2Materials concerning the Peer Review method Start-up MeetingRome, 3-4 February 2011
3nothing to frighten you… PEER REVIEWnothing to frighten you…Success for the partners and for the Project needs us all to work as a team.The Peer review is a way to work together as a team.Aim to be participative and learn from each other’s knowledge, skills and experiences.
4This process of evaluation PEER REVIEWA peer review involveQualified and equal standing individuals within the relevant field.isA process of self-evaluation and self-improvement through the systematic and collaborative comparison of practice and performance in order to identify own strengths and weaknesses, and learn how to adapt and improve as conditions change”This process of evaluation“Offers a way of identifying 'better and smarter' ways of doing things and understanding why they are better or smarter. These insights can then be used to implement changes that will improve practice or performance.”
5PEER REVIEW IN MU.COM. PROJECT If a peer review is an ‘assessment of performance’ from ‘experts’ (peers), the final goal of the PEER REVIEW IN the MU.COM. PROJECT is the individualization of points of strength and weakness, so as to learn, to adapt and to implement the conditions of the transfer of the know-how concerning the museum communicator.The goal is reached through the systematic and cooperative comparison of the used communicative practices and the related employment and necessity of professional resources.
6PEER REVIEW NATIONAL WORKSHOPS Allow the persons from different institutions to share their varied skills and experience, reflect on their own work, make comparison and exchange informationIt will be organized on the basis of the results of the DESK ANALYSIS COMPARED REPORT that willl offer a common assessment framework in order to make comparative analysis,Managed by the national partnersSynthesis reports in English (There is related budget)- IT: at the UNIVERSITY OF ROME (P0) + participation of EURO INNOVANET (PO2); Museo Internazionale delle Ceramiche in Faenza – Fondazione (Fondazione MIC) (PO4) + network of beneficiaries- BG: at the Regional History Museum “Academician Jordan Ivanov” – town of Kyustendil (RHM) (P1) + network of the beneficiaries- RO: at the Universitatea Lucian Blaga din Sibiu (PO5) + Muzeul Naţional Brukenthal (PO6) + network of the beneficiaries- UK: OAKE Europe (PO7) + network of beneficiaries
7ObjectivesImplementation of quantitative and qualitative data, aimed to give direction to the adaption of the original model of learning in synch with changes in the labor market of the sector target and specific national contexts involved.
8Participants The team of peers– 10/15 people in any for nation: The target team from each partnerThe beneficiary museums and institutionsSelected studentsPossibly they are the same people we will train and who will participate to the eventsThe national team leader will be a representative from a partner and will be the ‘figurehead’ for the team. The team leader will return to the partnership and deliver a presentation of the findings from the peer review and the report.
9Topics / 1Peer review National workshops will focus on, investigate and record evidence, setting and share hypotheses on:A review of the existing situations and practice in the different institutionsReference occupational sector (characteristics and evolutions) and positioning and evolution of the museum communicator in the regional and national labor market;distinctive competences pointed out and which it is necessary to integrate, even in terms of training;analysis of the training needs and related learning areas;how to adapt and how to transfer the F-MU.S.EU.M course (organizational and technological aspects);
10Topics / 2 identifying the stakeholders assessing the implementation and impact on the different involved institutionsterritorial availability to set up curriculum and training course of the museum communicator, e.g. the organisational, technological, training and cultural aspects of the target museums and territory involved in the transfer activity as well as potential improvements;identifying the stakeholdersbenchmarking analysis of the MUCOM experimental prototype with respect to the good practice examplesProvide the raw material and case studiesStimulate internal and external discussion about current and future work
11Desk review of the peers The Desk Review of the peers is made up of three parts:AssessmentQuestionsHypothesis
12FINAL PRODUCTREPORT ON COMPARED ANALYSIS BASED ON THE PEER REVIEW (IT/EN. Website) (7th month, 04/2011) on the basis of national reports coming from the Peer Review meetings.It will have an annexed Action Report concerning the definition of the experimentation and transfer actions toward the target organisations.