WP5 – Quality Plan Suggestions from University College Zealand

Evaluation report on WP5: Quality control mechanisms and, overall, the quality management plan should be further developed…. …..no detail is given in the application about quality assurance procedures, a quality system, criteria, benchmarks or indicators for measuring quality and the progress. ……evaluation process, evaluation criteria and data analysis are not described. A complex project management structure is foreseen……..Consortium Board and National Project Teams are overlapping bodies. All three Partner Country universities should have a representative in the Steering Committee Slide 2

My suggestions…… I think we need to adjust the deliverables for the WP5……LP have the possibility to have the alterations accepted by the EACEA. From the point of view of WP5 the needed adjustments will most likely require interconnected adjustments of the management structure in general Slide 3

WP5 – Quality Plan – overview of new deliverables ….. Dl. no. ContentType of outputLevelsString- ency Planning needs D5. 1 Internal evaluation (quality) and monitoring (progress) reports for SC. Internal reports from partnership to SC on the progress at WP level (indicators, deliverables, obstacles, evaluation results, suggestions for adjustments, detailed timetable and quality plan for the next technical fase leading up to the next SC-meeting) including a status report at project level. WP responsibles will write a paragrahp on progress in each WP based on documentation of the activities (minutes, seminars, survays, indicators). As WP5 responsible, UCZ writes a paragraph containing a status report on the overall progress of the project against indicators and deliverables of the LFM. UNI and UCZ will device a template for the internal report taking into account the structure of the intermediate and final reports. WP responsibles will review and refine the template before use. a procedure and schedule for reporting syncronized with SC- meetings (UCZ). a procedure for updating the workplan and other key documents in accordance with adjustments decided by the SC (UNI). D5. 2 Reviewed quality plans at WP-level (pro-active). A quality plan including methology for the WP in its entirety as well as specifications for key outputs in the first technical fase. A draft quality plan will be written by the responsible of the WP’s. The plans are peerreview by relevant stakeholders (to be defined later) who comment and upon that the aproval then approved by the steering committee. UNI and UCZ will device a template for quality plans and for the output specifications of key outputs. Procedure and schedule for peer-reviewing (UNI + UCZ). Do we include the HERE’s (Higher Education Reform Experts), who have extensive experience with educational reforms in the national context? D5. 4 Peer Reviews of key outputs before dissemination. Official reports as described in the proposal. Peer reviewing by IOE, UCZ and UNITC. The reviewing activities are distributed among the EU27 universities according to their levels of educational experience in the three-cycle structure and which curricula developments they have contributed primeraly to. UNI, UCZ, IOE and UNITC will device a generic tjecklist to support the reviewers in including all relevant elements in the review. The basis for the tjeck- list is both project internal dimensions (such as metholodical choises, prior needs-analysis and other relevant internal documents) but also external dimensions such as adherence to an array of standards (professional, national, EU-level standards, human rights declarations ). Timetable synchronized with WP dissemination Slide 4

Evaluation report on WP5 (in full): Quality control mechanisms and, overall, the quality management plan should be further developed as no detail is given in the application about quality assurance procedures, a quality system, criteria, benchmarks or indicators for measuring quality and the progress. Evaluation of new study programmes, restructured curricula and courses by students and professionals through questionnaires and interviews, internal and external evaluations and peer reviews are mentioned but the evaluation process, evaluation criteria and data analysis are not described. A complex project management structure is foreseen, including a Steering Committee as a decision-making body, a Consortium Board for planning, directing and monitoring the project and a National Project Team responsible for monitoring, leadership and control of the project progress. As presented, the functions and roles of the last two bodies overlap. The Steering Committee represents only one of the 3 Partner Country universities, while it would have been appropriate to include representatives of the other two Partner Country universities as well Slide 5