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

2. Peer Review2 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 – …– …

3. Peer Review3

4. 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

5. Peer Review5 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?

6. Peer Review6 Which CSF are important? Reliability –correct –complete Timely Flexibility Efficiency Customer focus …

7. Peer Review7 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

8. Peer Review8 Operationalisation Step 1 Indicator Step 2 Registration / observation For example Management shows commitment remarks in minutes mentioned importance in interviews # minuten time Times on agenda Look at agenda’sObserve interview: - How do you …? - How important is it for you …? Look in minutes

9. Peer Review9 Operationalisation 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. Peer Review10 We use a normative model An example …. The intake of students Each process has 4 cycles: 1.Input (Which measures have been taken?) 2.Flexibility (Which measures have been taken?) 3.Learning capacity (Which measures have been taken?) 4.Output (Which measures have been taken?) 1324

11. Peer Review11 The methodology All choices must have underlying arguments The Review must be reproducible –Keep the attachments, the work documents and the forms

12. Peer Review12 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.

13. Peer Review13

14. Peer Review14 The Peer Team The Peer Co ö rdinator (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)

15. Peer Review15 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)

16. Peer Review16 A useful Review for the organisation is...... relevant...solid...efficiently obtained

17. Peer Review17 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?

18. Peer Review18 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!

19. Peer Review19 Disclosure van sources Persons Reality Documents Interview Observation Content analysis Instrument

20. Peer Review20 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

21. Peer Review21 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?

22. Peer Review22 After the interview Summary Thanks What happens next?