1. 1 REVIMP From review to improvement Dr. Adrie Visscher Faculty of Behavioural Sciences The Netherlands

2. 2 Introduction CQAF for VET: 1.PlanningP 2.ImplementationD 3.EvaluationC 4.ReviewA

3. 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. 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. 5 Too often no review, under-utilization of performance feedback like quality assurance data.

6. 6 When is the review stage successful? Focus: Quality Assurance by IVET providers for the health care sector in 6 European countries.

7. 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. 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. 9 Design process Design approach Design goal QA System Valid information Required staff effort Use QA System Conceptual use Instrumental use School organization features Pressure to improve Attitude towards QAS (Un)intended effects Quality concern Teaching quality Student performance Implement. process User training & support Extra resources A B E C F D

10. 10 Results Contexts of QA differ competition accountability customer-orientation

11. 11 Request from inspectorate for SE QA (ISO 9001) to obtain accreditation Legal requirements regarding QA content

12. 12 QA-models Self-designed versus standard QA Systems

13. 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. 14 Better review goes together with user participation monitoring implementation user training pressure to improve positive QAS-attitude

15. 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. 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. 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. 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. 19 Some of the guidelines (continued) 6. Institutions should consider setting themselves targets against each of the QA indicators.

20. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 25 Thank you! For more info: http://www.revimp.org/