The subject • The time of the interview • Which criteria for selection? • How the information will be used, • Why should the interviewee cooperate? Peer Review

  22. After the interview • Summary • Thanks • What happens next? Peer Review

More Related