WP7 Quality and evaluation
(These Deliverables are mainly of interest to other evaluators.)
- D7.1 Evaluation Plan (confidential)
- D7.2 Interim Evaluation reports (confidential)
- D7.3 Final Evaluation report
Month 1 thru Month 30 (30 months)
The Université Nancy 2 ((now Deborah Arnold)) will be responsible for setting up the evaluation and quality framework. The project will use both internal evaluation (operational evaluation by the project partners - similar to that done in Re.ViCa and currently in VISCED) and external evaluation (e.g. by the experts of the International Advisory Committee but maybe augmented by other experts since not all IAC members are experts).
Systems and tools will be set up to assess the project progress and results and to improve the overall effectiveness of the project. Therefore an evaluation plan will be created at the very beginning of the project in agreement with all partners and will be implemented within the whole project lifecycle. The evaluation plan will consist of an evaluation strategy that defines the exact tools to be used and specified how, when and by whom the evaluation activities will be arranged.
All partners involved in the POERUP project will contribute to the operational evaluation process (e.g. evaluation of workshops, evaluation of project, and evaluation of partners' meetings) by completing specific questionnaires provided by the Evaluation WP leader, by drawing up and implementing action plans where necessary in order to address weaknesses highlighted by the evaluation and - at the end of the project - a final assessment. The WP leader will also provide a final evaluation report.
For the external evaluation and the validation of our research results, the International Advisory Committee members will provide feedback after each meeting through questionnaires and during the numerous discussion sessions during the IAC meetings. This work will be done in close collaboration with Sero (leader of WP Exploitation) in order that the evaluation tools set up for each key meeting will be in line with
- the goals of the event
- the event audience, and
- the requirements for the outcomes submitted to experts for assessment.
Third Country Partner (Athabasca)
Reflect on own practice.
Contribute to project evaluation activities by answering questionnaires (regarding activities in which involved - noting that Athabasca staff are not involved in all Partner meetings and IAC workshops).
Take part in any specific interviews required in view of being the Third Country Partner.
Please explain how the overall project management will be implemented
Noting that Vidéoscop (in Université Nancy 2) has other tasks in POERUP as well as evaluation, it is vital that "evaluator distance" is maintained so that the objectivity of the evaluation is not compromised. Based on experience with open universities - where this situation is not uncommon - we have always felt that the best way of doing this is to have one staff member at the evaluation-focussed partner (Vidéoscop in this case) focus purely on evaluation, with no other duties; while the other staff members at the partner focus on the operational activities.
The other method of course is to have a partner which is a pure evaluator, but the "tone" that we wanted for this project was to have few partners and not to have small partners - moreover, the competence (technical, linguistic, geographical) that Vidéoscop bring - as well as their evaluation skills - was too tempting to resist.
Having reflected on this matter, proposing the above solution, we see no need to take the further step, done in some projects, of subcontracting in a "summative" evaluator for the Final Evaluation Report (D7.3) - we value the continuity above the arguable merits of further detachment of summative from formative evaluation.
Explanation of work package expenditures
The evaluator (at partner P6) will be expected to attend all four face to face project meetings. Travel and subsistence for this is covered under WP1, the same as for all other partners.
She is also expected to attend the three meetings of IAC. Travel and subsistence estimates are included for that in this WP.
No specific equipment or "other" expenditure is envisaged.