call for tenders: oecd feasibility study for an ahelo

Call for Tenders:OECD Feasibility Study for an AHELOAssessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes

Information for bidders

9 July, 2009

2

PresentationPart 1 – AHELO feasibility studyA.ContextB.Project overviewC.Four strands of work and 10 participantsD.Expected outcomes and implications for the workE.Governance structure

Part 2 – Terms of referenceA.Rationale for modular approachB.Indicative timelinesC.Statement of workD.Initial work provided for information

Part 3 – Submitting a proposalA.Composition of bidders’ proposalsB.Evaluation process and criteriaC.Practical aspects, hearings and commercial

negotiations

3

Part 1 – AHELO feasibility study

A. Context

B. Project overview

C. Four strands of work and 10 participants

D.Expected outcomes of the feasibility study and implications for your work

E. Governance structure

4

Context: why undertake the study?

Peer pressure and public accountability now more powerful than legislation and regulation

International comparisons now inevitable in this previously national-only domain

Action is challenging ... But the cost of inaction is high too!

Judgements about higher education outcomes will continue to be made on the basis of rankings derived from inputs or research-driven outputs

AHELO is not about ranking nor standardization, it is about

evidence for policy and practice

5

Consensus on need to tackle quality challenge2006: Tokyo Ministerial Meeting

Moving from Quantity to Quality...

From decision to action2008: Seoul Informal Ministerial Meeting

Launch of AHELO feasibility study, provided it takes into account institutional diversityRecruitment of team and participating countries

2009: Initial work and Call for Tenders

Carry out a feasibility study to provide a proof of conceptConclusion

But how? Information gap on LO…2007: Experts meetings to explore the scope for an AHELO

6

Project overview…

What is AHELO?

Why is AHELO important?

A ground-breaking initiative to assess HE learning outcomes on an international scale, by creating measures that would be valid:

• For all cultures and languages• And also for the diversity of HE institutions (not just universities)

• Employs a wide range of measures• Provides a more balanced assessment of HE quality•No sacrifice of HEIs’ missions or autonomy in their subsequent efforts to improve performance

Yet, a debated initiative

Raises fears within some circles Implications for how we run the project• Involving stakeholders in the process• Ensuring that the results will be un-attackable scientifically• Keeping budgets under control

7

The feasibility study at a glance

What?Not a pilot, but rather a research approach to provide a proof of concept and proof of practicality.

Why?The outcomes will be used to assist countries to decide on the next steps.

When?The testing window is from August 2010 to April 2011 (with final results available by end 2011)

Who?Data will be collected from a targeted population of students who are near, but before, the end of their first 3-4 year degree.

To assess whether reliable cross-national comparisons of HE learning outcomes are scientifically possible and whether their implementation is feasible.

Goal?

How?OECD’s role is to establish broad frameworks that guide international expert committees and contractors charged with instrument development in the assessment areas.

8

Multi-dimensional def° of quality

Addressing the needs of various users and uses

• “Bottom line” of performance• “Value-added” to assess the quality of services • Contextual data to reveal best practices and problems, and to identify teaching and

learning practices leading to greater outcomes

Both in discipline-related competencies …

• Easily interpretable in the context of departments and faculties ... • But require highly differentiated instruments

And in generic skills

• Less dependent on occupational and cultural contexts, applicable across HEIs … • But reflect cumulative learning outcomes and less relevant to the subject-matter

competencies that are familiar to HEIs, departments or faculties

9

Implications of a feasibility study…

… Limited timeframe compared to a fully-fledged study

… FEASIBILITY study, not a pilot study

… Does not preclude the existence of a full-fledged study in the future

This prevents us from developing a “perfect” instrument… but by using existing tools or instruments whose development is already underway, we can properly provide sufficient proof of concept Focus on cross-cultural appropriateness

This provides flexibility in exploring several directions/methodologies, and allows some degree of risk-taking (e.g. unexplored areas) Request by countries to explore different methodologies/instruments

This allows us to be open-minded about the outcomes,and about what its instruments might look like. It is expected that further work would be required for a main study.

10

AHELO: 4 strands of work

Initial work on defining expected learning outcomes

through ‘Tuning’ approach.

+ contextual data

Discipline strand in Engineering



+ contextual data

Discipline strand in Economics

Focus on ‘above content’ skills:

students’ ability to reflect, and to apply their knowledge and

experience to novel and real world tasks and challenges

11




+ contextual data




+ contextual data


With each assessment, a collection of contextual information:• to look beyond student

performance: (e.g. institutional missions, selectivity, student characteristics and exposure to “good practices”, satisfaction).

• to make AHELO an effective tool to reveal best practices and to identify shared problems.

International pilot test of the US Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), to assess the extent to which problem-solving or critical thinking can be validly

measured across different cultural, linguistic and institutional contexts.

+ contextual data

Generic skills strand

12




+ contextual data




+ contextual data


Several perspectives to explore the issue of value-

added (conceptually, psychometrics), building on

recent OECD work at school level.

Research-based “Value-added” or “Learning gain”

measurement strand

International pilot test of the US Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), to assess the extent to which problem-solving or critical thinking can be validly

measured across different cultural, linguistic and institutional contexts.

+ contextual data

Generic skills strand

13

AHELO tests of instruments3 assessment instruments

Assessment generic skills

Assessment discipline-

specific skills in engineering

Assessment discipline-

specific skills in economics

Contextual indicators and indirect proxies of quality

3 groups of countries

Finland, Korea, Mexico, Norway

Australia, Japan, Sweden

Belgium (Fl.), Italy, Mexico, Netherlands

Contextual instruments (4 surveys)

14

Participating countries

15

Expected Outcomes of the feasibility study and implications

for your workScientific and practical feasibilityGoal?

No publication of intal comparisons and no league tables

Focus of final report on feasibility aspects: cross-cultural validity, cultural biases, reliability issues etc.

Feasibility of implementation

Focus on how to ensure student and faculty participation (or correct response biases)Need for some feedback (anonymous)

Political feasibility

Analyses to demonstrate the potential analytical value of AHELO for institutional improvement

Not looking for a Rolls Royce…

16

Remarks on data collection

• No comparative data at the national level

• Institutions/departments are the units of analysis, hence measures and reporting at HEI/dept level

• Feedback to HEIs: performance profiles and contextual data, with their own results and those of other HEIs (anonymously)

• Pragmatic and cost-effective mode of delivery

17

Current status

18

Ad Hoc Experts Groups

Experts Groups for initial workTechnical Review Panel

Technical Advisory GroupStakeholders’ Consultative

Group

Advice

Input, advice, dialogue

AHELO GNE

Participating Countries

NPMs

OECD

Secretariat

Contractors

A. Generic Skills Strand Instrument

B. Economics Strand Instrument

C. Engineering Strand Instrument

D. Contextual Dimension Instruments

E. Project Management, Survey Operations and Analyses

IMHE

GB

EDPC

PWB Objectives

Regular reportsPolicy

prioritiesGuidance on directions,

priorities, design and conduct of

FS

Contracts and

monitoring+

Interface with GNE

Interaction towards implementation

Governance Structure

19

Part 2 – Terms of reference

A. Rationale for modular approach

B. Indicative timelines

C. Statement of work

D. Initial work provided for information

20

Rationale for Modular approach with a ‘coordination’ Module

• Foster coherence and synergies across the different strands (3 strands but a common goal)

• Benefits of more specialised expertise (few existing instruments to assess LO in HE)

• Benefits of pooling expertise of different contractors towards a common goals (e.g. analysis)

• Economies of scale (e.g. common sampling guidelines for all strands)

• Streamline communications across strands• Incentive for cooperation between contractors• Benefits of enhanced competition at Module

level

21

student / faculty /programme leadership / institutional leadership

(Module D)

Generic Skills

(Module A)

Economics

(Module B)

Engineering

(Module C)Methodological/Instrument development

Project management, survey operations and

analyses of results

(Module E)

Field implementation and analysis

Optional implementation

of theGeneric Skills

instrument

AHELO feasibility study Modules

Contextual dimension surveys

Assessment instruments

22

Section 3: Statement of work

Module B development of an instrument for the Economics StrandModule C development of an instrument for the Engineering StrandModule D development of the Contextual Dimension surveys

Module E overall project management, survey operations, and analysis of results

23

Indicative timeline

• Constraint of results due end-2011

• Constraint of academic years in different countries (testing windows)

• Some degree of flexibility between milestones

24Nov ‘08 Apr ‘11

Initial Work

•CD•Learning Outcomes

June ‘09

ContractsEcoS, EngS,CD,

PMSO

Oct ‘09

Contract GenS

July‘09

Planning Administering

Nov ‘10 to

Apr ‘11

GenS + CD

Korea, FinlandNorwayMexico

Feb ‘11to

Apr ‘11

EcoS + CD

NetherlandsBelgium

(Fl.)Italy

Mexico

Aug ‘10 to

Mar‘11

EngS + CD

AustraliaJapan

Sweden

25

Developing

Development of instruments and

procedures

Translationand

adaptation

Layout, printing

and delivery

NPM and IC training

Coordination

Nov ‘08 Apr ‘11

Initial Work

•CD•Learning Outcomes

June ‘09

ContractsEcoS, EngS,CD,

PMSO

Oct ‘09

Contract GenS

July‘09

Planning Administering

Nov ‘10 to

Apr ‘11

GenS + CD


Feb ‘11to

Apr ‘11

EcoS + CD

NetherlandsBelgium

(Fl.)Italy

Mexico

Aug ‘10 to

Mar‘11

EngS + CD

AustraliaJapan

Sweden

26

Scoringand

coding

Data cleaningand

processing

Scalingand

analysis

Coordination

May ‘11 Dec ‘11

Technical reportGenS

Technical reportEngS

Technical reportPMSO

Technical reportEcoS

Technical report

CD

Analysing

Final report

Reporting

Nov ‘10 to

Apr ‘11

Feb ‘11to

Apr ‘11

Aug ‘10 to

Mar‘11

Administering

GenS + CD


EcoS + CD

NetherlandsBelgium

(Fl.)Italy

Mexico

EngS + CD

AustraliaJapan

Sweden

Technical reportVamS

27Nov‘11 Dec ‘11

Final repor

t

Reporting Disseminating Deciding

Final confererence with experts

and stakeholders

The science of the assessment

The practicability

of implementation

IMHE GB

EDPC

GNE

28

Statement of work

• Relationship between the contractors

• General principles

• Language to be used in meetings and documents

• Development work undertaken to date

29

Main tasks common to Modules B, C and D

• Develop frameworks: instruments/surveys;

• Develop and prepare instruments/surveys;

• Contribute to the documentation of instruments/surveys and technical reports;

• Work with the contractor for Module E on test delivery and analysis of results; and

• Work closely with the contractor(s) undertaking other Modules.

30

Deliverables common to Modules B, C and D

• Framework s and specifications;

• Instruments/surveys;

• Reports mapping items to framework;

• Scoring/coding guides; and

• Contributions to the analysis plan and to the technical and final reports.

31

Specific to Modules B and CDevelopment of assessment instruments

Assessment instruments • For two discipline-related competencies:

Economics + Engineering

• Aiming at ‘above content’ skills:

Knowledge and skills essential for future life

32

Specific to Module DDevelopment of the survey instruments for the Contextual Dimension

• A student survey instrument (15 minutes);

• A faculty survey instrument (15 minutes);

• An institutional and a programme leadership surveys.

Surveys instruments:

33

Module EProject management and survey operations

• Develop an overall assessment design:• meeting the aims of the feasibility study;• coordination across the various strands of work;• analysis plan to assess the cross-national and

cross-cultural validity of the instruments.

• Define the student target population;

• Establish and manage two groups: • NPM + TAG

• Develop package for test delivery and support tools accordingly;

Main tasks:

34

• Ensure the quality of translation/adaptation;

• Establish survey procedures and operations;

• Perform data verification and establish quality-control mechanisms;

• Provide training and guidelines to NPMs and ICs;

• Coordinate the implementation of the feasibility study;

• Coordinate scaling and data analyses; and

• Provide technical and analytical support for the final report.

Main tasks (continued):


35


• The overall assessment design with analyses to assess the cross-national and cross-cultural validity of the various instruments;

• The analysis plan, including• specification of the research questions posed by

the various dimensions; • proposed analyses; and • criteria to assess success in these various

dimensions;

• The student sampling plans including the sampling manual for NPMs/ICs;

Deliverables:

36


• The translation/adaptation guidelines and report on the translation/adaptation issues;

• The documentation on survey procedures and quality assurance procedures:

• Test administration procedures;• Technical standards;• Coding guides; and• Data management manual.

• Cleaned databases with the associated documented data product; and

• Analyses, tables and technical documentation for the final report.

Deliverables (continued):

37

Initial work provided for info°

Available from www.oecd.org/edu/ahelo/callfortenders

• Dumais (2009), Higher education institutions, sampling issues preparing the AHELO feasibility study, OECD

• Ewell et al. (2008), Report on the 1st meeting of experts on the AHELO contextual dimension, OECD

• Ewell et al. (2009), Analytical framework for the contextual dimension of the AHELO feasibility study, OECD

• Tuning Association (2009a), A Tuning-AHELO conceptual framework of expected/desired learning outcomes in the Science of Economics, OECD

• Tuning Association (2009b), A Tuning-AHELO conceptual framework of expected/desired learning outcomes in Engineering, OECD

38

Part 3 – Submitting a proposal

A.Composition of bidders’ proposals

B.Evaluation process and criteria

C.Practical aspects, hearings and commercial negotiations

39

Composition of bidders’ proposals1. Budget/quotes

•Disaggregated by Module

•Including usage of staff time by task and

year

•Separate cost proposals for paper-and-pencil and e-delivery

•Separate cost proposals for optional implementation of CLA

•Including marginal cost of adding a participating country

40

Composition of bidders’ proposals

2. Approach to the implementation of the tasks

• Bidder's understanding of the project

• Proposed approach to the implementation of the project tasks

• Bidder‘s capacity to effectively undertake the project tasks (technical perspective, and high quality and timely delivery)

41

Composition of bidders’ proposals

3. Organizational and management capacity

• Bidder’s ability to develop collaborative working relationship with all actors/contractors and build consensus

• Management structure (if sub-contractors), financial controls and quality assurance controls

• Qualifications and experience of project staff

• Organization’s past experience in large-scale assessment, surveys and international studies

42

Evaluation process

• 4 assessment experts and 2 disciplinary experts (prof. engineering, economist)• Signed agreement stating absence of a conflict of interest and commitment not to work for any of the bidders for the duration of the FS

• Shortlist proposals and recommendation to AHELO GNE

• Shortlisted bidders will be invited to present their proposal to the AHELO GNE at its next meeting (3-4 September, Paris)

• Decision by AHELO GNE on the basis of TRP recommendation, outcomes of commercial negotiations, and presentations

First by a Technical Review Panel (TRP)

Then by the AHELO Group of National Experts

43

Technical Review Panel (TRP)

• Technical review of individual proposals and their scoring against 4 pre-defined quality criteria

• Comparative evaluation of acceptable proposals on the basis of quality

Shortlist of acceptable proposals from quality perspective

• Comparison of acceptable proposals on the basis of cost

• Bonus points granted to those with best value for money

Overall comparative evaluation of trade-offs and recommendation to GNE

Selection of proposals to be presented on 3-4 SeptReport to GNE

Step 1 – Quality

Step 2 – Value for money

44

Repeat for each proposal and Module

Reading proposalScoringStrengths and weaknesses

Individually

Final scoreStrengths and weaknesses

In group

Module X

List of selected proposals for Module X

with final scores

List of proposals meeting 80%

Bonus points for value for money

Technical Review Process

Step 1 - Quality

Step 2 – Value for money

45

Evaluation criteria for quality

Technical quality(40 points)

Relevant experience of organisation and its staff (25 points)

Organisational and management capabilities(20 points)

Innovation and efficiency gains(15 points)

46

Practical aspects

To be sent by paper only!

•10 copies including one printable copy

•Sealed envelopes with special note

•See Article 3.1 for addresseesDeadline

•Deadline for receipt: 5 August 2009 10am (Paris Time)

Contents

•Approved and signed Tender

•See Article 3.2 for supporting documents

47

Hearings and commercial negotiations

Bidders whose proposals will be selected by the Technical Review Panel…

• Will be offered a chance to propose a revised commercial offer (late August) following discussions with the Central Purchasing Group

• Will be given an opportunity to present their proposals to the AHELO GNE (3-4 September)

48

Decision-making process

• Concluding report from Technical Review Panel Best proposals presented to AHELO GNE meeting

• Commercial negotiations with pre-selected bidders

• Decision by the AHELO GNE on the basis of proposals, TRP report and recommendation, and outcomes of commercial negotiations

Recommendation of contractor(s) to OECD Procurement Board

• Preparation, negotiation and approval of contracts with OECD Central Purchasing Group and Legal Affairs Directorate

• Procurement Board Recommendation to OECD SG

• Contract signed by OECD SG

49

Questions

call for tenders: oecd feasibility study for an ahelo

Documents

oecd feasibility study

pilot study

fullfledged study

ahelo important

participantsexpected

cumulative learning

learning practices

circles implications