1 / 25

External Review

External Review. ... a communications perspective. Anthony F. Camilleri . NAKVIS Seminar 24th November 2011. What‘s in a Name?. standards-based review. A reviewer is a communicator. University. Review Team. Agency. Communicating with your team. What‘s in a name?. review team.

frances
Download Presentation

External Review

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. External Review ... a communications perspective Anthony F. Camilleri NAKVIS Seminar 24th November 2011

  2. What‘s in a Name? standards-based review

  3. A reviewer is a communicator University Review Team Agency

  4. Communicating with your team

  5. What‘s in a name? review team a group of independent experts vs a unitary entity with its own mind

  6. Inter-subjectivity • different subjective perceptions, taken from different viewpoints, give an objective view of reality • the quality basis of an external review • requires consensus consensus is not a diplomatic nicety but an essential pre-requisite of quality

  7. Requirements • Know your team • Know their profiles • Know their inputs • Discuss everything • Do not divide responsibility for thought • Form a consensus • Before • During • After

  8. Practical Actions • Leave sufficient time for meetings at each stage • Actively ask for team members‘ concerns • Ensure each team member gets equal say

  9. Communicating with the institution

  10. Communication starts with self-assessment! • This is not a one-way exercise! • Has the institution told you enough to allow a successful review? • What don‘t you understand, and who can answer your questions? • Be active in schedule-design

  11. Planning a Conversation • ‚Get to know each-other‘ • General discussion of role in quality culture • Specific questions based on report • Clarify alldoubts

  12. NEVER • get into conflict with your interviewee • confuse the interviewee with the institution • Issue judgments or opinions • leave the room with questions unanswered • breach confidentiality

  13. You are not a court of law! Demand RESPECT • Self-assessment should be complete • All interviewees promised must attend – even if review schedule changes • All questions must be answered in full • Any and all documents should be provided • Logistical support should be provided

  14. Communicating with the agency

  15. „I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like“ Gelett Burgess

  16. „I don't know anything about the standards, but I know quality when I see it“ Unnamed reviewer

  17. Standards of Proof • Some credible evidence • Preponderance of evidence • Clear and convincing evidence • Beyond reasonable doubt

  18. In your Report • Be yourself Bad: The institution showed.... Good: The review team saw / found / observed....

  19. In your Report • Be specific Good: The institution showed.... Better: The review team found multiple and consistent examples of

  20. In your Report • Say what you know Bad: The institution lied.... Good: The review team found inconsistencies between evidence (x) and interview (y)

  21. In your Report • Give your opinion (where relevant) Bad: The institution is... / or NOTHING Good: We suspect, It seems likely that, Given the evidence available, etc...

  22. In your Report • Give your reasoning Bad: There is no quality. Good: When we consider (X), (Y) and (Z), we find it impossible to say there is quality

  23. In your Report • Link Effect with Cause Bad: Quality systems are in place, but there is no evidence of iterative improvement. Good: Quality systems are not effective, due to lack of iterative improvement procedures.

  24. In your Report • Be CLEAR Bad: The physical conditions of classrooms are in need of improvement. Good: Classrooms are in a dismal state – no heating, broken desks and no boards make it impossible to learn

  25. Hvala! Thank-you for your attention Questions? Anthony F. Camilleri (anthony@kic-malta.com) Presentation available from: http://www.slideshare.net/anthonycamilleri/ Released under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike3.0 Slovenia License You are free: • to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work • to Remix — to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

More Related