transforming assessment practices in large … - quality plan.pdf · 2018-01-15 · project no.:...

TRANSFORMING ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN LARGE ENROLLMENT FIRST YEAR EDUCATION

TAP Palestine project

Quality Plan

Project Acronym: TAP Palestine Full Project Title Transforming Assessment Practices in Large

Enrolment First Year Education Project No.: 573738-EPP-1-2016-1-PS-EPPKA2-CBHE-SP Funding Scheme: ERASMUS+ Project Coordinator AN-NAJAH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Project Quality Coordinator

UA

Title of the Project Assurance of quality of project work and its

results

Work Package WP 5 – Quality Plan

Work Package Leader UA Target Group All project partners:Higher Education

Institutions from Palestine, Spain, Ireland andSlovakia

Funding authority Starting Date 15-10-2016 Activity Duration 3 years Last version date 10-03-2017 Document Compiled by UA with input from Quality Committee and Work

Package leaders Document Version Final Dissemination Level Internal

ERASMUS+ Programme – TAP Project number: 573738-EPP-1-2016-1-PS-EPPKA2-CBHE-SP DISCLAIMER: This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

14:30 – 16:30

WP1 : Preparation Moderator: Dr. AbdelKarim Abdelraziq – ANNU WP1.2 : National baseline Study Dr. Smaro Boura - FOUR ELEMENTS Mr. Iyad Abusamra – AQAC

16:30 – 17:30 Approve 1st year plan

January 31st WP 2 Development 10:00 – 11:45 Quality Plan

Prof. Guillermo Bernabeu - UA

11:45 – 12:00 Coffee Break 12:00 – 13:00 Policy and National matrix visit

Dr. Jozef Gasparik - STUBA 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 15:00 Management meeting: Project committees formation and roles

Dr. Emad Ibrik – ANNU 15:00 – 16:00 Management meeting: Project budget, partner agreements, and

finances

February 01st WP3 Exploitation, Implementation and Evaluation 10:00 – 11:30 Capacity building for national staff Dr. Catherine O’Mahony - UCC

Capacity building plan Criteria Selection of national teams

11:30 – 11:45 Coffee Break 11:45 – 13:00 Equipment procurement plan

Dr. AbdelKarim Abdelraziq – ANNU 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 16:00 10 Module design

Which modules? Who are the designers? Consultation on modules?

16:00 – 15:30 Tour campus/city

February 02nd - Departure

3

Index

1. Purpose of this document ............................................................................................ 4

2. Project Objective and main focus ................................................................................. 4

3. Actors involved ................................................................................................................... 7

4. Project Timetable of the Deliverables by Work Package .................................... 9

5. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 10

6. Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan ............................................................................. 11

7. SWOT analysis matrix for internal QCM .............................................................. 14

8. External evaluators ........................................................................................................ 21

9. Quality Assurance per activity type ...................................................................... 22

10. Quality Assurance tools .......................................................................................... 23 a. Activity Feedback Questionnaire .....................................................................................25

i. Kick off meeting survey .................................................................................................................. 25 ii. Training satisfaction survey ....................................................................................................... 27 iii. Project meeting survey ................................................................................................................ 28

4

1. Purpose of this document The purpose of the Project Quality Plan is to define the quality expectations related with theTAP

projectand detail how results achievement will be monitored and thus the quality of the project

activities and results will be enhanced.The content of the document includes content related to both

internal and external quality measures.

2. Project Objective and main focus

The main TAP objective is to improve assessment practices in foundational first-year education using

technology options in Palestine. The capacity building activities will provide the partner institutions

withsupportfor the creation/improvement of their technology-enabled teaching methods and courses in

the foundation first year.

Thespecific objectives of the projectare to:

Conduct a study for current practice in freshman education across HEIs and making it the

core for developing strategic change at this important foundational stage in university

education;

Redesign and implement 10 large enrolment modules in the professional degree

programmes across disciplines;

Draft and institutionalise formative assessment policies for large enrolment groups;

Use established technologies to facilitate timely feedback loops; and

Draft a national frame matrix for assessment practices which includes nature and type of

assessment for large-hall freshman classes.

This will be achieved by means of capacity building and exchange of good practices with EU

counterparts.

The main tangible project result will be 10 higher education modules from a range of professional

degree programmes redesigned, and 20 well-trained teachers and practitioners to lead the innovative

formative assessment practices in large-enrolment classes, and national first year education matrix at

ministerial level.

Dissemination of project results will be implemented for the whole project duration viathe website,

paper andsocial media channels, and the national dissemination workshop.

5

The project activities have been defined in3 modules that include different work packagesas follows1:

1. Management, Quality Assurance& Dissemination (WP6&5&4)is focused on effectively

managing the project in terms of budget and timely execution of activities (WP6). It also

ensures the high quality outputs of the action by means of an internal quality controland

comprehensive quality measures (WP5).It also fosters the widerdissemination(WP4) of the

project results, in addition to the events planned in WP2, WP3 and WP4with the aim of

increasing the project´s sustainability opportunities. WP6 leader will be ANNUand WP5

leader will be PPU, while for WP4 the leader will be BZU & STUBA. However, all partners

will be actively involved and will contribute to the achievement ofsuch activities.

2. Analysis (WP1)aims tostudy existing practices using surveys, document analysis and

course records in Palestine. It is focused on having an in-depth insightinto AQAC

procedures, practices, and matrixeson assessment at national level and whether these are

used for accreditation of new programs or monitoring of existing programs. Prior

Palestinian pedagogical and technologyknowledge and practice in terms of assessing

learner achievement and evaluation of learning quality will be taken into account. This

activity is crucial since it will define the starting point for the capacity building activities.

3. Capacity Building (WP2&3&4) is the core part of the TAPproject in which the

moduleswill be designed and implemented, as well as the National Framework for Large

Enrolment. The aim is to provide Palestinian HEIs with aclear direction on large-enrolment

first-year courses, as well as the knowledge to update and adapt them to their own learner

preparation practices.

WP2is focused on designing the new first-year modules, with 3

complementary workshops. To this end, new technological equipment will

be procured for the partner HEIs. Palestinian educators trained in the

workshops will be the main contributors to the creation of the new modules,

with European partner institutions providing technological and pedagogical

advice. The EU partners will then evaluate the courses against EU quality

criteria.

WP3 will work to implement the newly-created modules. For this

workpackage, the modules created in WP2 will be implemented at the 5

Palestinian HEIs (2 modules per institution). EU partners will then evaluate

the implementation of the courses, submitting an evaluation report with

recommendations for improvement in the next implementation phases.

WP4 will develop a National Framework for Large-Enrolment 1st

-Year

Education for Palestinian HEIs. A study visit to Europe will take place,

1For more details on the project activities, please see the proposal document.

6

alongside an assessment policy reform, to expose the Palestinian educators

to EU best practices.

7

3. Actors involved Project Management will be carried out under the following structure:

Figure 1: actors in charge of quality processes at all project levels. SC (Scientific Coordinator), PC (project manager), AC

(Administrative Coordinator), NEO (National Erasmus Office)

Quality Control and Monitoring (QCM) of project activities and results will be a continuous process

during the whole duration project lifecycle and carried out internally for continuous quality

enhancement.

QCM will be coordinated by the Coordinator together with the Quality Committee:

NAME INSTITUTION CONTACT

Eng. Tamer Haddad ANNU [email protected]

Dr. Hasan AbdelKarim BZU [email protected]

Dr. Adnan Shehadeh PPU [email protected]

Dr. Ester Boldrini UA [email protected]

Dr. Catherine O’Mahony Cork [email protected]

Dr. Jozef Gasparik STUBA [email protected]

Eng. Hatem Sultan UCAS [email protected]

They will be also supported by WP leaders for specific issues related to quality standards for the

concrete activities.

8

Each project activity will be evaluated with the corresponding survey/questionnaire or other tools

depending on the nature of each task. The result of this will be a report, developed by the WP leader,in

which the outcomes obtained will be analysed and possible suggestions for improving weaknesses will

be formulated.

In addition to this, 2-monthly Skype meetings will be held by the Steering Committee to monitor project

progress.

The figure below shows the main actors involved in the TAPQCMprocess and their communication flow.

Figure 2: Main actors involved in the quality monitoring process linked with the different activity modules.

INTERNAL EXPERTS

PROJECT COORDINATOR

PROJECT COORDINATOR

Management and Quality Assurance (WP6 & WP5)

The ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES will provide a base from which to elaborate the various large

enrolment first year courses in

Palestinian HEIs by putting together a

complete picture of the state and

quality of Palestinian HE and

its needs and recommendations.

CAPACITY BUILDING will

include the training, creation, implementation

and evaluation of 10 new large

enrolment first year courses as

well as a National Framework for

such courses and a review of

assessment policy.

DISSEMINATION activities are

dedicated to the organisation of a

kick-off meeting at the beginning of

the project. Other dissemination

activity will centre on the project

website and the organisation of a

National Dissemination Workshop to

disseminate the new models to

other HEIs. In view of sustanability, the partner institutions

will own the new first-year courses

and the minirty will own the National

Framework

NEO PALESTINE

9

4. Project Timetable of the Deliverables by Work Package WP Delivery date Title Type of deliv. Language Deliv. Nº

1 15-06-2017 National Baseline Study Report English 1.3.3

1 15-09-2017 Project website Training material English 1.4

2 15-10-2017 Capacity Building for national staff by EU Training material English 2.1.2

2 15-12-2017 Capacity Building Report Report English 2.1.4

2 15-06-2018 Modules Design Report English 2.3

2 15-06-2017 Consultation Report on each module Report English 2.4

3 15-01-2019 Module Implementation Learning material English 3.1

3 15-02-2019 UA implementation evaluation Report English 3.3

4 15-05-2019 Administrators study visit report Report English 4.1

4 15-07-2019 National framework for large enrolment 1st

year education Service/product English 4.2

4 15-08-2019 Institutionalization and Assessment Policy Reform Service/product English 4.3

4 15-09-2019 National Dissemination Workshop Report Report English 4.4.3

5 15-11-2016 15-09-2017 14-09-2018

Steering Committee Meeting Reports Report English 5.4

6 Throughout project lifetime

Progress reports Report English 6.1

6 31-01-2019 Project final report Report English 6.2

6 Throughout project lifetime

Financial reports Report English 6.3

10

5. Methodology

The following flowchart summarises the idea behind the proposed QCM methodology

procedures:continuous improvement. Nevertheless, it is imperative to read the TAP Description of Work

in order to understand and capture all details that will/could intervene in the project deployment.

Figure 3: Continuous quality enhancement flowchart.

The QCM will be based on the principle of Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA)cycle as follows:

PLANmeans to establish the objectives we want to achieve and processes needed to deliver

results keeping in mind our target and goal. By planning our short/mid/long term objectives

and results we would need to achieve, we can better allocate efforts and resources and

establish a working methodology and also the responsible partner. A test period would be

recommendable for activities with a special level of complexity.

DOmeans to implement the foreseen activities (the plan), execute the activities and thus

produce the desired results. In our case examples of results could be a workshop delivered, a

round table held, a report on needs analysis prepared, etc.

11

CHECK meansanalyse the results achieved in comparison to the expected outcomes detailed in

the Description of Work document. In this phase it is important to detect any deviation or area

for improving the next similar activity, but also strong points to replicate.

ACT/ADJUST: In case of detecting weaknesses, the formulation of corrective measures is crucial

in order to bring the project back onto the right track towards the achievement of the expected

outcomes. This analysis should also focus on finding the root causes of the problems

encountered for the refinement of the next activities.

6. Risk Analysis and Mitigation Plan A risk analysis is a process used to understand the possible unwanted negative circumstances that can

affect the proper project development and identify options for preventing low quality outputs.

The table below summarises the risk analysis for the TAP project and the contingency plan that will be

activated if needed.

0. Project Management& Quality Assurance

Assumption

Internal & external measures will keep the project on track, time, budget and the outcomes, produced with a high quality, as useful and tangible as possible will be widely disseminated

Risks

- Lack of information from partners to successfully keep track of activities progress-outputs - Unforeseen circumstances affecting the ability of the consortium to deliver as planned - Difficulties for the communications among the partners and with the project coordinator - Potential challenges in electronic communication

Potential risks will be offset by means of regular updates on the activities others are carrying out, establishing strong personal and working relationships among Partner Institutions and by a devoted management based on the experience of all partners. The project management structure will be set up clearly from the beginning. An SC will oversee the crucial technical. PIs will be required to keep financial records & reporting on a regular basis, and to report on activities and provide feedback, indicators, clearly identify their contact person for administrative-financial issues. WP leaders will be part of the SC, the main decision-making body for the project with regards to technical issues. Some basic indicators of progress will be set up to monitor & control the quality and on time deliver-implementation of the activities undertaken: quality of training materials, feedback survey, number of attendees to workshops, train the trainers and multiplying actions, n. of documents uploaded, n. of attendees to dissemination events.

1. Analysis

Assumption

Virtual and face-to-face meetings will assure an in depth dialogue for the definition of the large-enrolment first-year coursesto be updated in line with the national/institutional regulations, standards and needs. The staff and experts from the partners HEIs will be actively involved and proactive and this will foster fruitful discussions. HEIs are willing to share their practices in terms of teaching in HE and links with stakeholders. Good language skills. The documents related to the TAP project will be shared with all partners through online platform. The replication of the documents will be ensured. Good leadership of each WP by the corresponding institution/partner.

12

High interest of the partners. Each partner will provide complete and updated information. In each activity/work package the proper staff will be involved from each partner/institution.

Risks Low commitment from HEI staff. Lack of interest from the HEI high-level staff. Language barriers. Low or no use of the online platform. Low or no replication of the materials. Low update and incomplete information provided by each partner/institution.

Coordinator will be responsible for fostering discussion among the partners. In case of low commitment by the high-level HEI staff, P1, P6 and P5 will organize phone calls/videoconferences to detect the problems they are encountering or to understand if there is a special reason for that. P1 & P6will underline to them the benefit of actively participating in such action. Concerning the low involvement of the academic staff, P1, P6 and P5will make use of free electronic means (e.g., Skype, Google hangout, etc.) in order to have virtual meetings with them and explain how to correctly carry out the activities. In case of no improvement, P1, P6 and P5 will contact their superiors to find out what is the problem and solve it with the support of the directive HEIs staff. In extreme cases P1, P6 and P5will invite such actors at the project management meetings or will take advantage of planned activities to organise a face-to-face meeting with them to find a solution to ensure the correct implementation of the activities with high quality and on time.

2. Capacity Building/Institutional Strengthening

Assumption

Online availability of background documents on time

Availability of exhaustive documents

Questionnaires will be completed on time

High commitments of PCs partners

Training/teaching materials for trainings prepared on time

Good background on the topic of teachers and trainers leading the events

High commitment of HEI(s) in Palestinian hosting partners from PCs

High quality of the organisation of training events Experienced trainers

Risks

Delays in completion of expected results

Low participation in the trainings

Risks will be offset through a strong leadership of this WP and a well in advance organisation of trainings that will include agenda definition, selection of trainers and trainees. Training delivery will be distributed equally among the partners in charge.

3. Dissemination

Assumption

Active and continuous project dissemination and high participation of target groups in dissemination events and meetings. Constant involvement of higher education authorities to foster the acceptance of the project activities and ensure the results’ sustainability.

Risks

Low participation in the seminars, workshops and practical training

Low participation in the seminars, workshops and practical training and the meetings surveys.

Low commitment for agreements and joint cooperation

Low involvement of high level government authorities

Lack of understanding of the mutual benefit of establishing links

Reluctance on Regional and International cooperation

The risks of this WP will be minimised by a regular effort in communication and dissemination of the results under the project umbrella. Each actor involved in the dissemination activities will be invited by the HEIs and also by the coordinator to join the events planned explaining the usefulness and the importance of their participation for further improvement of their sector. National, Regional & International cooperation.

14

7. SWOT analysis matrix for internal QCM

UA (in cooperation with the project coordinator) will be responsible for keeping the SWOT matrix updated, with the support of the Advisory Board and this will be discussed during each project meeting with the Project Steering Committee every 6 months.

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION DEVIATION STRENGHTS AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Management, Quality Assurance & Dissemination

0.1 Project meetings & Project management

0.2 Purchasing necessary equipment

0.3 Project Quality Control

0.4 Daily Project Dissemination

Analysis 1.1 Gathering background materials (reports) for analytical work

1.2 Preliminary content on kick-off seminar

1.3 Analysis of available HE documents

1.4 Preparation, elaboration and distribution of the questionnaires

1.5 Detailed analysis regarding the situation in each HEI

Capacity Building/Institutional Strenghtening

2.1 Elaboration of the teaching/learning/training materials

2.2 Organisation of the workshops and the practical training

2.3 Procurement of technological equipment

2.4 Development of themodules

2.5 EU module consultation

2.6 Module implementation and evaluation

2.7 Study visit to EU HEIs

2.8 Drafting and approval of National Framework

2.10 Systematic consultations

Dissemination 3.1 Creation of project website

3.2 National Dissemination Workshop

3.3 Dissemination of updated large-enrolment course policies

15

Moreover, the indicators to be considered per each workpackage and type of activity/result are depicted in the table below. Outputs (tangible) Events Outcomes (intangible)

Activity/result

Indicator of progress Activity/result Activity/result Indicator of progress

WP1 AQAC

Collection of data from teachers and students on current assessment practices

Focus group and analysis on policy documents in Palestine

National Baseline Study (NBS)

Elaboration of project website

- Attendance at KO meeting

- Year 1 plan proposed and approved

- Attendance at SC meeting - Students and teachers questionnaires on first year education; - Interviews with the Quality Units of all Palestinian Universities - Clear definition of the employed sampling technique. - The sample includes consortium members and non-members universities. - The sample includes large enrolment first year education classes’ students. - The sample includes large enrolment first year education classes’ teachers. - The sample includes universities’ administrators. - The sample includes the Palestinian Accreditation and Quality Assurance Commission AQAC - Clear Time schedule - Inclusion of quantitative and qualitative analysis. - Evidence of the AQAC educational assessment policies (If available) - Evidence of the universities’ educational assessment policies (If available) - Evidence of ICT practices the universities uses in assessment.

Consortium Kick-Off Meeting

Steering Committee Meeting 2

Gathering of knowledge about Palestinian large-enrolment first-year assessment technology support practices.

Gradually acquired knowledge during the project lifetime on:

Palestinian HE assessment practices

Large-enrolment first year courses

16

- Evidence of the current self-learning practices in large enrolment education assessment. - Evidence of the current teacher assessment practices. - Provision of recommendations for improvements to align assessment with the self-regulated learning practices including providing the learners with self-directed learning opportunities. - Report visible via public event(s) attended by university administrators and the head of AQAC, teachers, and department administrators. - Intensive results dissemination through website and social media channels. Elaboration of NBS and uptake of its recommendations.

- Dissemination of NBS.

- Participant observation (to examine the interaction between students and professors in the class). - Analysis of policy documents. - Use of the corporative project image

and coherency in terms of design across

the different sections of the website and

meets with the requirements of the

funding authority (E+ logo and

disclaimer).

- Content is updated and includes

relevant and specific keywords regarding

the project. This website is optimized for

finding by search engine and this will

make the Google anchoring possible.

17

- All page file names have keyword

descriptive names.

- Timely production and posting of

project outputs and of any news items

related to the project.2.

- The project Website is user friendly and

adaptive to the different devices with

due consideration for accessibility

requirements..

- The website has the key information on

the project main objectives, partners and

planned results, as well as it includes the

project output being achieved.

- The project is linked to any other

complementary initiative and actor in

the field and also to each project

partner’s institutional websites.

WP2 ANNU & UCC

Technological equipment procurement

Design of 10 pilot modules for existing courses

Evaluation of pilot

Attendance at workshops

Attendance at SC meeting

Reception and distribution of new IT

3 capacity-building workshops on diverse assessment and evaluation options

Steering Committee Meeting 3

Gathering of knowledge and experience oflarge-enrolment first-year HE courses



2

Project target groups:

Academic faculty within each national HEI. - Academic faculty in non-participating HEIs. - University administrators in participating HEIs. - University administrators from other National HEIs. - Relevant staff from the Ministry of Education and Higher Education

18

modules equipment

IT equipment use plan

Relevance of training topics linked with WP1 results

Innovative training delivery methodology

Use of multimodal material

Careful selection of trainers and trainees

Use, analysis and exploitation of trainees’ satisfaction questionnaires for continuous improvement

Visibility of training to ensure high attendance to thereplications

Recommendations on modules made and adopted

WP3 UA

Implementation of modules

Implementation Evaluation report

Attendance at meetings

Feedback and suggestions for improvement incorporated into courses Adequacy of the proposed curricula to the labour market needs

Adequacy of teaching methodology, students assessment and use of ICT tools

Integration of teaching staff from the private sector

Student’s satisfaction

Adequacy of dissemination for student’s recruitment purposes

Access to course information (from students, families, societies)

Institutional, National, International standards observation

Monitoring meetings (2) and course observations Gathering of knowledge

and experience oflarge-enrolment first-year HE courses



19

Endorsement of competent authorities for impact and sustainability issues

Attendance and reception to new modules

Elaboration of report and exploitation of results for continuous improvement

WP4 BZU, STUBA

National Framework for large-enrolment first-year education

Assessment policy reform

Creation of dissemination material for National Dissemination Workshop

Updating of website to include new course design and sample material

Attendance on visit

Attendance at workshop

Knowledge and materials of courses disseminated widely

Administrators study visit

National Dissemination Workshop

Gathering of knowledge and experience of large-enrolment first-year HE courses and dissemination



Dissemination activities

WP5 PPU Steering Committee

Meeting Reports Attendance at SC Meetings Steering Committee Meetings (3) Ensuring the consistent

high-quality of the project and its outputs

Better understanding of large-enrolment capacity building projects and projects in Palestine

Elaboration of feedback and activity reports

Project activities adjusted in line with feedback and suggestions received

Project objectives met

WP6 ANNU Progress reports

Project final report

Financial reports

Feedback from EACEA

Compliance with national and EU standards

Elaboration of reports with quality and

Top-quality management and evaluation of project

Smooth, on-time and on-budget running of project

20

on time

The checklist below includes main tasks for the preparation, organization and implementation of the capacity building workshops (WP2):

Training plan Strong connection between the needs analysis and the training plan

Before the workshop

Appropriate profile of trainers and trainees

Availability of appropriate logistics

Cooperative process of agenda preparation among trainers and feedback from trainees ( to ensure the relevance of the training session)

Analysis of trainees’ profile before the training material preparation and preparation of appropriate specific content and delivery methodology in line with trainees’ needs and learning methods preferences.

Full set of relevant material is circulated before the workshop for introduction and is available during the session

Preparation dissemination materials to ensure high participation and the visibility/impact of the event (in line with the project corporative image).

During the workshop

Ensure the indicators in terms of target participation (both qualitative and quantitative) is accomplished.

Make the objective and delivery methodology of the workshop clear to all participants (underline the connection with the overall project objectives)

Use of innovative teaching methodology, multimodal material, ICT, and first work in groups and exchange of practices, case studies, foster interaction.

Special focus on practical work for the evaluation of the current practices used by the participants/instructors of the selected courses ( 2 per institution) and to be improved.

After the workshop

Consolidation of the workshop outcomes with all partners for the report preparation.

Distribute/collect and analyze the evaluation form.

Preparation if the workshops’ report.

21

8. External evaluators

It is not envisaged that external evaluators will be required for the TAP project. However, the National Erasmus Office (NEO) in Palestine will be kept informed of all project activities and progress as an external interest group. They will be invited to all project meetings. If there is a need for an external project evaluator, the NEO will fulfil that role.

22

9. Quality Assurance per activity type

This section details the broad framework of quality standards per activity type. More detail information

on quantitative and qualitative quality standards aredetailed in Section 7 of the present document.

Needs analysis.

The criteria that will be used for monitoring the quality of this module are:

Adequacy of needs analysis survey for the Project target

Adequacy of needs survey dissemination

High quality and exhaustive needs analysis report

Capacity Building/Institutional Strengthening The criteria that will be used to monitor the quality of capacity building moduleswill be divided into two stagesas follows:

1. Large-enrolment first-year modules design and implementation

Systematic consultations of the teams of experts

Adequacy of newly-acquired technological equipment

Adequacy of the training material for the workshops, the practical training and the seminars to our targets

Careful selection of trainers

Trainees’ pre-need analysis questionnaire

Trainees satisfaction questionnaire

Adequate module design and implementation

Exhaustive self-evaluation reports

Exhaustive evaluation of new modules and implementation process

2. Policy and Framework reform

Systematic consultations of the teams of experts

Adequacy and relevance of study visit

Evaluation of the new National Framework

Evaluation and approval of the policy reform

Evaluation of the implementation process

Dissemination

Dissemination strategy: o Adequacy of the message(s) to our targets, dissemination channels

Set of dissemination material (folder, poster, presentation) o Content, corporative image

Dissemination outreach: o Target type and Number reached

23

10. Quality Assurance tools The following flowchart summarises the quality assurance steps:

Figure 4: TAP quality assurance steps.

24

In addition to the above, the following diagram explains the quality control procedure:

Figure 5: TAP PDCA procedures applied to TAP

Taking into account the QCM context of the TAP project, this section provides templates for quality assurance tools for the different types of activities that will be carried out during the lifetime of the TAP project. For each specific activity or event, the Quality Coordinator will work together with the activity coordinator/organiser to adapt one of the templates in order to provide a quality evaluation document that best fits the requirements of that activity. Additionally, the host institution of each activity/event, in close collaboration with the corresponding WP leader, will develop the reports and facilitate the feedback to the Quality Control workpackage leader. Each quality document produced for an activity must include a header with the TAP and ERASMUS+ logos as well as the project title: “Transforming Assessment Practices in Large Enrollment First Year Education”.

The individual quality documents for each activity will be provided in English (and Arabic if necessary). Each activity coordinator is responsible for making sure they have been completed by the participants in the activity, and then for sending them back to the Quality Coordinator for evaluation.

25

a. Activity Feedback Questionnaire

i. Kick off meeting survey

PURPOSE - To meet all Project partners - To clarify activities and responsibilities - To discuss about the next 6 months activities

TARGET Project partners

SUCCEESS - Activities clarified and their replication - Partners’ responsibilities clarified - Next 6 months action plan clarified

PROJECT NAME: KOM feedback form This feedback form has been prepared to understand better your satisfaction level of the KoM carried out in order

to understand which where the very positive aspects but also the aspects for improvement and thus, to prepare you the next activity better according to your needs. Thank you very much! Your response is confidential.

1:I totally disagree//2: I disagree //3: I rather disagree //4: I rather agree //5: I agree //6: I totally agree

PART I:

Statements Q1 – Q10 Level of the agreement (scale 1 – 6)

Q1 Already before the kick off meeting (coming to the meeting) I was acquainted with the project content and goals.

Q2

Before the kick of meeting I had not quite clear understanding of the tasks and responsibilities, which our institution has been expected to fulfill within the project.

Q3 All important points/matters related to the project content were discussed during the kick off meeting.

Q4 All important points/matters related to the project management were discussed during the kick off meeting.

Q5

The kick off meeting has made for me the project content and goals much clearer, it contributed to my understanding of the tasks and responsibilities, which our institution has within the project.

Q6 The tasks that need to be done in the first year of the project have been clearly specified.

Q7

We (our institution)/I have a clear understanding of the tasks and responsibilities that our institution/me is to be fulfill in the first year of the project.

Q8 The coordinator gave an adequate space to all partners to express their questions, comments, proposals, etc.

Q9 All participating partners entered actively into the led discussions.

Q10 As to the administrative aspects the project progress meeting was prepared

very well.

PART II:

26

Specify the pros and cons of the meeting organization (program, discussed topics, venue, catering, accommodation, social events, etc.) and give proposals for the next meetings (what should be changed, improved, what to avoid, etc.):

Specify your critical notes and proposals to both the meeting and project (what was missed, what was to be discussed in more details, critical notes and appreciated aspects to the led discussions, etc.):

27

ii. Training satisfaction survey

PURPOSE - Train staff on certain topics detected in the need analysis phase - Strengthen the relations between Academia-HE authorities

TARGET HEIs staff

SUCCEESS - Solid knowledge of the QA systems in HEIs in Europe and EU lessons learnt

- Continuous consultation on QA system topics during and after the training/seminars/workshops

- Expertise created in the target topics

PROJECT NAME: Training satisfaction questionnaire This feedback form has been prepared to understand better your satisfaction level of the training carried out in order to understand which where the very positive aspects but also the aspects for improvement and thus, to

prepare you the next training better according to your needs.

Thank you very much! Your response is confidential. 1: I totally disagree //2: I disagree //3: I rather disagree //4: I rather agree //5: I agree //6: I totally agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

The objectives of the training were clearly defined

Selection and topics were appropriate to my role and responsibilities

The training improved my understanding of the subject

I will be able to apply the knowledge acquired

Visual and supporting material were useful and easy to follow

Participation and interaction were encouraged

There was a correct balance between theoretical, exercises and discussion

The trainers were well prepared

The training objectives were met

Overall evaluation of the training

Which topics would you suggest for future trainingsessions? … Which aspects do you think could be improved for the next training sessions?

…

28

iii. Project meeting survey

PURPOSE Analyse the activities carried out

Discuss about possible doubts for the next activities

Solve any possible problem that difficult the correct project deployment

TARGET Project consortium

SUCCEESS Project keeps going as established

All possible incidences are detected and solved

PROJECT NAME: Project coordination meeting satisfaction questionnaire

This feedback form has been prepared to understand better your satisfaction level of the coordination meeting carried out in order to understand which where the very positive aspects but also the aspects for improvement and

thus, to prepare the next meeting better according to your suggestions.

Thank you very much! Your response is confidential. 1: I totally disagree //2: I disagree //3: I rather disagree //4: I rather agree //5: I agree //6: I totally agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

BEFORE THE PROJECT MEETING

The objectives of the meeting were clearly defined beforehand so that I could prepare better for the meeting

The logistical information received was appropriate (transportation, accommodation, venue, etc.)

The agenda was prepared by the project coordinator but I was asked for comments/suggestion for its improvement

The agenda was appropriate for the purpose of the meeting and we clarified all the pending issues

DURING THE PROJECT MEETING

There was enough time for presentations, discussion and working groups

The presentations made by the partners were of a high quality and with concrete issues and topics, important for clarifications of the project development

All the topics foreseen in the agenda have been covered

The meeting venue was appropriate

AFTER THE PROJECT MEETING

29

The meeting was effective (topics discussed, problems solved, next steps to be taken, etc.)

Minutes of the meeting have been circulated within a reasonable time after the meeting and I was asked for comments for the consolidation of the final version

Any recommendation for improving our next project meeting

transforming assessment practices in large … - quality plan.pdf · 2018-01-15 · project no.:...

Documents