• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Selecting And Training Students For The External Review Panels

Selecting And Training Students For The External Review Panels



Selecting And Training Students For The External Review Panels: The Romanian Experience. Presented at 3rd Quality Assurance Forum in Budapest

Selecting And Training Students For The External Review Panels: The Romanian Experience. Presented at 3rd Quality Assurance Forum in Budapest



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 5

http://www.slideshare.net 3
http://www.linkedin.com 2



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • behaved  .... ANOSR contributed to the metodology ...
  • Based on the description of his/her roles and attributions, an ideal profile of student evaluator was developed. The profile was build around four areas of characteristics: (1) Knowledge, (2) Skills, (3) Personal values and (4) Motivation.
  • The overall principle of the training: the interaction of students with QA experts and ANOSR’s senior representatives shall offer a better understanding of the quality assurance phenomenon. speakers – Romanian experts in QA
  • patronizing, telling them what to do and not to do
  • planning and organizing the visit, managing time, tracking indicators, interviewing, taking notes, writing the report.
  • visit planning, taking notes, interviewing techniques, time management, working in an evaluation team, writing a report. simulation of a meeting with students a full day simulation including real visit to a university and a meeting with a professor
  • (sparqs, German student's accreditation pool, Flemish system of selection panel, Nordic system?)
  • (sparqs, German student's accreditation pool, Flemish system of selection panel, Nordic system?)

Selecting And Training Students For The External Review Panels Selecting And Training Students For The External Review Panels Presentation Transcript

  • GREVA 2003
  • SBU 2
    • Students trying to CHANGE universities
    • Students trying to IMPROVE universities
  • ARACIS starts in 2006
    • ANOSR was entrusted with selecting, training and nominating students for evaluation teams.
  • Timeline
    • March 2007: ANOSR’s Methodology
    • April and May 2007: training sessions for 64 students. 
    • May – June 2007: 11 pilot institutional evaluations involving 13  student evaluators. 
    • August – October 2007: evaluating the impact of student participation in the review teams. 
    • February – March 2008: Rethinking the student evaluators training.
    • April 2008: 27 more students were trained
    • June – July 2008: 6 more institutional evaluations
    • Our aim is to ...
    • Continue the
    • European conversation
    • Selection
    • analyzing the self-evaluation report and other documents, 
    • preparing the site visit, 
    • participating to different visit activities (interviews, visiting academic infrastructure etc.), 
    • writing the external evaluation report.
    Job description:
  • Job description -> profile:
    • (1) Knowledge, 
    • (2) Skills, 
    • (3) Personal values and, 
    • (4) Motivation.
  • Profile -> selection intruments:
    • A letter of intent,
    • An essay,
    • A curriculum vitae.
    • + An assessment grid (scoring1 to 100)
    • main criterion - the score (more than 50pt) ,
    • participation in training – mandatory,
    • additional criteria were (eg: to evaluate an institution with a similar profile)
    • exclude the criteria related to personal values;
    • essay replaced by an interview taken after the training;
    • a peer evaluation exercise was introduced.
    • Training
  • Learning outcomes for 2007:
    • Understanding the global context of higher education and the role of QA;
    • Understanding the role of QA in the Romanian context and the challenges ahead;
    • Operating with basic concepts related to QA;
    • Understanding the emerging principles of the QA process in Romania;
    • Being able to work with the basic documents regarding QA;
    • Understanding the students' role in institutional evaluations reviewers’ team.
  • Training delivery
    • Facilitated by two students  from ANOSR. 
    • Seven presentations delivered by guest speakers;
    • Participants’ feedback   was very positive.  Some i mproving suggestions:
    • better time management,
    • more practical activities.
    • interviews with student evaluators,
    • evaluation of students' reports and 
    • the report of the independent audit of the institutional evaluations pilot phase.  
    Assessing the impact of the training program:
    • students raised a significant number of (negative) issues ;
    • students reports contained specific recommendations, grounded in the reality of the university life; 
    • their involvement was seen as mature, pragmatic and competent.
    Results ( + ):
    • a need for improvements regarding the site visit organization;
    • there is little awareness about the students’ role;
    • students reports didn't covered enough the issues for which their experience and perspective is valuable;
    • in some cases students’ interventions during the site visit contained an imperative tone, lack of strong arguments, tendentious generalizations of situations encountered in one department for the whole university;
    • a guide for writing the report would have been necessary.
    Results ( - ):
  • Rethinking the Training:
    • the input consisting of:
      • results of the feedback meeting of the 2007 training coordinating team;
      • student interviews;
      • an independent evaluation report of the pilot phase.
  • Conclusions
    • The training for students was insufficient;
    • The major gap was the lack of evaluation skills.
  • Changes in training:
    • Learning outcomes focus shifted to practical evaluation skills
    • Training delivery: roleplays, simulations.
  • To do list (1)
    • Better promoting QA to students and the possibility to be involved;
    • Connecting the training program for the external reviewers with the programs for the students involved in internal QA;
    • Joint training for students and other experts;
    • Developing additional modules to the initial training program;
    • Building an online platform for the student evaluators community;
  • To do list (2)
    • Blended learning;
    • Further improving the training methods;
    • Improving the documentation (describing the role of students in review teams, developing a handbook for student evaluators);
    • Inviting foreign students evaluators as guest speakers;
    • Finding a dynamic balance between refreshing the pool and building on the experience;
    • Recognition of ECTS credits awarded by all Romanian universities.
    • Does it worth to extend the student involvement to the study programmes evaluations?  Do we have the capacity to do it?
    • How should we design the "pool" / "community"/ "system" in order to have it refreshed every year and to build on the expertise and experience that is being generated every year?
    • How many reviews a student should participate in?
    • How can we improve the integration of the student in the reviewers’ team?
    • Could we have a paid secretariat (project manager + 1 staff); should it be run by ARACIS or by the NUS?
    • Contact:
    • Violeta Caragea: [email_address]
    • Traian Bruma: [email_address]