REVIMP From review to improvement

1
REVIMPFrom review to improvement
Dr. Adrie VisscherFaculty of Behavioural
SciencesThe Netherlands
2
Introduction

• CQAF for VET
• Planning P
• Implementation D
• Evaluation C
• Review A

3

• New valuable information insufficient
  precondition for triggering improvement-oriented
  behavior.
• Social support,
• additional resources, and
• a strong motivation to improve are for example
  also important.

4
Obstruction of utilization

• no dissemination of evaluation results among
  target group
• users do not understand or believe these
• no idea of how the results can be changed
• lacking skills, competences and resources
• controversial changes are difficult

5

• Too often no review, under-utilization of
  performance feedback like quality assurance data.

6

• When is the review stage successful?
• Focus Quality Assurance by IVET providers for
  the health care sector in 6 European countries.

7
Research approach

• Identification potential Critical Success Factors
  (CSFs)
• Design of instruments for data collection
• 5 case studies per country (total 30) based on
  the CSFs England, Italy Germany, Estonia,
  Denmark, and the Netherlands

8
Research approach continued

• Comparative analysis
• Draft guidelines for the review stage
• Test guidelines in IVET-providers (relevance,
  feasibility)
• Definition final guidelines general and country
  specific ones

9
(No Transcript)
10
Results

• Contexts of QA differ
• competition
• accountability
• customer-orientation

11

• Request from inspectorate for SE
• QA (ISO 9001) to obtain accreditation
• Legal requirements regarding QA content

12
QA-models

• Self-designed versus standard
• QA Systems

13

• Critical Success Factors vary across countries.
• Better review goes together with
• improvement as a design goal
• deliberate approach to data collection
• balanced indicators (e.g. theory-practice
  learner feedback, learner achievement)
• timely and deliberate distribution QA results

14
Better review goes together with

• user participation
• monitoring implementation
• user training
• pressure to improve
• positive QAS-attitude

15
Some of the guidelines

• QA should be embedded in institutions general
  policy, and not just be an isolated activity.
• Institutions should consider involving relevant
  stakeholders such as staff, employers and
  learners in the design/adaptation of the QAS.

16
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• 3. Institutions should consider the relationship
  between indicators for classroom-based learning
  on indicators for work-based learning.

17
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• 4. Institutions should give full consideration
  to stakeholders information needs and whether or
  not the same amount and type of QA information is
  distributed to all.

18
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• 5. Where institutions are externally evaluated,
  e.g. through inspection, certification, or
  accreditation, they should consider to what
  extent it is useful to align with external
  indicators, and to what extent they need
  additional internal indicators for QA and
  improvement.

19
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• 6. Institutions should consider setting
  themselves targets against each of the QA
  indicators.

20
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• QA data should be presented in user-friendly
  formats that could include text, tables and
  graphs to facilitate understanding.
• Staff should be encouraged to interpret and
  discuss the QA information and, based on that, to
  develop improvement activities

21
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• 9. It is important that QA data are distributed
  promptly and regularly to relevant staff.
• 10. QA information on the quality of a course
  should ideally be available to staff during the
  course.

22
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• Institutions should minimise the burden of QA for
  staff and ensure that there is a clear division
  of tasks and responsibilities amongst staff.
• 12. Institutions should inform stakeholders of
  the QAS objectives and procedures in relation to
  their role.

23
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• 13. As time and resources are limited, a
  step-by-step approach to implementation is
  recommended.
• 14. Institutions should try to establish a
  culture in which staff and students feel
  responsible for QAS and in which the primary goal
  is improvement.

24
Some of the guidelines (continued)

• 15. Technical and administrative support should
  be provided as much as practicable in QA data
  collection, processing and presentation.
• 16. Institutions should systematically monitor
  whether the decisions on improvement activities
  are being carried out and how much impact they
  are having.

25
Thank you!

• For more info http//www.revimp.org/