R3 l+ module slides draft


Published on

R3L+ Quality framework for Learning Regions

Training module

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

R3 l+ module slides draft

  1. 1. R3L+ Quality Framework Training module For managers of learning regions, quality managers, multipliers and educational stakeholders
  2. 2. <ul><li>to give a comprehensive introduction to the quality instruments and how they can be used in different settings and contexts. </li></ul>The aim
  3. 3. <ul><li>To discuss own regions/cities from the perspective of the learning region/city. </li></ul><ul><li>To become familiar with the R3L+ framework. </li></ul><ul><li>To share and discuss the expierence s on quality assurance process in LR/LC. </li></ul><ul><li>To share and discuss the q uality dimensions of learning cities and regions. </li></ul><ul><li>To exercise and discuss the evaluation of the learning cities and regions using the quality framework. </li></ul>The learning objectives
  4. 4. <ul><li>He/she knows the conceptual background of the learning regions (LR)/cities (LC), recognise the diversity of the LR/LC, knows what conceptual background is used by his/her own LR/LC. </li></ul><ul><li>He/she knows and understands the R3L+ framework, is able to explain it. </li></ul><ul><li>Using particular examples he/she can explain how the quality assurance process is provided in LR/LC . </li></ul><ul><li>He/she knows and understands the q uality dimensions of learning cities and regions and recognise them as important framework for his/her own LR/LC. </li></ul><ul><li>He/she demonstrates skills of the evaluation of the learning cities and regions using the quality framework. </li></ul>The learning outcomes
  5. 5. <ul><li>The diversity of the LR/LC concepts. </li></ul><ul><li>The elements of the R3L+ framework. </li></ul><ul><li>Assuring quality in learning regions. </li></ul><ul><li>R3L+ Quality criteria and indicators. </li></ul><ul><li>R3L+ Quality cycle and process model. </li></ul>Content
  6. 6. <ul><li>The diversity of the LR/LC concepts </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>What kind of the Learning region/Learning city I represent? What conceptual background has it? </li></ul><ul><li>Are the conceptual backgrounds of our LR/LC similar or not? </li></ul><ul><li>Why the conceptual background may be different? </li></ul>The introductory discussion(1)
  8. 8. <ul><li>‘ Educating cities” (OECD, 1973) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Learning city’ (since 1980) </li></ul>The concept of Learning Regions(LR), Cities(LC) or Communities (LC) is closely connected to the basic ideas of Lifelong Learning
  9. 9. <ul><li>only people are able to learn; </li></ul><ul><li>learning happens in and can be supported by a culture and social interactions; </li></ul><ul><li>communities learn because their members share common goals, take efforts to attain them and so seek for common information and create shared knowledge. </li></ul>Learning regions/cities
  10. 10. <ul><li>For what? </li></ul><ul><li>L earning for a better economic performance </li></ul><ul><li>Learning for the development of the society in a democratic way, social inclusion, environment-friendly behavior, etc. </li></ul>Learning regions/cities
  11. 11. <ul><li>For what? </li></ul><ul><li>for equity; </li></ul><ul><li>for sustainability. </li></ul><ul><li>(Goncalves, 2008) </li></ul>Learning regions/cities in the 21st century
  12. 12. <ul><li>The common feature of the Learning Regions/LC developed over the last decades: </li></ul><ul><li>Their work, structure, way of organization and financing is closely related to international organizations such as UNESCO, EU or OECD. </li></ul>What is in common?
  13. 13. <ul><li>The way the work of the Learning Regions/Cities is in line with a national strategy of policy; </li></ul><ul><li>The locus the initiative to found or be a Learning Region/City comes (or came) from (state, regional or local political initiatives); </li></ul><ul><li>The leading sector and locus of control (public or private); </li></ul><ul><li>The organization of the Learning Region/City: who defines reporting procedures, how is communication formally organized, who is member of the network …; </li></ul><ul><li>The definition and promotion of key issues, overall objectives, mission statements; </li></ul><ul><li>The financing of the Learning Region/City (international, national or regional sources, money or manpower, sustainability of the resources etc.); </li></ul><ul><li>The engagement of the actors (as a project, as a community practice) </li></ul><ul><li>The quality issues (based on outcomes or on procedures, quality program in use, the way quality assurance is organized, the way official guidelines are used). </li></ul>What are differences?
  14. 14. <ul><li>May we describe our region/city as a learning region/city? (do people learn? Do they learn “every were” and “every time”, in different ways? Do communities learn?) </li></ul><ul><li>How can we conceptualize our learning region/city? (what kind of issues does it stress: Economy? Democracy? Sustainability? What priority is given?) </li></ul>Discussion (2)
  15. 15. <ul><li>2. The elements of the R3L+ framework </li></ul>
  16. 16. <ul><li>Case studies of Learning regions and Cities in Europe </li></ul><ul><li>Three + 1 quality areas </li></ul><ul><li>Set of core quality criteria, indicators, core and additional descriptors </li></ul><ul><li>The criteria and indicators are implemented along with the R3L+ quality cycle </li></ul><ul><li>The handbook </li></ul><ul><li>A separate training module </li></ul><ul><li>A collaborative workspace, which can be found on the internet under the address: </li></ul><ul><li>learningregion.pbworks.com </li></ul>R3L+ framework
  17. 17. <ul><li>Three types of LR/LC – R3L+ project participants: </li></ul><ul><li>(1) Regions who developed themselves as a Learning Region some time ago by trying to solve vital problems and searching for support. </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Regions who became a Learning Region by applying in a national program . </li></ul><ul><li>(3) Regions mostly from Eastern-Europe Countries who join the Learning-Regions-Movement after dramatic political changes. </li></ul>1. Case studies of Learning regions and Cities in Europe
  18. 18. <ul><li>Have a long experience in networking, in applying for (financial) support from international organizations, in cooperating with relevant stakeholders and so on. </li></ul><ul><li>Participants: UK (Dundee), Sweden (Lundaland) and Ireland (Limerick). </li></ul>(1) Regions
  19. 19. <ul><li>Have vital problems as well but in order to solve them they apply to a national program and so they are dependent on the objectives, the rules and the financing of that program. </li></ul><ul><li>Participant: Germany. </li></ul>(2) Regions
  20. 20. <ul><li>Are searching for connections to the EU and receive a special support, too. </li></ul><ul><li>There are initiatives coming from very engaged citizens on one hand but there are political obstacles on the other. </li></ul><ul><li>So the success of a Learning Region very much depends on the engagement, the capabilities and the social position of the persons engaged in that process. </li></ul><ul><li>Participants: Lithuania (Kaunas), Romania (Bucharest-Ilfov) and Hungary (Pécs). </li></ul>(3) Regions
  21. 21. <ul><li>3. Assuring quality in learning regions </li></ul>
  22. 22. <ul><li>Based on national research findings and on partners’ common analysis of research data (available on the project official website, www.learning-regions.net ) </li></ul><ul><li>the R3L+ project developed a comprehensive description of four core conditions/quality areas/quality criteria in a quality assurance process: </li></ul><ul><li>creation and development of collaborative partnerships or networks; </li></ul><ul><li>participation and involvement of the members of these networks; </li></ul><ul><li>progress and sustainability of partnership </li></ul><ul><li>promotion of a “learning culture” within it. </li></ul>Partnership
  23. 23. <ul><li>Strands to build a learning city or region: </li></ul><ul><li>Partnership; </li></ul><ul><li>Participation; </li></ul><ul><li>Progress (performance) . </li></ul><ul><li>Key strand to ensure the embedding of adult and lifelong learning in local development initiatives : </li></ul><ul><li>Learning culture. </li></ul>Three + 1 quality areas
  24. 24. <ul><li>Partnership is associated with the building of connections between the various actors and stakeholders in a city or region, their collaboration across organizational and sectorial boundaries as well as the embeddeness of the whole network. </li></ul>Definition (1): Partnership
  25. 25. <ul><li>Participation means involving the wider community in learning and their active contribution towards fostering change in their community. </li></ul>Definition (2): Participation
  26. 26. <ul><li>Performance indicates the fact that learning city and region initiatives should be output orientated, and therefore there is a need to measure progress against own targets, benchmark progress against other initiatives in the field and to establish opportunities to learning from the lesson, such as through evaluation and research. </li></ul>Definition (3): Performance
  27. 27. <ul><li>Learning Culture points to the fact, that learning cities and regions - whether public authorities, private enterprises, education and research institutions, civic organisations or key individuals – are placing learning and knowledge dissemination at the center of development. </li></ul><ul><li>However, this means more than creation of learning opportunities and engagement of learners in learning activities. The critical point here, is whether the adult, as well as learning new skills or concepts is also becoming a lifelong learner, valuing learning as a journey or pathway, rather than understanding learning as an isolated event. </li></ul><ul><li>L earning culture is extrinsically energized and helps to cultivate shared values and support the development of social capital of Learning Cities and Regions. </li></ul>Definition (4): Learning Culture
  28. 28. <ul><li>What conditions/quality areas of a genuine quality assurance process within the partnership are the most difficult to implement in your region/city? Why? </li></ul><ul><li>How to overcome these problems? </li></ul>Discussion (3) of the promoters of LR/LS on partnerships
  29. 29. <ul><li>1. The model of intervention : steps linked with the quality assurance process. </li></ul><ul><li>2. The model of assistance : steps linked with the provision of support for implementing quality assurance activities. </li></ul>Two dimensions of the criteria and indicators are implemented along with the R3L+ quality cycle :
  30. 30. T he roadmap to building and evaluating a LR/LC Strands Practices Levels of learning Getting organised (building) Towards shared understanding (dialoge) Cycles of Learning (reflection) Partnership Purpose People Plans Processes performance Participatios Performance Lifelong learning culture
  31. 31. <ul><li>Q uality management systems approach : </li></ul><ul><li>quality planning; </li></ul><ul><li>control; </li></ul><ul><li>assurance; </li></ul><ul><li>improvement ; </li></ul>Conceptual approach (1) to a quality assurance process
  32. 32. The classical model of quality assurance cycle
  33. 33. LR/LC quality management as a system
  34. 34. <ul><li>T he policy developments at European level in the area of quality assurance, in particular the EQAVET Recommendation of European Parliament ( from 18th of June 2009 ). </li></ul><ul><li>The framework has been developed in accordance with the principles of the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework (EQARF) in VET </li></ul><ul><li>Following the EQARF process model, each indicative descriptor can be assigned a certain stage of the P-D-C-A cycle, which not only allows for compliance with the EQARF principles, but rather extends the original model by deploying a separate network level , bridging between systems and institute level. </li></ul>Conceptual approach (2) to a quality assurance process
  35. 35. Quality assurance process in LR/LC (QAP Matrix) Stage Indicative descriptors System level Network level Provider level Planning Implementation Evaluation Review
  36. 36. <ul><li>What kind of the experience do have you and your city in Quality assurance process? Does the process of the Quality assurance fit to your LR/LC needs? What you would like to change? </li></ul>Discussion (4)
  37. 37. <ul><ul><ul><li>4. R3L+ Quality criteria and indicators </li></ul></ul></ul>
  38. 38. <ul><li>steps linked with the quality assurance process. </li></ul>The model of intervention:
  39. 39. <ul><li>They were developed in close collaboration with key stakeholders of Learning Cities and Regions, including those associated with the R3L+ partnership and a wider audience of experts and actors, linked through the partners’ national, European and international networks, for example the worldwide PASCAL network. </li></ul>How the R3L+ quality criteria and indicators were developed?
  40. 40. <ul><li>In this module a selection of those quality criteria and indicators are present ed that is of utmost relevance to the Learning Regions and Cities participating in the project. </li></ul><ul><li>A full repository of R3L+ quality criteria, indicators and evidence to include the indicators can be found at our collaborative workspace learningregion.pbworks.com. </li></ul><ul><li>A comprehensive list of quality criteria and indicators, of specific importance for a certain Learning City or Region initiative can be found in the H andbook annex. </li></ul>How the R3L+ quality criteria and indicators are presented?
  41. 41. <ul><li>describes what the network wants to be. </li></ul>Definition (5) : The vision statement
  42. 42. <ul><li>describes the reasons for existence, fundamental purpose and values of the network. </li></ul>Definition (6) : The mission statement
  43. 43. <ul><li>is any person or organization, who can be positively or negatively impacted by, or cause an impact on the actions of the partnership / network. </li></ul>Definition (7) : A stakeholder
  44. 44. <ul><li>is about checking: </li></ul><ul><li>whether inputs match outputs, </li></ul><ul><li>whether income balances expenditure, </li></ul><ul><li>whether actual activity matches planned activity; </li></ul><ul><li>is also about recording the gaps between them. </li></ul>Definition (8): Monitoring
  45. 45. <ul><li>it is purposeful, based on asking specific questions about of things, which have happened, about a project and finding the answers; </li></ul><ul><li>it is an investigative process; it involves collecting evidence, making comparisons, measuring things against criteria; </li></ul><ul><li>it means that someone, ultimately, has to make judgments about the value or worth of something so its outputs must be interpretive not simply descriptive; it helps people make decisions about the future; </li></ul><ul><li>it is a means to an end not an end in itself. </li></ul>Definition (9): Evaluation
  46. 46. Partnerships and networks (R3L+ partners’ case)
  47. 47. Partnerships and Networks: indicative descriptors and evidence (to be continued)
  48. 48. Partnerships and Networks: indicative descriptors and evidence (to be continued)
  49. 49. Partnerships and Networks: indicative descriptors and evidence
  50. 50. Participation in partnerships (R3L+ partners’ case)
  51. 51. Participation in partnerships indicative descriptors and evidence (to be continued)
  52. 52. Participation in partnerships indicative descriptors and evidence
  53. 53. Progress and Sustainability (R3L+ partners’ case)
  54. 54. Progress and Sustainability (R3L+ partners’ case)
  55. 55. Progress and Sustainability indicative descriptors and evidence (to be continued)
  56. 56. Progress and Sustainability indicative descriptors and evidence
  57. 57. Culture of Learning (R3L+ partners’ case)
  58. 58. Learning culture indicative descriptors and evidence (to be continued)
  59. 59. Learning culture indicative descriptors and evidence
  60. 60. <ul><li>Are the R3L+ Quality criteria and indicators suitable for your LR?/LC? Do you use some of them? </li></ul><ul><li>What the R3L+ Quality criteria and indicators may be used, not may be used? </li></ul><ul><li>Why some Quality criteria and indicators can not be used? </li></ul>Discussion (5)
  61. 61. <ul><ul><li>R3L+ Quality cycle and process model </li></ul></ul>
  62. 62. <ul><li>steps linked with the provision of support for implementing quality assurance activities. </li></ul>The model of assistance:
  63. 63. Learning dimension of quality cycle model
  64. 64. <ul><li>setting the stage for the quality assurance process (understanding better the context of the learning region initiative); </li></ul><ul><li>informing the actors on the reference framework, main quality criteria and indicators relevant for the learning region quality assurance process; </li></ul><ul><li>identification of main sources of data in relation with each criteria/indicator that will be used during the process; </li></ul>The main components of the quality cycle, developed in several stages of the process, are linked with (to be continued):
  65. 65. <ul><li>gathering evidences to document the compliance with the quality areas and indicators; </li></ul><ul><li>filling in the matrix: comparing the required with the actual performance of the learning region initiative in each area defined within the project; </li></ul><ul><li>deciding if evidences are enough and searching for further data, if necessary; </li></ul><ul><li>providing feed-back and reviewing the learning region intervention (in terms of outcomes and processes). </li></ul>The main components of the quality cycle, developed in several stages of the process, are linked with:
  66. 66. <ul><li>initiation of quality assurance process, </li></ul><ul><li>gathering and interpreting of data relevant for the reference framework and all core criteria for quality, </li></ul><ul><li>evaluation/decision based on the gaps identified, </li></ul><ul><li>revision/review of learning region interventions based on the feed-back provided by learning regions representatives. </li></ul>The main stages of the cycle
  67. 67. Adapting the quality cycle to R3L+ approach
  68. 68. <ul><li>KEY Questions of Stage 1: </li></ul><ul><li>Which areas do you need to consider when you are working with quality in learning regions projects? </li></ul><ul><li>What quality criteria and indicative descriptors could be used in a specific learning region partnership? </li></ul><ul><li>Who should be involved in the process? </li></ul><ul><li>What type of assistance could a partnership get and how? </li></ul><ul><li>What resources are available? </li></ul><ul><li>What is expected from the quality assurance activity? </li></ul>1.Initiation stage: introduction of R3L+ matrix
  69. 69. <ul><li>KEY Questions of Stage 2: </li></ul><ul><li>To what degree the learning region partnership is aware of all the quality criteria indicated by R3L+ methodology? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the descriptive indicators where a gap between expected and actual performance can be identified? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the main sources of data? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the main evidences used in this process? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the roles of the actors involved? </li></ul><ul><li>How the main outcomes of this stage could be used? </li></ul>2.Assessment of expected vs. actual performance: measuring the gap
  70. 70. <ul><li>KEY Questions of Stage 3: </li></ul><ul><li>What are the main evidences supporting the view on the gaps identified? </li></ul><ul><li>Are these evidences enough for claiming that a specific criteria and descriptive indicator is followed by the learning region partnership? </li></ul><ul><li>Could new evidence be identified? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the possible improvement areas? </li></ul><ul><li>Who should be involved and what responsibilities should be defined? </li></ul><ul><li>What assistance learning regions representatives could receive in this stage? </li></ul>3.Selecting improvement areas
  71. 71. <ul><li>KEY Questions of Stage 4: </li></ul><ul><li>Based on what we have learned from this activity, how the interventions should be revised? </li></ul><ul><li>How the activities of this stage should be documented? </li></ul><ul><li>What resources should be mobilized? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the expected impact of the revision process? </li></ul><ul><li>Who should be involved? </li></ul><ul><li>What assistance learning regions representatives could receive in this stage? </li></ul>4.Review of current interventions
  72. 72. <ul><li>The tasks: </li></ul><ul><li>Read the given example s of good practice; </li></ul><ul><li>Using discussion in the group evaluate the quality of LR/LC according the quality criterion presented in the example; if there was some lack of the information presented in the example to make the evaluative decision, create/add by yourself the information you need and make an evaluative decision. </li></ul><ul><li>Note: The evaluative decision may be made only when consensus is reached. </li></ul>Workshop “ LR/LC examples: Evaluation”
  73. 73. <ul><li>The participants of the workshop are divided into 4 groups. </li></ul><ul><li>The workshop tasks are introduced. </li></ul><ul><li>Each group is given the examples of the partnering countries of the project in accordance with four different strands. </li></ul><ul><li>In this case, group (1) is given the examples that corresponds to the strand “Partnership and Network” (see the Handbook R3L Quality Framework , p. 55 - 71); group (2) – the strand ”Participation” (see the Handbook R3L Quality Framework , p. 72-76); group (3) – the strand ”Progress and Sustainability” (see the Handbook R3L Quality Framework , p. 77-85); group (4) – the strand “Learning culture” (see the Handbook R3L Quality Framework , p. 86-96). </li></ul><ul><li>The groups are presented with the sequence of the workshop </li></ul><ul><li>( in total: 15 min) (see next slide) </li></ul>Workshop “ LR/LC examples: Evaluation” Sequence (total of 4 hours 30 minutes)
  74. 74. Workshop “ LR/LC examples: Evaluation” Sequence (total of 4 hours 30 minutes) <ul><li>The member of each group is given his/her own package of examples and reads it twice: the first time is meant for the acquaintance, the second time – for deeper analysis (60 min). </li></ul><ul><li>Break – 15 min </li></ul><ul><li>Each group has a round table discussion concerning the evaluation decision to be made (60 min). </li></ul><ul><li>All the groups return to the common room. Their representatives present the most illuminating examples and substantiate their evaluation. The members of other groups pose questions (30 min. are given for the presentation and discussion of each group; in total: 120 min) . </li></ul>
  75. 75. Conclusions and reflection Kaunas city Botanical garden