1 / 26

Irina Michel, Gerald Heidegger, Wiebke Petersen

Reflective Evaluation About existing evaluation and self-evaluation instruments and reasons for inventing something new for CVT. Irina Michel, Gerald Heidegger, Wiebke Petersen. Reflective Evaluation Transcultural aspects. Copenhagen Process :

iingraham
Download Presentation

Irina Michel, Gerald Heidegger, Wiebke Petersen

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. Reflective EvaluationAbout existing evaluation and self-evaluation instruments and reasons for inventing something new for CVT Irina Michel, Gerald Heidegger, Wiebke Petersen

  2. Reflective EvaluationTranscultural aspects • Copenhagen Process: • No „unification“ of systems in VET and CVT but subsidiarity principle (contrast to Bologna process for higher education) • Reason: VET and CVT systems too strongly embedded in cultural and economic conditions • Therefore reduction of the aims to the following four fields:

  3. Reflective Evaluation • With respect to our project: • European Dimension • ---- transcultural mutual learning • Accreditation of non-formal and informal learning • ---- accreditation of CVT which includes non-formal learning • Quality (of processes and outcomes) • ---- our new tool aims at self reliant quality assurance • Transparency • ---- the criteria for the self-evaluation should be transculturally transparent

  4. Reflective Evaluation • Transcultural comparison: Four main types of • Welfare system • VET and CVT systems • Re-Integration schemes See overhead transparency

  5. Aspects of the history of quality management and its tranfer to the educational sector - The idea of quality management stems from production industry (ISO 9000) • During the last decade the idea of quality management has been broadly transfered to non-profit organisations (EFQM – European Foundation for Quality Management) • The first non-profit sector that has taken over quality management was the care sector – soon stressing self-evaluation (because a lack of „hard“ outcomes) • Today a lot of public schools go through evaluation processes. • For disadvantaged young people: Our method QSED (Quality through Self-Evaluation and Development)

  6. Output indicators or personal development common understanding of the phenomenon that should be evaluated Contexts of evaluation historical and cultural embeddedness of the phenomenon of evaluation national annd international evaluation discussions From ISO 9000 via EFQM to QSED different evaluation interests, fears and, targets Figure 4.1: Contexts of evaluation

  7. Carried out by OECD, CEDEFOP Carried out by IDEA, IOCE Evaluation trends Indicator centered evaluation innovative evaluation approaches strict, highly structured procedures targeting empowerment or participation Measuring soft outcomes

  8. Theoretical interests in evaluation and meta-evaluation Context of evaluation Expertise of evaluation relevant aspects of evaluation Purpose and meaning of evaluation Evaluation practices and methods Target/ Object of evaluation

  9. Advantages Seemingly „Objective „ , Reliable Outcomes Easily transferable results No self-deception No cheating(???) Should be combined with (internal) self-evaluation In order to…. Disadvantages To measure „soft“ outcomes is very difficult/impossible Processes are aiming at the targets of the external evaluation In this way processes are severely narrowed down Practitioners are objects of external powers They become disempowered They become passive avoid these External evaluation

  10. Existing European evaluation approaches: example EFQM company results (9) leadership (1) societal responsibility and image (8) politic and strategy (2) criteria of EFQM staff contentedness (7) staff orientation (3) customer contentedness /satisfaction (6) resources (4) processes (5) Figure 6.1: Criteria ofEFQM

  11. European standard: the EFQMExample for the criteria • Processes • This criterion is defined as follows: How does the institution recognise, identify, carry through tests and improve its processes? • It is divided into five subsections which deal with the following questions and for which several starting points are given: • 5a ”How are processes identified which are significant for the company results?” • Starting points could be, how the institution ... • …defines core and support processes (1) • …identifies core and support processes(2) • …values repercussion on the business results(3)

  12. European standard: the EFQM • Using the EFQM as an evaluation tool • In the first step it takes place through self-evaluation • The second step includes the coming in of external evaluators • Underlying assumptions and targets of evaluation according to EFQM • “Is theclient content with the product which is given?”.- Is it the “Customer”, that is the Labour office??? • Advantages of the EFQM in comparison with other evaluation tools: • it tries to take care also of soft outcomes

  13. client orientation customer orientation Self directing JAW-stamp of quality continuous improvement Benchmarking Figure 6.2: JAW-stamp of quality Adaptation of the EFQM model to a re-integration institution for disadvantaged youngsters

  14. awareness of the own quality promise optimizing through error recognition aspects of the new quality understanding client orientation Figure 6.3: Aspects of the new qualityunderstanding A Self-Evaluation instrument for schools: A different idea of quality • Basic ideas of Q2E : Quality though Evaluation and Development („Entwicklung“) with a focus on self-evaluation

  15. Example of a criterion in Q2E: “Shaping of teaching and learning processes (methodical-didactical arrangements)”- to be ticked from 1(weak) to 4 (strong) - 1)The teacher attaches importance to the goal that aims and intentions of the lessons are understood by the pupils. The learners see the importance of learning aims and contents. 2)The teacher arrives at explaining complex learning processes and difficult facts in relation to experiences and knowledge of learners. 3)The teacher arrives at initiating the pupils´ interest for the contents and engaging them for participation.

  16. Example of a criterion in Q2E: “Shaping of teaching and learning processes(methodical-didactical arrangements)”- to be ticked from 1(weak) to 4 (strong) -) 4)Space of active participation and self-directed learning of the pupils in the lessons is offered 5)The teacher arrives at making the pupils aware of their responsibility for their learning and he supports this through adequate measures. 6)The teaching is shaped in a way that pupils could create a strong relation between theory and their own experiences.

  17. … basic instrument for the development of a quality model … as basis for a quality comparison between schools ...basic instrument for the development of a school specific evaluation instrument Q2E can be used as ... … basic instrument for focus evaluation …as basis for the development of a quality handbook …help for the development of a school specific profile of strengths and weaknesses Figure 6.4: Options for using Q2E

  18. Our new IT-Instrument:QSED • Centred on self-evaluation of practitioners • To be adapted to the specific circumstances • Culturally adaptable • QSED („Quality through Self-Evaluation and Development“) for support schemes for disadvantaged young people should now be adapted to CVT

  19. Reflective Evaluation Target group of the instrument: Trainers and practitioners for • People at risk in the labour market: • - Unemployed, often long term • - People under threat of being fired • - Women returners • - But also: People in conventional CVT courses

  20. Some features of the QSED („old tool“) • Six dimensions • Three levels • Highly(!!!) interactive IT-Tool • Adaptation through the users themselves • The users can completely change the instrument apart from the basic structure (dimensions and levels) • Next: the dimensions

  21. Please click on the dimension you like to choose Recognition of skills/Assessment Self-Evaluation and Reflection Collaborative networks of actors Situated Learning QSED Inclusiveness Funding/ Administrative structures to the end

  22. Transformation of QSED for the new target group • Some dimensions: the same, although with new aspects and new criteria • Some dimensions: new, for the specific needs of the target group (both participants and practitioners) • Next page: tentative outline of the dimensions for the new tool: • „Developing quality in CVT“

  23. Please click on the dimension you like to choose Validation and accreditation of competencies New! Self-Evaluation and Reflection Collaborative networks of actors Didactical/ methodological Concepts New! “DQCVT” New! Life situation/ Experiences New! Funding/ Administrative structures to the end

  24. Transformation of QSED for the new target group • Starting from QSED: • Three levels („Multi-level approach“): Explanation: next page • Macro: „Structural“ • Meso: „Institutional“ • Micro: „Individual“ • Also some other explanations

  25. Glossary E S A/C Back to Index Back to content Back to the dimensions

  26. Developing Quality in CVT • Now let´s try out and look at the „old“ QSED in order to get some ideas about the • New • DQCVT

More Related