1. Peer Review in Initial VET A European Project Maria Gutknecht-Gmeiner, Project Coordinator, öibf Graz, May 11, 2006

2. Topics Why Peer Review in initial VET? The European Peer Review Procedure Outlook and discussion: Peer Review in initial VET – what for?

3. What is Peer Review? External evaluation Carried out by "peers", i.e. "persons of equal standing", colleagues Usually follows a self-evaluation/self- assessment Usually includes a site visit of the peers Prevalent in evaluation of HE institutions today

4. Why Peer Review in initial VET? Need to enhance quality of VET systems –European Level (from Lisbon to the TWG on quality to ENQA-VET) –National/regional/local level (government: initiatives, pilots, new laws) –Institutional level (self-assessment, ISO, EFQM…) –Individual level (teachers, learners) –Other stakeholders: sectoral level, enterprises, social partners, labour market, parents, … Peer Review as a promising instrument for QA&D in VET Mandate of the TWG on Quality (2003): “to promote the exchange of good practice and the use of voluntary peer review at different levels” Focus on institutional level (VET providers as primary target group) BUT → integration and consideration of all levels necessary for a European Project 

5. Why Peer Review in IVET (2)? Obvious interest in Peer Review as a promising external evaluation procedure –European policies, mandate of the TWG (top-down) –Interest of national policy makers –Interest of VET providers (bottom-up) From self-evaluation to accountability –VET Providers have established self-evaluation schemes. –What next? External evaluation? If yes, how? –Peer Review as one possibility of introducing external evaluation.

6. Why Peer Review in IVET (3)? Possible advantages and benefits –Procedure which is flexible and can be easily adapted and used in different contexts –It can build upon strategies and activities of QA&D already in place –The scope of the review is flexible (review of certain areas like teaching only or review of entire organisations) –Combination of quality development and quality control (internal and external evaluation) –In-depth knowledge of the reviewed subjects by the Peers –High acceptance of the peers by VET providers expected –Mutual learning process: ‘peer coaching/consulting’ –Recurring reviews enhance continuing quality development –High efficacy expected –Economical procedure

7. The Project in a nutshell Aim:Transfer and adapt Peer Review as an instrument of quality assurance and quality development for the initial VET sector in Europe Project idea: Mandate of the TWG Quality in VET (2003) Timetable: Project duration: October 2004 – September 2007 22 (24) Partner institutions from 11 European countries –AT, DE, DK, FI, HU, IT, NL, PT, RO, UK, CH; –13 Providers of initial VET Main Products –European Peer Review Manual –Peer Training Programme

8. Where are we now? 1. Research and analysis phase (Oct. 2004 – April 2005) –Peer Review models, QA&D in the partner countries, guideline with criteria for the European Peer Review Procedure 2. Development phase (May 2005 – Jan. 2006) –European Peer Review Procedure (Manual) –Peer Training Programme 3. Pilot phase – 2006 –Pool of Peers –15 Pilot Peer Reviews –Evaluation 4. Transfer phase: Peer Review Conference in Pécs Sept. 13-15, 07

9. The European Peer Review Procedure for initial VET Overall Aims Support VET Providers all over Europe in their efforts to improve and maintain high quality in VET provision Enhance transparency and cooperation in Europe Create a common European procedure Support equal opportunities and gender mainstreaming Requirements Applicable in all partner countries Attractive to VET institutions and educational authorities A European standard with a European certification Common definition of quality areas High quality procedure (meeting evaluation standards)

10. Positioning Peer Review Peer Review in Initial VET Outward-looking Accountability Growth Professionalism Inward-looking Control Power Responsivene ss Responsibilit y Trust Map adapted from Nisbet 1990

11. Peer Review as a voluntary and formative procedure The European Peer Review procedure has been developed for voluntary use by VET providers. Therefore the primary addressees of the European Peer Review procedure are the reviewed VET providers themselves. Based on the formative function the emphasis is put on the promotion of continuing quality improvement. The voluntary approach and the formative function have direct consequences for choices concerning the main elements of the procedure (e.g. the definition and appointment of Peers, the selection of quality areas, the overall review procedure as well as the follow-up activities).

12. Peer Review and the CQAF Peer Review process (Analysis of Self- Report; Peer Visit) Follow-up (Consequences of review report and follow-up activities) Peer Review Report (strengths & improvement areas) Self- assessment of VET providers (Self-Report) Peer Review Methodolog y Common Core Criteria in the European Peer Review Peer Review as methodology Contribution to external monitoring Use of indicators Contribution to gains: mutual trust, transparency

13. Main Elements of a European Peer Review Peers Procedure Quality Areas Overall organisation of Peer Reviews

14. Who is a Peer? A Peer is a person, who is an equal of or is on equal standing with the person(s) whose performance is reviewed who works in a similar environment/institution and has similar tasks, i.e. a colleague, who is external (i.e. from a different institution) and has specific professional expertise and knowledge in the field (shares values, professional competence and attitudes, language…) thus bringing to some extent "inside" knowledge of the object of review into the process and combining it with the external view of somebody coming from a different organization ("external insider") Peers are sometimes also called "critical friends".

15. Peer Teams: general remarks "Puristic" peer concept vs. "extended" peer concept → at least half of the peers should be "real" peers Expertise in the Quality Areas to be reviewed Expertise in Evaluation and Quality Management Gender Mainstreaming: –one peer with gender mainstreaming expertise –gender composition of team The team as a whole must have the required competences.

16. Roles of Peers within a Peer Team A Peer Coordinator: Team leader, primary contact person for the VET provider, writing the Peer Report The Peers The Evaluation Expert: quality assurance of procedure and support for Peers, active participation.

17. Composition of Peer Teams 4 PeersOccupational background Required competences 2Professionals from other VET providers (teachers, managers, quality experts, etc.) Quality Areas under scrutiny Teaching & learning QA and QD procedures 1Representatives from other stakeholder groups (other educational levels, companies, social partners, etc.) Quality Areas under scrutiny QA and QD procedures 1Professional evaluator Expertise in evaluation, moderation and communication VET system

18. Phases of a Peer Review min. 3 months Next Peer Review 3. Peer Report  Draft report  Comments of the VET provider  Final report European Peer Review 1 to max. 5 days 2. Peer Visit  Collecting data  Analysing data  Oral feedback 4. Putting into action  Formulating targets  Clarifying resources  Action plan and implementation  Planning next Review 1. Preparation  Getting Started  Inviting Peers  Self-Evaluation and Self- Report  Preparing the Peer Visit (VET Provider, Peers) 6 months to 1 year 4 weeks

19. Quality Areas QA 1: Learning and teaching QA 2: Curricula QA 3: Assessment and tests QA 4: Social environment and accessibility QA 5: Infrastructure and financial resources QA 6: Management and administration QA 7: Institutional ethos and strategic planning Comprising all relevant areas, BUT not too detailed. 3 Core Areas concerning the "key processes" of learning and teaching (Quality Area 1 through 3) Quality Areas specified by criteria and exemplary indicators (qualitative and quantitative) QA 8: Staff allocation, recruitment and development QA 9: Working conditions of staff QA 10: External relations and internationalisation QA 11: Social participation & interactions QA 12 Learning results and outcomes QA 13: Gender Mainstreaming QA 14: Quality management

20. Organisation of Peer Reviews Single Peer Reviews Peer Reviews in a network Peer Reviews organised by a coordinating body Increase of structure and standardisation

21. Organisation of Peer Reviews in the LdV project pilots Pool of Peers Timetable for Peer Reviews Coordinatin g Body: FNBE and öibf Support for VET providers Training for Peers Aber- deen College Univ. of Pécs VET Provider 1 VET Provider 3 VET Provider 2 VET Provider 4

22. Peer Review – What for? Further questions... Further use of the European procedure? –National/regional pilots –European Peer Review network Adaptation? –Aspects of accountability and control –Organisation and coordination of Peer Reviews Your ideas and questions....

23. Thank you for your attention! Maria Gutknecht-Gmeiner Deputy Director; Project Coordinator öibf - Österreichisches Institut für Berufsbildungsforschung m.gutknecht-gmeiner@oeibf.at www.peer-review-education.net

24. Peers: Status Quo of Applications

25. Peer Pool 2 Institutional background (n=51) –76% VET Providers (39) –16% Research/Universities (8) –6% Other (3) –2% Missing information (1) Teching experience (n=51) –98% (50) Gender Mainstreaming expertise –29% (15)

26. Peer Pool 3