1 / 26

Peer Review in Initial VET A European Project

Peer Review in Initial VET A European Project. Maria Gutknecht-Gmeiner, Project Coordinator, öibf Graz, May 11, 2006. Topics. Why Peer Review in initial VET? The European Peer Review Procedure Outlook and discussion: Peer Review in initial VET – what for?. What is Peer Review?.

zuzana
Télécharger la présentation

Peer Review in Initial VET A European Project

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. Peer Review in Initial VETA European Project Maria Gutknecht-Gmeiner, Project Coordinator, öibf Graz, May 11, 2006

  2. Topics • Why Peer Review in initial VET? • The European Peer Review Procedure • Outlook and discussion: Peer Review in initial VET – what for?

  3. What is Peer Review? • External evaluation • Carried out by "peers", i.e. "persons of equal standing", colleagues • Usually follows a self-evaluation/self-assessment • Usually includes a site visit of the peers • Prevalent in evaluation of HE institutions today

  4. Why Peer Review in initial VET? • Need to enhance quality of VET systems • European Level (from Lisbon to the TWG on quality to ENQA-VET) • National/regional/local level (government: initiatives, pilots, new laws) • Institutional level (self-assessment, ISO, EFQM…) • Individual level (teachers, learners) • Other stakeholders: sectoral level, enterprises, social partners, labour market, parents, … • Peer Review as a promising instrument for QA&D in VET • Mandate of the TWG on Quality (2003): “to promote the exchange of good practice and the use of voluntary peer review at different levels” • Focus on institutional level(VET providers as primary target group) BUT → integration and consideration of all levels necessary for a European Project 

  5. Why Peer Review in IVET (2)? • Obvious interest in Peer Review as a promising external evaluation procedure • European policies, mandate of the TWG (top-down) • Interest of national policy makers • Interest of VET providers (bottom-up) • From self-evaluation to accountability • VET Providers have established self-evaluation schemes. • What next? External evaluation? If yes, how? • Peer Review as one possibility of introducing external evaluation.

  6. Why Peer Review in IVET (3)? Possible advantages and benefits • Procedure which is flexible and can be easily adapted and used in different contexts • It can build upon strategies and activities of QA&D already in place • The scope of the review is flexible (review of certain areas like teaching only or review of entire organisations) • Combination of quality development and quality control (internal and external evaluation) • In-depth knowledgeof the reviewed subjects by the Peers • High acceptance of the peers by VET providers expected • Mutual learning process: ‘peer coaching/consulting’ • Recurring reviews enhance continuing quality development • High efficacyexpected • Economical procedure

  7. The Project in a nutshell • Aim:Transfer and adapt Peer Review as an instrument of quality assurance and quality development for the initial VET sector in Europe • Project idea: Mandate of the TWG Quality in VET (2003) • Timetable: Project duration: October 2004 – September 2007 • 22 (24) Partner institutions from 11 European countries • AT, DE, DK, FI, HU, IT, NL, PT, RO, UK, CH; • 13 Providers of initial VET • Main Products • European Peer Review Manual • Peer Training Programme

  8. Where are we now? • 1. Research and analysis phase (Oct. 2004 – April 2005) • Peer Review models, QA&D in the partner countries, guideline with criteria for the European Peer Review Procedure • 2. Development phase (May 2005 – Jan. 2006) • European Peer Review Procedure (Manual) • Peer Training Programme • 3. Pilot phase – 2006 • Pool of Peers • 15 Pilot Peer Reviews • Evaluation • 4. Transfer phase: Peer Review Conference in Pécs Sept. 13-15, 07

  9. The European Peer Review Procedure for initial VET Overall Aims • Support VET Providers all over Europe in their efforts to improve and maintain high quality in VET provision • Enhance transparency and cooperation in Europe • Create a common European procedure • Support equal opportunities andgender mainstreaming Requirements • Applicable in all partner countries • Attractive to VET institutions and educational authorities • A European standard with a European certification • Common definition of quality areas • High quality procedure(meeting evaluation standards)

  10. Positioning Peer Review Map adapted from Nisbet 1990 Outward-looking Accountability Power Responsiveness Peer Review in Initial VET Control Growth Responsibility Trust Professionalism Inward-looking

  11. Peer Review as a voluntary and formative procedure • The European Peer Review procedure has been developed for voluntary use by VET providers. • Therefore the primary addressees of the European Peer Review procedure are the reviewed VET providers themselves. • Based on the formative function the emphasis is put on the promotion of continuing quality improvement. • The voluntary approach and the formative function have direct consequences for choices concerning the main elements of the procedure (e.g. the definition and appointment of Peers, the selection of quality areas, the overall review procedure as well as the follow-up activities).

  12. Self-assessment of VET providers • (Self-Report) Peer Review Methodology Follow-up(Consequences of review report and follow-up activities) Peer Review process (Analysis of Self-Report; Peer Visit) Peer Review Report (strengths & improvement areas) Peer Review and the CQAF Common Core Criteria in the European Peer Review Peer Review as methodology Contribution to external monitoring Use of indicators Contribution to gains: mutual trust, transparency

  13. Main Elements of a European Peer Review • Peers • Procedure • Quality Areas • Overall organisation of Peer Reviews

  14. Who is a Peer? A Peer is a person, • who is an equalof or is on equal standing with the person(s) whose performance is reviewed • who works in a similar environment/institution and has similar tasks, i.e. a colleague, • who is external (i.e. from a different institution) and • has specific professional expertise and knowledge in the field (shares values, professional competence and attitudes, language…) • thus bringing to some extent "inside" knowledge of the object of review into the process and combining it with the external view of somebody coming from a different organization ("external insider") Peers are sometimes also called "critical friends".

  15. Peer Teams: general remarks • "Puristic" peer concept vs. "extended" peer concept → at least half of the peers should be "real" peers • Expertise in the Quality Areas to be reviewed • Expertise in Evaluation and Quality Management • Gender Mainstreaming: • one peer with gender mainstreaming expertise • gender composition of team • The team as a whole must have the required competences.

  16. Roles of Peers within a Peer Team • A Peer Coordinator: Team leader, primary contact person for the VET provider, writing the Peer Report • The Peers • The Evaluation Expert: quality assurance of procedure and support for Peers, active participation.

  17. Composition of Peer Teams

  18. Phases of a Peer Review • 4. Putting into action • Formulating targets • Clarifying resources • Action plan and implementation • Planning next Review Next Peer Review 6 months to 1 year • 1. Preparation • Getting Started • Inviting Peers • Self-Evaluation and Self-Report • Preparing the Peer Visit (VET Provider, Peers) • 3. Peer Report • Draft report • Comments of the VET provider • Final report European Peer Review 4 weeks min. 3 months • 2. Peer Visit • Collecting data • Analysing data • Oral feedback 1 to max. 5 days

  19. Quality Areas • Comprising all relevant areas, BUT not too detailed. • 3 Core Areas concerning the "key processes" of learning and teaching (Quality Area 1 through 3) • Quality Areas specified by criteria and exemplary indicators (qualitative and quantitative) • QA 1: Learning and teaching • QA 2: Curricula • QA 3: Assessment and tests • QA 4: Social environment and accessibility • QA 5: Infrastructure and financial resources • QA 6: Management and administration • QA 7: Institutional ethos and strategic planning • QA 8: Staff allocation, recruitment and development • QA 9: Working conditions of staff • QA 10: External relations and internationalisation • QA 11: Social participation & interactions • QA 12 Learning results and outcomes • QA 13: Gender Mainstreaming • QA 14: Quality management

  20. Organisation of Peer Reviews Increase of structure and standardisation • Single Peer Reviews • Peer Reviews in a network • Peer Reviews organised by a coordinating body

  21. Organisation of Peer Reviews in the LdV project pilots Support forVET providers VET Provider 2 VET Provider 1 Coordinating Body: FNBE and öibf Aber-deen College Training for Peers Univ. of Pécs Pool of Peers Timetable for Peer Reviews VET Provider 4 VET Provider 3

  22. Peer Review – What for?Further questions... • Further use of the European procedure? • National/regional pilots • European Peer Review network • Adaptation? • Aspects of accountability and control • Organisation and coordination of Peer Reviews • Your ideas and questions ....

  23. Thank you for your attention! Maria Gutknecht-Gmeiner Deputy Director; Project Coordinator öibf - Österreichisches Institut für Berufsbildungsforschung m.gutknecht-gmeiner@oeibf.at www.peer-review-education.net

  24. Peers: Status Quo of Applications

  25. Peer Pool 2 • Institutional background (n=51) • 76% VET Providers (39) • 16% Research/Universities (8) • 6% Other (3) • 2% Missing information (1) • Teching experience (n=51) • 98% (50) • Gender Mainstreaming expertise • 29% (15)

  26. Peer Pool 3

More Related