1

REVIMP

From review to improvement

Dr. Adrie VisscherFaculty of Behavioural SciencesThe Netherlands

2

Introduction

CQAF for VET:1. Planning P

2. Implementation D

3. Evaluation C

4. 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 (CSF’s)

• Design of instruments for data collection

• 5 case studies per country (total: 30) based on the CSF’s: 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

Design processDesign approachDesign goal

QA SystemValid informationRequired staff effort

Use QA SystemConceptual useInstrumental use

School organization features

Pressure to improveAttitude towards QAS

(Un)intended effectsQuality concernTeaching qualityStudent performance

Implement. process

User training & supportExtra resources

A

B

EC F

D

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

1. QA should be embedded in institutions’ general policy, and not just be an isolated activity.

2. 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)

7. QA data should be presented in user-friendly formats that could include text, tables and graphs to facilitate understanding.

8. 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)

11. 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/