Susanna Dammann and Tim Goodier, Chair of the E-Learning Working Group, will present the work of the project groups which are updating the general inspection scheme and designing a scheme to accredit e-learning.
2. The EAQUALS Inspection
Scheme: Version 7
Why a new version?
The educational scene is
changing
Our members’ needs are
changing
3. The educational scene is
changing:
• Other quality marks are moving into the
market
• Students are becoming more sophisticated
and demanding
• Online provision growing in importance
4. Our members’ needs are
changing:
Language Teaching Institutions are under
unceasing pressure to
•Keep costs down
•Expand business
•Deliver high quality service
5. So what have we done?
Revised the categories to reflect the
changes in student expectations and
institutional needs
Reduced the number of criteria to keep it all
simpler
6. The EAQUALS Inspection Scheme:
Version 7
CATEGORIES OF THE EAQUALS INSPECTION SCHEME
1
Management and Administration
7
Client Services
2
Teaching and Learning
8
Quality assurance
3
Academic Systems
9
Staff Profile and Development
4
Assessment and Certification
10
Staff Employment Terms
5
Academic Resources
11
Internal Communications
6
Learning Environment
12
External Communications
7. Towards E-learning
Accreditation
Why accredit ‘E-learning’ provision?
- Increased integration of online and face to face
language services in member schools
- Growth of new and established models for blended / online
language learning provision rivalling traditional methods
- Key area for establishing and sharing best practice
8. The story so far
- Peter Brown (Chair)
- Peter Simmons
- Christine Bateman
- Clive Ray
- John Shackleton
- Tony Buckby
- Ludka Kotarska
- Wieland Raatz
- Frank Heyworth
- Brian North
(Chair)
- Susanna Dammann
- Michael Carrier
- David Coarsey
- Richard Brown
- Inke Schmidt
- Tim Goodier
- Susanna Dammann
(Chair)
- Brian North
- Michael Carrier
- Anika Mueller
- David Coarsey
- Richard Brown
- Tim Goodier
12. Considerations of delivery means
Criterion: A system of assessment which includes placement, formative,
progress and achievement testing
Standard: The placement test probes language mastery at different levels
13. Open questions
- What types of institution (or partnerships) can be accredited under the
scheme?
- Who is the end user in each case and how does the accredited service
relate to the EAQUALS charters?
- How can the e-criteria fit into the overall scheme for an integrated
inspection, and do they represent and extended service in such an
inspection?
- How do we avoid building criteria around electronic delivery means that
will change and develop rapidly?
- Does this ultimately require more generality or more detail to
accommodate a plurality of services?
- In the absence of bricks and mortar, how do we set clear boundaries
on what is and what is not being accredited?
14. November meeting aims
Group: Tim Goodier (Chair), Susanna Dammann, Michael Carrier, David
Coarsey, Richard Brown, Christina Kober
• Ensure applicability of Version 7 criteria to an e-learning context and
eliminate those which have no bearing on e-learning
• Expand and adapt the criteria where necessary to develop clear and
unambiguous standards of quality for e-learning products, applicable to
all relevant educational contexts.
• Ensure the categories and criteria thus developed are coherent with the
EAQUALS Charters
• Consider which categories of providers EAQUALS will realistically be
able to accommodate under the Scheme
15. The EAQUALS Inspection
Scheme: Version 7
Not just the Framework:
•New Manual
•New Application Forms
•New Report Template
16. The New Manual
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brief introduction
The Charters
The Framework: Categories and criteria
Flow chart of the Inspection process
Preparing for the inspection
During the inspection
– The grading scheme
– Criteria for points of excellence
– Certificate of Achievement Scheme
• After the inspection
17. The New Form: A Biennial Return
Prior to an Inspection
and
Midway between Inspections (with SAQ)
Will contain information about the LTI and its
–Philosophy and approach
–Legal status
–Student numbers (student hours)
–Staff
–Courses offered
–Procedures
… some of which will be pasted into the report by the Inspectors
18. The 4-year Cycle Inspection
Process for EAQUALS
Members
2.
1. Secretariat contact LTI
with Biennial return form
and Self-Assessment
Questionnaire
LTIl returns Form
and SelfAssessment
Questionnaire
3. DACS
follows up as
necessary
Y2
4. Secretariat
contact LTI with
Biennial Return
Form and choice
of dates
Y3
Certificate of
Accreditation
Y1
INSPECTION
5. LTI returns
Biennial Return
Form and dates
Y4
Verdict
letter
9.Moderation
Process
REPO
RT
8. LTI sends
required
documents to
inspector copies of
all mails to DACS
and secretariat
7. Inspectors
contact LTI
and start
arrangements
6. Inspectors
appointed
19. The New Form
Section A Institution Description
Official name of LTI
Full postal address of LTI
Email of contact person
Website address
Web link to EAQUALS
information on website
Name of Contact Person for
regular communications (and
Inspection if relevant)
Legal status (sole
ownership/company ownership/public
or state ownership etc)
Details of company or organisation as
filed at the national company
registration authority if relevant
Please delete this and any other instructions
in green as you complete this form.
Please paste in the hyperlink to the Home
page
Please paste in the hyperlink to information on
EAQUALS on your website
20. The New Form
Section B Teaching Staff
Names
Languages and
specialisms taught
(add rows as needed)
NumNumber Full ber
Time
PartTime
Experience,
including service
with the present
organisation
Qualifications
(TFL and
other)
Section C Administrative Staff
Names
Job Title
(add rows as needed)
NumNumber Full ber
Time
PartTime
Experience,
including service
with the present
organisation
Qualifications
21. The New Form
Section D Courses Offered
Approximate percentage of Approximate number of
total student hours as
teachers per language
calculated below
taught
%
Language 1 (insert
name) add further rows
as needed
Types of course, e.g. EAP, IELTS etc.and on-line courses over the year
(add rows as needed)
General Language
%
(name)
Special purpose
(name)
%
Special purpose
(name)
%
Any courses provided which are not language courses (e.g. teacher training).
Please specify type and student numbers.(add rows as needed)
Name of course
Type
Student Numbers
22. The New Form
Section E Student Numbers
Approximate total of number of all student hours of tuition
provided by the institution during the last 12 months Include
course participants taught in-company and in other off-site
locations.
Approximate total of number of Q1 JanQ2 Aprilstudents at different times of
March:
Jun:
the year
Approximate Numbers of full
time (15 or more hours per week)
and part-time (under 15 hours per Number:
week) course participants over the
Percentage:
year
Approximate Numbers of Junior
(under16) Young Learners (under
10) and Very Young Learners
Number:
(under 6) over the year
Percentage:
Maximum size of classes
taught:
To calculate student hours: multiply the number
of course participants registered, by the number
of 60 clock hours each received (for example,
30 course participants doing a course lasting 60
clock hours is 1,800 student hours)
Total Number:
Q3 July-Sept:
Q4 Oct-Dec:
Full-time
Part time
%
%
Junior
Young Learners
Very Young
Learners
%
%
%
23. The New Form
Section F Background Information
History
Premises
Please provide a brief account of the history of the institution
(date founded, any mergers, moves, etc.)
Please give a brief description of the main premises: number
and size of classrooms (how many students can be
accommodated in each) student common rooms, offices etc.
Facilities
Please give a short account of the facilities available to staff
and students such as café/refreshment bar, drinks and snack
machines, and anything you feel is important to include.
Classroom equipment
Please describe the equipment available in classrooms,
indicating whether it is in all classrooms or only some and if
so, how many.
Please describe any other premises used by the institution,
indicating distance in km and travel time from the main
premises
Please give a brief account of any developments which you
feel have made a significant contribution to the Institution’s
performance in the last two years..
Any other premises used by
the LTI
Any recent developments of
importance to the Inspection
24. The New Report
• A simpler layout
• Executive Summary and global
Verdict first
• Evidence and verdict in the same
place for each category
25. Grading Scheme
• The Inspectors found this category to be a Point of
Excellence for the Institution. (Grade 1)
• The Inspectors found some Points of Excellence in
this category (Grade 1.5)
• The Inspectors found that the Institution meets
EAQUALS criteria for this category (Grade 2)
• The Inspectors found that the Institution meets
EAQUALS criteria for this category in most areas but
some action must be taken to fully comply with
EAQUALS standards. (Grade 2.5)
• The Inspectors found that the Institution does not
meet EAQUALS criteria for this category (Grade 3)
26. For example ….
1
Man agem en t an d adm i n i st r at i on ( EAQUALS Gen er al Ch ar t er : 1 , 2 , 3 ,
4)
Verdict statement:
Delet e all verdict st atements except the relevant one.
•
•
•
•
•
Th e I n sp ect or s f ou n d t h i s cat egor y t o b e a Poi n t of Ex cel len ce f or t h e I n st i t u t i on .
( Gr ade 1 )
Th e I n sp ect or s f ou n d som e Poi n t s of Ex cell en ce i n t hi s cat eg or y ( Gr ade 1 .5 )
Th e I n sp ect or s f ou n d t h at t h e I n st i t u t i on m eet s EAQUALS cr i t er i a f or t h is cat egor y
( Gr ad e 2 )
Th e I n sp ect or s f ou n d t h at t h e I n st i t u t i on m eet s EAQUALS cr i t er i a f or t h is cat egor y
i n m ost ar eas bu t som e act i on m u st be t ak en t o f u l l y com p l y w i t h EAQUALS
st an dar ds. ( Gr ad e 2 .5 )
Th e I n sp ect or s f ou n d t h at t h e I n st i t u t i on does n ot m eet EAQUALS cr i t er i a f or t hi s
cat egor y ( Gr ade 3 )
Th e I nspect or s f ou n d:
1.1. A company ethos and/ or mission statement appropriat e to the institution’s activities
1.2. An organisational st ructure coherent wit h the above
1.3. Effective leadership, company policies, and strategies
1.4. Efficient management syst ems
I nsert h er e a description, either for each crit erion, or in one paragraph, which justifies your verdict on this
category.
Then add:
Points of Excellence
Eg 1.2 is excellent because…
(refer to criteria for excellence for guidance; if none, delet e heading.
Recommendations
•
Use bullet points; bold where a priority; if none, write ‘none’ .
Requirement s
•
Use bullet points; if none, writ e ‘none’
27. What next?
A period of
�Reflection and listening
�Document preparation
�Pilot Inspections
�Further revision
LAUNCH!
… and finally …
This is what we are about: the centre of our work;
1) Introduce Tim and explain his role
Introduce V7WG ditto
Why a new version? There is fairly widespread agreement that we needed to tidy up V6.2. There’s a bit of repetition, some criteria are not very clear, and the manual has become a bit ‘baggy’ – too much information to take in. So a need to streamline and to reduce both quantity and variety of paperwork.
But also …
We need to be sure our scheme is competitive: good value for money, clear and easy to understand, even at first glance. Our USP is the consultancy element: the supportive and knowledgeable ‘critical friend’ whose expertise helps an institution to engage fully with our values.
Students want a wider range of services, for even less money!
we need to ensure our scheme can cover that wide range
they expect more than just good teaching; and partly through our work, they expect a higher standard of teaching too.
Online provision is becoming an essential element in the ‘product range’ of any LTI
So our scheme has to be applicable to online learning whether standalone or embedded in a face to face course
NB – LTI – term now used as much as possible to indicate school/university department/state/private school for children offering language courses etc.
We must offer a streamlined but very high quality service which members feel delivers value for money
To maintain high quality we must employ the best people –
and pay them properly: Inspector fees have not risen for some time, and even when they do they will remain modest in relation to the sector norms; LTIs do not have the means to pay out at a level much higher than the current one, so a significant rise is unlikely. To earn a two day Inspection fee and a report writing fee, a lead inspector undertakes about a week’s work: preparation involving reading documents, planning, communicating with co-inspector, EAQUALS and LTI; travel – sometimes a whole day during which other work is difficult if not impossible; the Inspection; report writing which currently takes [ask!!] anything between 2-4 days, especially if the moderation team have questions to ask.
But LTIs need to keep their costs down … so
If we can’t raise their fees, we must try to make the work they undertake simpler and more time-effective.
[click2]
Our scheme must be flexible: ready to adapt to new ideas and processes as LTIs respond to market pressures by creating new products
So our criteria must be applicable to a wide range of situations.
[Click 4]
Our scheme must be able to help with this – offer ideas and suggestions for improvement which are not seen as criticisms – is there a case for a different name for recommendations? – suggestions?
[before 1]
We consulted with founder members and other senior people in the organisation and began to see what the priorities were; just tidying up wasn’t going to do what was needed; we had to be a bit more radical, without in any way departing from the spirit of the scheme as it stands.
We met for a concentrated burst of creativity and work in August
We consulted again and then we worked – what you see today is the result of that. There’s a lot more to do.
[click 1]
We were concerned to preserve the balance of the scheme between setting criteria that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely (SMART) and ensuring that the EAQUALS spirit of a common journey of continuous improvement undertaken by us all is preserved.
There is a balance also to be found in giving Inspectors a set of standards which they can simply identify as met or not met, or exceeded but also in giving them the autonomy to exercise their judgement and use their expertise to assess the quality of what they see, in a more holistic way.
[click 2]
we were also concerned that LTIs and Inspectors should both be able to keep track of their goals, even during the packed crash course that is an inspection.
The order is NOT one of importance
It reflects the order of the two days of an inspection to some extent but not fully
We hope the categories are open enough to allow for the accreditation of language education on-line
Talk through each one noting the criteria
CATEGORIES AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA OF THE EAQUALS INSPECTION SCHEME
See separate sheet
There’s a lot more to do…
TG announces he has taken over as chair as from current meeting
There’s a lot more to do…
Still in preparation
Aim to bring all the necessary information into one place – but not too much
[click]1
Brief introduction
What is EAQUALS - why was it founded, latest developments main personnel; one page with a link to the website
[click 2]
Charters – 5 pages – should stay as they are very important, it’s what the LTI commits to
The charters are in pride of place as all else stems from them
[click]3
Framework - just the main categories and the focus points – to have them at a glance- one page only
[click]4
Flow chart see in a moment – so that an LTI can see how the Inspection happens
[click] 5
Preparing for the inspection – written on the basis of what’s in current Manual
Application forms are changing – we will be asking institutions to provide most of the factual information about themselves – see next slide
The EPG – this will also be included in the Biennial return to help an LTI form an idea of its teaching body’s strengths and weaknesses as a whole.
[click]6
During the inspection – explain the grading scheme NB grading will be a five point ladder (it already is – was agreed some time ago, but not widely used or known)Criteria for points of excellenceCertificate of Achievement Scheme
After the inspection – written on the basis of what’s in p65 – report, how to respond action to take etc.
Appendices – some to be available on line for access as needed
click 1
The form to be completed before an inspection to help a)EAQUALS to know what the school is like and b) to help Inspectors plan the timing BUT
Click 2
The four year cycle includes a mid-point Self Assessment
This is to be re-written to fit new categories
And to be more user-friendly
Will be checked by DACS
Click 3
Fundamentally same info for this and for inspection prep so will use same form – no names in report of course
Normally most of the info will remain the same, so no need to do more than update an existing form.
Click 4 – as per the recent improvements table at the moment.
See how it works in the cycle …
Much simplified!
Designed to give an idea of the way the whole process gives more or less continuous but not too onerous contact between EAQUALS and LTI
Explain green rubric – there is more info to be put into this section including student hours etc.
NB we are likely to expand this asking for details of teacher training and assessed development level as per the EPG: development phase 1, 2 or 3
Details of
language proficiency (in CEFR)
Education & Training
Assessed Teaching
Teaching Experience
-
More of this section to come to allow LTIs to showcase their products – certificated courses? On-line courses; etc
This is pretty much what we do now -
NB –
This is the stuff which inspectors currently write for themselves and put at the beginning of the report.
So – the report
Click 1
Trying to keep it readable, flexible, clear but still allowing scope for Inspectors to use their expertise and judgement
Click 2
This is the big change – some people may find odd:
Rationale – we want to emphasise that the verdict is Evidence-based – so we put the verdict first and then back it up with reasons for it in each category section
Click 3
The verdict and evidence are still closely connected on the page
The onus is on the Inspector to show how and why they reached their verdicts
All the news – good and bead is in one place and visible next to the criteria on which the evidence has been judged.
Fundamentally the same – slightly refined to allow for gradated judgements on individual criteria.
Show how evidence is related to each criterion
Note that Excellence, Recommendations and Requirements are all together in each Category section
We might repeat them at the end of the document, but possibly not necessary as the document is now more readable.
Click 1
We welcome all comments from members.
Won’t promise to do what they ask as people may/WILL! Ask for mutually contradictory things.
But we will listen and take notice and make changes where we can
Click 2
SD’s winter programme! EVERYTHING needs to be revised and much will need re-writing. V7WG to be included if they have time.
Click 3
Some schools have already volunteered – a real help as it will feed into refinements of the scheme
Click 5
Right up to April
But after April it will be fixed – not fair to have two sets of criteria floating around.
The docs will be done and while more proof-reading and further refinements may be necessary we do not expect to make further changes –
TILL VERSION 8!
