| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.

View
 

Learning Regions: discussion on quality criteria and indicators

Page history last edited by Randolph Preisinger-Kleine 9 years, 7 months ago

Set of initial quality criteria and first working version of quality framework for Learning Regions

 

In order to gain an initial set of quality criteria and indicators, the partnership has conducted a series of consultations with local, regional and national stakeholders - based on the following quality model:

 

1st iteration (Kaunas workshop)

 

 

APPLYING QUALITY ASSURANCE CRITERIA

PROPOSED BY R3L+ PROJECT TO LEARNING REGIONS/CITIES PARTNERSHIPS/NETWORKS   

A. QUALITY AREA: PARTNERSHIP   
CORE QUALITY CRITERIA

 

Main aspects important for quality assurance in the case of a specific quality area (i.e. partnership)

QUALITY INDICATORS
(CORE AND ADDITIONAL/

DESCRIPTORS)

 

Establish if and to what degree the quality criteria is address/achieved.

Methods, approaches and tools for PRODUCING/USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

How you might go about getting information or feedback for calculating the quality indicators?

Constraints and challenges
IN
PRODUCING/ USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

What difficulties/barriers you foresee in following this quality criteria ? (i.e. collecting information/feedback from network partners)

 
Common vision, mission and overall aims of the partnership/networks explicitly defined  and understood      
Objectives and quantifiable  targets specified and commonly shared      
Principles and protocols to govern ongoing collaboration are explicit and shared      

Partnership is ‘deep’ (not just one person if representative of a network partner)

BUT also ‘deep’ if at personal level the participants bring/shere all experience and competences they have

     
Support in place for individual partners to inform back their organisation (non-conflictual)      

Mechanisms in place for assuring that partnership is proactive (participative) not passive (representative)

 

Could be relevant also for the next area

     

Specific strategies for assuring that engagement of each partner is voluntary, not enforced

     

Evidences are collected that partnership is valued by all members (time is paid for)

     

Appropriate support for partners is provided to take initiative and leadership space is created

     

Basis of partnership can be reviewed (changing to suit needs and challenges as they arise)

     

Partners are kept motivated – ensuring network agenda matches partner expectations – is value-added (but not cherry-picking); ‘what’s in it for us?’
More relevant for the next area

     

Consistency – language, concepts clearly understood to facilitate partnership (common sense)
Also relevant for the next area

     

Coverage: all necessary partners are involved to address needs

     

Partners understand their own role (responsibilities) and the connections they need to make

     

Flexibility: partnership arrangements are not too rigid as to impede responsiveness

     

Trust and openness amongst partners exist (even within competitive conditions)

     

There is Ownership: autonomy as well as sense of responsibility

     

B. QUALITY AREA: PARTICIPATION

CORE QUALITY CRITERIA

 

Main aspects important for quality assurance in the case of a specific quality area (i.e. partnership)

QUALITY INDICATORS (CORE AND ADDITIONAL/

DESCRIPTORS) 

 

Establish if and to what degree the quality criteria is address/achieved.

Methods, approaches and tools for PRODUCING/USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

How you might go about getting information or feedback for calculating the quality indicators?

Constraints and challenges 
IN
PRODUCING/ USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

What difficulties/barriers you foresee in following this quality criteria ? (i.e. collecting information/feedback from network partners)

Involving the wider public or community

 

 

 

Network is known and understood by general public

 

 

 

Clear measures to involve those most distant from learning opportunities

 

 

 

Beneficiaries have a chance to express their needs

 

 

 

Beneficiaries are involved in decision-making (governance)

 

 

 

Beneficiaries are involved in review of network interventions

 

 

 

Beneficiaries are actively supported (and opportunities created) to express needs and be involved in all decision-making activities

 

 

 

 

Language, materials, resources, published materials are clearly understood in everyday life: not just at overall network level, but also in constituent activities and programmes

 

 

 

Strategy in place to define and address learning needs meaningful to all life-styles of adults

 

 

 

C. QUALITY AREA: PROGRESS AND RENEWAL

 

 

 

 

CORE QUALITY CRITERIA

 

Main aspects important for quality assurance in the case of a specific quality area (i.e. partnership)

 

QUALITY INDICATORS (CORE AND ADDITIONAL/

DESCRIPTORS)

 

Establish if and to what degree the quality criteria is address/achieved.

 

Methods, approaches and tools for PRODUCING/USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

How you might go about getting information or feedback for calculating the quality indicators?

 

Constraints and chhallenges
IN
PRODUCING/ USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

What difficulties/barriers you foresee in following this quality criteria ? (i.e. collecting information/feedback from network partners)

The capacity to continuously understand results, reasons; and the capacity to use this understanding to influence ongoing planning

 

 

 

Partners ‘internalise’ evaluation and review (identifying benefits and not just an imposition)

 

 

 

Evaluation and review (quality) are prioritised – seen as a core activity and not just an add-on

 

 

 

Resources are allocated (not just finance but human responsibility)

 

 

 

Methods and mechanisms should not be cumbersome or divert from the main purpose of the network.

 

 

 

Means of measuring must be appropriate in context of learning region (not just quantitative; and also longer-term)

 

 

 

Results and findings must be able to be widely understood

 

 

 

Must be macro as well as micro picture (product as well as process)

 

 

 

Flexibility of partners to share information (not defensive)

 

 

 

Flexibility and openness of partners to accept results (failures as well as successes) and act on results – open to change

 

 

 

Benefits identified are broad-based (not just education-linked)

 

 

 

Outcomes and impact is regularly checked, demonstrated and communicated to all members of the network

 

 

 

Results and learning is used to influence policy (not just practice)

 

 

 

Unintended as well as planned outcomes are documented and shared

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd iteration (Pecs workshop)

 

 

APPLYING QUALITY ASSURANCE CRITERIA

PROPOSED BY R3L+ PROJECT TO LEARNING REGIONS/CITIES PARTNERSHIPS/NETWORKS

A. QUALITY AREA: PARTNERSHIP
CORE QUALITY CRITERIA

 

Main aspects important for quality assurance in the case of a specific quality area (i.e. partnership)

QUALITY INDICATORS
(CORE AND ADDITIONAL/

DESCRIPTORS)

 

Establish if and to what degree the quality criteria is addressed/achieved.

Methods, approaches and tools for PRODUCING/USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

How you might go about getting information or feedback for calculating the quality indicators?

Constraints and challenges
IN
PRODUCING/ USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

What difficulties/barriers you foresee in following this quality criteria ? (i.e. collecting information/feedback from network partners)

Common vision of the partnership/networks explicitly defined      
Common mission of the partnership/networks explicitly defined      
Objectives and quantifiable targets specified and commonly shared      
Principles and protocols to govern ongoing collaboration are explicit and shared      
Support in place for individual partners to inform back their organisation (non-conflictual)      

Mechanisms in place for assuring that partnership is proactive (participative) not passive (representative)

 

Could be relevant also for the next area

     

Specific strategies for assuring that engagement of each partner is voluntary, not enforced

     

Evidences are collected that partnership is valued by all members (time is paid for)

     

Appropriate support for partners is provided to take initiative and leadership space is created

     

Basis of partnership can be reviewed (changing to suit needs and challenges as they arise)

     

Partners are kept motivated – ensuring network agenda matches partner expectations – is value-added (but not cherry-picking); ‘what’s in it for us?’
More relevant for the next area

     

Consistency – language, concepts clearly understood to facilitate partnership (common sense)
Also relevant for the next area

     

Coverage: all necessary partners are involved to address needs

     

Partners understand their own role (responsibilities) and the connections they need to make

     

Flexibility: partnership arrangements are not too rigid as to impede responsiveness

     

Trust and openness amongst partners exist (even within competitive conditions)

     

There is Ownership: autonomy as well as sense of responsibility

     

B. QUALITY AREA: PARTICIPATION

CORE QUALITY CRITERIA

 

Main aspects important for quality assurance in the case of a specific quality area (i.e. partnership)

QUALITY INDICATORS (CORE AND ADDITIONAL/

DESCRIPTORS)

 

Establish if and to what degree the quality criteria is address/achieved.

Methods, approaches and tools for PRODUCING/USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

How you might go about getting information or feedback for calculating the quality indicators?

Constraints and challenges
IN
PRODUCING/ USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

What difficulties/barriers you foresee in following this quality criteria ? (i.e. collecting information/feedback from network partners)

Involving the wider public or community

 

 

 

Network is known and understood by general public

 

 

 

Clear measures to involve those most distant from learning opportunities

 

 

 

Beneficiaries have a chance to express their needs

 

 

 

Beneficiaries are involved in decision-making (governance)

 

 

 

Beneficiaries are involved in review of network interventions

 

 

 

Beneficiaries are actively supported (and opportunities created) to express needs and be involved in all decision-making activities

 

 

 

 

Language, materials, resources, published materials are clearly understood in everyday life: not just at overall network level, but also in constituent activities and programmes

 

 

 

Strategy in place to define and address learning needs meaningful to all life-styles of adults

 

 

 

C. QUALITY AREA: PROGRESS AND RENEWAL

 

 

 

 

CORE QUALITY CRITERIA

 

Main aspects important for quality assurance in the case of a specific quality area (i.e. partnership)

 

QUALITY INDICATORS (CORE AND ADDITIONAL/

DESCRIPTORS)

 

Establish if and to what degree the quality criteria is address/achieved.

 

Methods, approaches and tools for PRODUCING/USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

How you might go about getting information or feedback for calculating the quality indicators?

 

Constraints and chhallenges
IN
PRODUCING/ USING QUALITY INDICATORS

 

What difficulties/barriers you foresee in following this quality criteria ? (i.e. collecting information/feedback from network partners)

The capacity to continuously understand results, reasons; and the capacity to use this understanding to influence ongoing planning

 

 

 

Partners ‘internalise’ evaluation and review (identifying benefits and not just an imposition)

 

 

 

Evaluation and review (quality) are prioritised – seen as a core activity and not just an add-on

 

 

 

Resources are allocated (not just finance but human responsibility)

 

 

 

Methods and mechanisms should not be cumbersome or divert from the main purpose of the network.

 

 

 

Means of measuring must be appropriate in context of learning region (not just quantitative; and also longer-term)

 

 

 

Results and findings must be able to be widely understood

 

 

 

Must be macro as well as micro picture (product as well as process)

 

 

 

Flexibility of partners to share information (not defensive)

 

 

 

Flexibility and openness of partners to accept results (failures as well as successes) and act on results – open to change

 

 

 

Benefits identified are broad-based (not just education-linked)

 

 

 

Outcomes and impact is regularly checked, demonstrated and communicated to all members of the network

 

 

 

Results and learning is used to influence policy (not just practice)

 

 

 

Unintended as well as planned outcomes are documented and shared

 

 

 

 

 

3rd iteration (Sibiu workshop)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality criteria and indicators identified through stakeholder consultations

 

 

R3L+ Criteria and indicators of LR quality framework - Germany.pdf

 

R3L+ Criteria and indicators of LR quality framework - Hungary.pdf

 

R3L+ Criteria and indicators of LR quality framework - Ireland.pdf

 

R3L+ Criteria and indicators of LR quality framework - Lithuania.pdf

 

R3L+ Criteria and indicators of LR quality framework - Romania.pdf

 

R3L+ Criteria and indicators of LR quality framework - Scotland.pdf

 

R3L+ Criteria and indicators of LR quality framework - Sweden.pdf

 

 

Comments (5)

CiprianFartusnic said

at 2:08 pm on Oct 21, 2010

Dear colleagues, as you know, we have some observations in red in our framework document on quality criteria and indicators. When possible, it would be great to have a discussion on them.

Randolph Preisinger-Kleine said

at 2:17 pm on Oct 21, 2010

Hi Ciprian, which document are you referring to?

CiprianFartusnic said

at 2:24 pm on Oct 21, 2010

This one, sent to you and circulated by Thomas to all the partners: Quality Assurance Framework_comments.doc. I can re-send it now.

Randolph Preisinger-Kleine said

at 2:35 pm on Oct 21, 2010

Please send again. I cannot find it in my mailbox or on the website, so maybe it has gone to my notebook.

Randolph Preisinger-Kleine said

at 1:38 pm on Oct 22, 2010

Have added the current working version of quality criteria, indicators and quality framework; partners can add items, propose changes, make comments etc. directly in this workspace.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.