questo

481 views
423 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
481
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

questo

  1. 1. MOTO Project Quality Assurance Plan (DRAFT) Foreword This document is the draft plan for Moto project quality assurance. Project Partners are invited to read the plan and to give their feedback filling the questionnaire enclosed at the last page of the document. 1) The MOTO Quality Assurance Plan and the European Framework for Vet Quality Assurance Following Iso Definitions, reported in the Cedefop glossary1: • Quality is the consistent conformance of a product or service to a given set of standards or expectations. • Quality management are all activities of management that determine the quality policy, objectives and responsibilities, and implement them by means of a quality plan, quality control, and • Quality assurance are part of quality management focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled. Quality assurance is not a separate work stage, but runs throughout the whole project, being an ongoing process. The process consists of a "virtuous" cycle based on continuous monitoring of the indicators of quality provided in a separate plan (Quality plan) and the consequent continuous improvement of the processes under control. Therefre, before the project start, it is ncessary a preventive effort to identify the processes to be monitored, indicators to be used and the metrics to be adopted. It should not be forgotten that quality is a responsibility of all the Project partners: all partners, and not only the Project manager, have an interest that the deliverables are of high quality and that the processes behind them are monitored and improved. The Quality Assurance will be developed during the whole project activities as a parallel activity to project management implementation. There will be a constant relation between internal evaluation and project management, in order to calibrate M.O.T.O. actions. These activities will be registered in interim reports. The Quality Assurance Plan has the following objectives: • applying systematic activities for monitoring the project implementation, recording deviations and shortcomings • set quality assurance procedure for review and approval of deliverables • introducing a formal and systematic testing to measure the effectiveness of the Model The Quality Assurance report will be issued before the ending of the project and it will made up of all the interim reports drawn up during the implementation of the project. Develop a plan of quality means both to identify the criteria for completeness and accuracy of deliverables and to make a plan to assure the quality of the product to be developed. The quality plan for the MOTO project takes as a reference the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework (EQARF). It is the Reference Model for VET quality assurance described in a Recommendation approved by the Parliament and the European Council. 1 Cedefop, Quality in Training – Glossary, November 2003 1
  2. 2. EQARF comprises a quality assurance and improvement cycle of planning, implementation, evaluation/assessment and review/revision of VET, supported by common quality criteria, indicative descriptors and indicators. Planning This relates to setting up goals regarding policies, procedures, tasks, and human resources. It relates also to defining input and output standards to support the design and implementation processes linked with goals, as well as to providing methodologies and criteria for certification of individuals or the accreditation of VET institutions and/or programmes. Implementation This refers to the principles underpinning the implementation of means and actions planed to achieve the goals and objectives Evaluation/assessment This covers both the evaluation of programme provision against the objectives; and the assessment of achievements/outcomes at individual levels. It implies designing evaluation mechanisms according to the context, defining the frequency and scope of evaluations, and providing evidence of the findings of the evaluation to those concerned, including strengths, areas for improvement and recommendations for action. Review Quality assurance and development is a continuous and systematic process. This requires regular review based on a combination of internal and external assessments' results, processing feed-back and organising procedures for change. FIG. 1 THE EUROPEAN QUALITY ASSURANCE REFERENCE FRAMEWORK Planning Implementation Review) Evaluation/assessm ent Particular attention should be paid to monitoring and evaluation of results achieved. 2
  3. 3. Monitoring is a management and process control, while evaluation is the overall assessment of the programme and the achievement of foreseen objectives and results, .Monitoring is mainly focused on processes, while evaluation is mainly focused on products and outputs. Evaluation activities are also based on data and information collected during the monitoring phase. Both use qualitative and quantitative criteria. 2. Adapting the European model to a project design The European Recommendation further deepens the four phases of the model through the suggestion of the general quality criteria to be met for each phase; for each criterion a set of descriptors are presented, which describe the actions to be taken in response to the criterion. The European model has been designed with reference to the training systems and training providers, therefore it must be adapted to the specificity of the Moto project by selecting descriptors that are suitable for a project design. The table below shows the result of this adaptation 3
  4. 4. Recommendation descriptors tailored to the project Quality Criteria Descriptors at project level Planning reflects • European and national VET policy goals/objectives are reflected in the a strategic vision project targets shared by the • Project partners participate in setting goals and objectives at the different relevant levels stakeholders and • Ongoing consultation with project partners takes place to identify specific project partners; needs it includes • Responsibilities in quality management and development have been explicit explicitly allocated goals/objectives, • The project has an explicit and transparent quality system in place actions and • Explicit goals/objectives and targets are set and monitored through specific indicators indicators (success criteria) Implementation • Implementation plans are established in cooperation between the partners plans have been • Implementation plans include consideration of the resources required, the devised in capacity of the users and the tools and guidelines needed for support consultation with • Partners' responsibilities in the implementation process are explicitly project partners described and made transparent and include • Resources are appropriately internally aligned/assigned with a view to explicit achieving the targets set in the implementation plans principles • Implementation plans include specific support towards the training of teachers and trainers • A project quality assurance framework has been devised and includes guidelines and quality standards to promote continuous improvement and self-regulation Evaluation of • A methodology for evaluation has been devised, covering internal and outcomes and external evaluation processes is • Evaluation and review includes adequate and effective mechanisms to regularly carried involve project partners out and • Evaluation and review covers processes and results/outcomes of the project supported by including the assessment of learner satisfaction as well as staff performance measurement satisfaction • Relevant, regular and coherent data collection takes place (e.g. questionnaires and indicators), in order to measure success and identify areas for improvement. • Early warning systems are implemented Review • Procedures on feedback and review are part of a strategic learning process in the project • Results/outcomes of the evaluation process are discussed with project partners and processes are regularly reviewed and appropriate action plans are put in place • Information on the outcomes of evaluation is made publicly available We can consider the descriptors as an overarching framework useful to assess whether the project is following QA principles. This framework will be utilized as a permanent point of reference for managing the Project and assessing its implementation; it is an instrument which will be utilized by 4
  5. 5. the project management and by the project partners to fine-tune the initial planning, to monitor the project implementation and to evaluate the project products. It will be an element of the final quality report. A particular attention will be given, inside this framework, to introducing Early Warning System mechanisms, in order to give to the Project Partners the possibility to react in time to difficulties or critic points emerging during the project life, readdressing the project activities in order to overcome them. A continuous monitoring and a permanent contact between the Partners will facilitate to achieve this purpose. 3. The MOTO Project 3.1 General objectives The rationale of M.O.T.O. project is to identify an operative framework to test ECVET and to facilitate the validation, recognition, accumulation and transfer of units of learning outcomes. In each country experiences and best practices in this field will be shared. MOTO will provide concrete methodological tools to analyse and describe a range of vocational qualifications (EQF 3 level – Tourism occupational sector) in terms of units of learning outcomes and a model that will permit the validation, recognition, accumulation and transfer of units of learning outcomes with reference to the existing European tools (EQF, Europass, ECTS) and principles (validation of non formal and informal learning, quality assurance) in order to reduce the barriers to mobility across Europe. The project will consolidate and integrate sound partnership between National institutions responsible for VET qualifications systems across Europe enhancing cooperation and networking and promoting mutual trust, with the purpose of testing ECVET. 3.2 Specific objectives, expected outcomes and products The final objective of the proposed project is to foster transferability of units of learning outcomes in accordance with the Technical specifications of the proposal for Recommendation on ECVET and to test the ECVET mechanism through validation, recognition, accumulation and transfer of units of learning outcomes to facilitate professional and geographical mobility of specific target groups of disadvantaged people (such as drop outs and adults seeking jobs qualifications, immigrants) at Level 3 EQF. The main expected outcomes and objectives of the project are: • facilitate transfer and accumulation of units of learning outcomes and associated credit points through, the establishment of learning and mutual agreements (i.e. learner’s agreement and Memoranda of Understanding) • develop a methodology of analysis and description of a range of VET qualifications (according to the EQF levels) in terms of units learning of outcomes (KSC), with reference to a pilot occupational sector enabling the assessment and validation and recognition of the units to which ECVET points will be associated; • develop a Model Of Transferability of learning outcome units (M.O.T.O.) aimed at being a functional device that will permit the validation, recognition, accumulation and transfer, of units of learning outcomes in different VET systems. • develop testing activities aimed at verifying the feasibility and practicability of the methodology and the M.O.T.O. model generated during the implementation of the project. Practical activities will test the comparability of learning outcome units and the processes of assessment, validation and recognition. The relative weight of units of learning outcomes, with regard to the qualifications and their equivalent EQF levels (and where possible NQF levels), will be associated to credit points. For qualifications which do not have a formal learning pathway reference, credit points will be allocated through estimation by comparison with other qualification formally recognised. 5
  6. 6. 3.3 Main partner responsibilities We resume the main responsibilities of the project partners: ITALY: A) MINISTERO DELL’ISTRUZIONE (P1): Coordination of • WP1 (Project management): o Organize, supervise and direct the overall Project Management. o Carry out all the necessary administrative procedures, o collecting and controlling the overall Reports, statements, accounts and documents produced. • WP7 (Results Dissemination): o Co-ordination of the overall disseminating activities o Dissemination among its own networks and connection to similar initiatives, projects, analysis, researches o Definition and control of the Dissemination Plan objectives o Hosting the Thematic Seminar together with partner 2 (ISFOL) o Collaboration and participation to all the Thematic Seminars • WP8 (Exploitation of results): o Co-ordination of the overall exploitation activities B) ISFOL (P2): Co-ordination of : • WP 2 (Quality assurance)2: o Co-ordination and Management of evaluation and quality control, o nominating a Manager and a Quality expert responsible for quality control and communicating information. • WP 3 (Web Site development and Networking Integration): o Co-ordination and integration of the partnership in the Consortium o Take care of the technological aspects of the project implementing a dedicated web site o Integration of own networks to the other partners networks o Connection to similar initiatives, projects, analysis, researches AUSTRIA (P3): Co-ordination of: • WP 5 (Model Development): 2 In the original project Finland is responsible for this WP. During the first Partners meeting Finland has proposed an exchange of work-packages ( from WP2 to WP6) between FNBE e ISFOL, which has accepted it. The formal amendment to submit to the EC will be discussed during the next Partners meeting. 6
  7. 7. o Co-ordination of the development of comparative analysis o production of the common model o production of the user’s guidelines FINLAND (P4): Co-ordination of: • WP 6 (Field Testing)3: o Production of the model testing report and coordination of the field testing ICELAND (P5): Co-ordination of: • WP 4 (methodology set up): o Responsible for the methodology set up activities o Elaboration of the methodological manual o Contribution to the production of the pilot sector interim report and involved in the studies nationally 3.4 Project development The implementation of MOTO project will follow the Work Plan presented below Work Plan and WorkPackages No. WP WP Denomination Start End 1 Project Management March 2009 March 2011 2 Quality Assurance Plan March 2009 March 2011 3 Website development and network March 2009 February 2011 integration 4 Methodology set-up March 2009 August 2009 5 Model development August 2009 February 2010 6 Field Testing April 2010 March 2011 7 Results dissemination Juin 2009 March 2011 8 Results exploitation December March 2011 2010 To control the Project development the following Gantt Chart has been created integrating: • the work plan (which presents the activities) • with the deliverables list (which presents the products, see par. 3.5) • and the European seminars, which have been planned by the European Commission to discuss the advancement of the project and to give methodological input to the projects activity. 3 See note no 2 7
  8. 8. 8
  9. 9. GANTT CHART (LM: Launch Meeting PM: Partnership Meeting S: Seminar) Activity 2009 2010 2011 Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Project LM PM PM Mid. PM PM PM Final P.M. P.M. Management + Report Report WP1 PM Miur MIUR Quality Q.A. Q.A. Plan Report Assurance Isfol Isfol Plan WP2 Web Site; Web Report Networking Site Network. Dev. Integration Isfol Activities WP3 Isfol Methodology Back- Method. ground Set Up WP4 Manual Analysis Mesc Mesc Pilot Sector Report Isfol Model MOTO Model; Development User’s WP5 Guide lines 3S Field Testing Interi Final m test. WP6 testing report report FNBE FNBE. . Dissemination Dissem. S S S S S M.O.T.O. CD-ROM WP7 Plan Miur Isfol- Miur Exploitation WP8 ICELAND BELGIUM FINLAND AUSTRIA ITALY ITALY European Bruxelles Paris Berlin Bruxelles Events 29-30 2-3 19-20 April July Oct 9
  10. 10. With the exception of the continuous activities (Project management, Quality assurance plan, Networking integration and dissemination), which are implemented throughout the life span of the project, the other activities, specific of the project, have a limited life time, and take place between a partners meeting and the next one: • The methodology set-up runs from March 2009, at the starting point of the project (with a meeting to be held in Italy) to september20094 (in coincidence with the partner meeting to be held in Iceland in September); • The model development runs from August 2009 (and then just before the partner meeting in Iceland) to February 2010 (just before the Partners meeting to be held in March 2010 in Austria); • The Field testing phase will start with the meeting in March 2010 in Austria and will end in November 2010 (just before the partner meeting to be held in December 2010). However, in this case a meeting is foreseen in mid-August 2010. This development model allows the project to apply the European framework for quality assurance in each phase of the project, allowing the partners to monitor the evolution and development of the project and to develop the objectives of each new phase, on the base of the previous phase results. In particular at the end of each of the first two phases of the project above and at the half of the third phase the project implementation will be assessed through a check of the progress of the project. The monitoring data and the results of the previous phase will lead to a feedback and a fine tuning of the objectives of the new phase. 4 The end of the methodology set-up has been shifted to September, to make it overlap with the delivery of the methodology manual and with the Pilot sector report, which are two products of this work package. 10
  11. 11. 3.5 Deliverables and responsibilities The MOTO Project plans to produce a long list of deliverables, having a different nature: public and internal events, reports, plans, and other products. This is the complete list, ordered by time of delivering and specifyng the partner responsibility. Deliv Deliverable title Responsible Delivery date Nature Dissemin erabl Partner ation e No level (a) 1 Launch Meeting ITALY (MIUR) March 2009 Public Event PP 2 Start-up Partner Meeting minutes ITALY (MIUR) March 2009 Internal CO event and Report 15 Background Analysis ICELAND June 2009 Product PP 10 Project Quality Plan ITALY (ISFOL) July 2009 Product PP 22 Dissemination Plan ITALY August 2009 Other PP (MIUR/ISFOL) 3 Transnational Partner Meeting ICELAND September 2009 Internal CO (minutes) event and Report 23 Seminar on the Methodology set- ICELAND September 2009 Public event PU up 16 Pilot Sector Report ITALY (ISFOL) September 2009 Other PP 17 Methodology Manual ICELAND September 2009 Product PU 12 Web Site Development ITALY (ISFOL) November 2009 Product PU 18 The M.O.T.O. Model AUSTRIA March 2010 Product PP 19 The user’s guidelines AUSTRIA March 2010 Product PU 4 Transnational Partner Meeting AUSTRIA March 2010 Internal CO (minutes) event and Report 24 M.O.T.O. Model Seminar AUSTRIA March 2010 Public event PU 5 Middle Project Management ITALY (MIUR) April 2010 Report CO Report 6 Transnational Partner Meeting ITALY (MIUR) July 2010 Internal CO (minutes) event and Report 25 Project Quality Assurance Seminar ISFOL August 2010 Public event PU 20 The interim testing report FINLAND August 2010 Report PP 7 Transnational Partner Meeting FINLAND December 2010 Internal CO minutes event and Report 26 Field Testing Seminar FINLAND December 2010 Public event PU 21 The final testing report FINLAND December 2010 Report PU 8 Transnational Partner Meeting ITALY (MIUR) March 2011 Internal CO minutes event and Report 9 Final Project Management Report ITALY (MIUR) March 2011 Report CO 11 Quality Assurance Report ITALY (ISFOL) March 2011 Report PP 13 Report on Networking activities ITALY (ISFOL) March 2011 Report PP 11
  12. 12. 14 Partnership Agreement ALL PARTNERS March 2011 Other PU 27 M.O.T.O. Project Final Seminar MIUR/ALL March 2011 Public event PU PARTNERS 28 M.O.T.O. CD-ROM ITALY (MIUR) March 2011 Product PU 29 Learning Objectives ALL PARTNERS March 2011 Product PU PU = Public PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including Commission services and project reviewers). CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including Agency and Commission services and project reviewers). 4. Monitoring methodology Monitoring consists of a continuous and systematic collection, elaboration and analysis of data and information on the project implementation, aimed at implementing the management control process and at planning eventual necessary modifications; in particular monitoring is aimed to: • Measure of the level of achievement of the expected objectives, also by assessing the influence of critical factors; • Take decisions over eventual modifications to be carried out during the project implementation; • Improve future interventions on the basis of current experiences; • Improve the project structure. Management of monitoring can represent an occasion to put into practice correction strategies aimed at re-aligning actions to the original plan and/or to the new needs emerged within the evolution of the project context or a deepened knowledge of the implementation context; it gives also the opportunity to realize a participatory involvement of the actors, by discussing and reflecting on project aims, implementation methods, impact on the context to be modified. At the end of each phase a monitoring activity form will be submitted to the partners by the partner responsible for Moto project quality assurance and the results will be discussed during the partner meetings; this will allow a systematic and continuous process of self assessment on the actions undertaken, and to have the possibility to plan in time eventual modifications and corrections. Monitoring activity will gather data to assess the following aspects of project implementation: • Actual implementation of activities • Respect of timing • Correspondence between activities and overall objectives, • Problems in developing activities and products and factors that can have a negative influence • Conditions that influence the success of the initiative • Consistency with partners expectations • Needs for changing plans The monitoring activity form, as well as the request of preparation of specific documents will be sent out before the meeting, giving sufficient time to partners for their preparation and submission during the meetings. Once elaborated, the monitoring reports will be returned to the different management levels (partners, WP responsible), so that any remarkable difference with the initial provisions can be made transparent, examined and, if necessary, corrected. Monitoring reports will be form a part of the final quality report. 12
  13. 13. Monitoring reports Date 1° Monitoring report 30 Sept. 2009 2° Monitoring report 31t March. 2010 3° Monitoring report 30 August. 2010 Final quality report 30 March. 2011 5. Evaluation of the deliverables The MOTO Project contains 29 deliverables; most of them will be subjected to an internal evaluation. We can distinguish three categories of deliverable: • Public events (the dissemination seminars); inside this category we include also the web site, since it is a element of the communication strategy; • Working documents (plans and technical reports, such as the Project Quality Plan, the Dissemination Plan, the Pilot sector report, etc. ) • Final products (the Model and the user’s guidelines). For each category of event the evaluation criteria differ. To establish the criteria we set up the following framework. High attention will be focused on the testing phase; the instruments for evaluating the testing results will complement the QA Plan As to the first two categories of deliverable, a questionnaire will be prepared by the Responsible for the Project Quality assurance, to be filled by the Project partners or by events participants. The questionnaire will be focussed on the main issues connected to the deliverable, and will be short, in order to avoid a data overload. As to the final products, the Project Partner responsible for field testing will implement the instruments for evaluating the testing results, using the criteria presented in column C and integrating them. 13
  14. 14. Evaluation criteria of MOTO Project deliverables A B C Public events Working documents Final products Criteria Amount and X consistency of participation Interest X X Value for project X X development Value for X X X dissemination Respect of timing X X X Coherence with X X X Project objectives Fulfilment of partners’ X X X expectations Coherence with X national legislations Coherence with X ECVET requirements Clarity (ease to be X understood) Ease of application X Portability (ease to be X applied in different contexts) Ease to be X implemented/modified 6. Responsibilities for quality assurance The partner responsible for QA is Isfol. Each of the partners will have to identify an internal responsible for QA activities, to whom Isfol will refer to for the collection and transmission of relevant data. It is important to appoint such a referent, because the collection, selection and transmission of data requires specific competences on monitoring tools and procedures, and because this will serve as a fundamental verification and self awareness occasion within the ongoing quality control process. Each partner has to define and to apply an early QA warning approach/policy related to possible perturbations for assuring a fast feedback. Isfol will have the task to guide and coordinate the data collection, and will assure the respect of deadlines. 14
  15. 15. ANNEXES: ASSESSMENT GRIDS AND FORMS A) Checklist for assessing the consistency of the Project Plan with EQARF This framework will be utilized as a permanent point of reference for managing the Project and assessing its implementation; it is an instrument which will be utilized by the project management and by the project partners to fine-tune the initial planning, to monitor the project implementation and to evaluate the project products. Equarf Descriptor The project Justification and additional Phase respects notes this criteria: 1=Fully 2= Partially 3= Noway PLANNING European and national VET policy goals/objectives are reflected in the project targets Project partners participate in setting goals and objectives at the different levels Ongoing consultation with project partners takes place to identify specific needs Responsibilities in quality management and development have been explicitly allocated The project has an explicit and transparent quality system in place Explicit goals/objectives and targets are set and monitored through specific indicators (success criteria) 15
  16. 16. IMPLEME Implementation plans are NTATION established in cooperation between the partners Implementation plans include consideration of the resources required, the capacity of the users and the tools and guidelines needed for support Partners' responsibilities in the implementation process are explicitly described and made transparent Resources are appropriately internally aligned/assigned with a view to achieving the targets set in the implementation plans Implementation plans include specific support towards the training of teachers and trainers A project quality assurance framework has been devised and includes guidelines and quality standards to promote continuous improvement and self-regulation 16
  17. 17. EVALUA A methodology for evaluation has TION been devised, covering internal and external evaluation Evaluation and review includes adequate and effective mechanisms to involve project partners Evaluation and review covers processes and results/outcomes of the project including the assessment of learner satisfaction as well as staff performance satisfaction Relevant, regular and coherent data collection takes place (e.g. questionnaires and indicators), in order to measure success and identify areas for improvement. Early warning systems are implemented REVIEW Procedures on feedback and review are part of a strategic learning process in the project Results/outcomes of the evaluation process are discussed with project partners and processes are regularly reviewed and appropriate action plans are put in place Information on the outcomes of evaluation is made publicly available 17
  18. 18. B) Monitoring form (draft): This questionnaire will be submitted by the project partner responsible for quality assurance to project partners and should be filled by project Partners at the end of every phase of the project 1a. The level of advancement of project activities does meet so far the expected timetable? YES □ NOT □ 1b. If NO, please specify which activity is late ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2a. The project activities have been realized in coherence with project objectives? YES □ NOT □ 2b. If NOT, please specify which activity is late does not meet the project objectives: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3a. Did you find any problem or difficulty for developing your activities? YES □ NOT □ 3b. If YES, please specify which problems and how did you solved them or how do you think to solve them: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4a. Are you satisfied with the results achieved so far? Fully □ Partially □ Noway □ 4b. If Partially or Noway, please specify why ................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................................. 18
  19. 19. 5a. Do the products realized so far meet your expectations? YES □ NOT □ 5b.If NOT, please specify which product does not meet your expectations and why : ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6a. Do you feel necessary to introduce some changes to project implementation? YES □ NOT □ 6b. Is YES, please explain why and describe what kind of change you need: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
  20. 20. C) External events and web site evaluation The evaluation of the events and the web site will be based both on quantitative and qualitative data. and information. 1) The quantitative data will be based on statistical measurements and will consist of indicators such as: • Level of participation (in total and compared to expectations) • Number of accesses to the website 2) The qualitative information will be will be based on: • Tipology of participants (role and potentiality for implementation) • Interest to the event/website • Satisfaction • Value for project development • Coherence with Project objectives • Fulfilment of partners’ expectations For each external event the project partner which organizes the event will take note of the participants number and role and will submit a questionnaire to them. Questionnaires will be prepared both for partners and external participants by the Partner responsible for Quality assurance. The events monitored will be the disemination seminars number 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6: Questionnaire for participants Name _____________________________________________________________________ Organization __________________________________________________________________ Role _________________________________________________________________________ Please express your judgement about the event answering to the following questions: Fully Fairly Partially Not Noway quite Have the topics discussed been interesting? Do they concern your activity? Has the seminar given you new ideas for developing future activities? Do you think to use in the future the ideas/principles/instruments presented in the seminar? Are you satisfied for having taken part to this event? Suggestions and comments: 20
  21. 21. D) Internal evaluation for Working documents An evaluation form will be prepared and given to the project partners when delivering the following documents: • Project Quality Plan • Dissemination Plan • Pilot sector report • Methodology manual These documents will be sent to project partners in a draft version, with the following questionnaire annexed: Question 1=Fully Explanation notes Suggestions for 2= Partially (e.g. what are the improvement 3= Noway critical parts, specific weaknesses, etc.) Does this product fulfil your expectations? Is this product coherent with the Project objectives ? Is this document valuable for the future developments of MOTO project? Other Comments The final version of each document will be prepared following the suggestions coming from the evaluation questionnaire. 21
  22. 22. E) Evaluation of final products The final products are represented by the Model and the user’s guidelines. A specific field testing is foreseen to: • Evaluate the impact of the model testing in different countries; • Verify the maintenance and feasibility of the system and make any necessary corrections and improvements; • Verify the application of the model of portability in some schools in the tourism sector located in the selected countries partners of the Consortium, checking compatibility codes and measures of portability and functional support devices; • Define institutional arrangements for device activation and use. The Project Partner responsible for field testing is Finland; the instruments for evaluating the testing results will complement the QA Plan. These are some of the main criteria for the evaluation of final products to be followed when implementing the instruments for evaluating the testing results: • Respect of timing • Coherence with Project objectives • Fulfilment of partners’ expectations • Coherence with national legislations • Coherence with ECVET requirements • Clarity (ease to be understood) • Ease of application • Portability (ease to be applied in different contexts) • Ease to be implemented/modified 22
  23. 23. QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN EVALUATION FORM The Project Partyners are invited to fill this questionnaire and send to Isfol to: g.allulli@isfol.it l.agneni@isfol.it Question 1=Fully Explanation notes Suggestions for 2= Partially (e.g. what are the improvement 3= Noway critical parts, specific weaknesses, etc.) Does this document fulfil your expectations? Is this document coherent with the Project objectives ? Is this document valuable for the future developments of MOTO project? Other Comments 23

×