Advertisement

A Theoretical Framework for Analysing the Implementation and Effects of Quality Assurance Systems in European VET

Chapter

This chapter presents a framework including which factors are expected to influence the successful introduction of Quality Assurance Systems (QASs) in European (I)VET. The framework has been tested in six European countries (the results will be presented in Chapters 3–8) to clarify which factors matter for a successful review stage, and to have a basis for developing guidelines for successful review in Quality Assurance.

Keywords

Organisational Learning School Staff Performance Information Quality Assurance System Classroom Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barber, M. (1998). National strategies for educational reform: Lessons from the British experience since 1988. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 743–767). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Björn-Andersen, N., Eason, K., & Robey, D. (1986). Managing computer impact. New Yersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Bryk, A., & Hermanson, K. L. (1993). Educational indicator systems: Observations on their structure, interpretation, and use. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research In education (Vol. 19, Chapter 10). Washington: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  4. Calhoun, E., & Joyce, B. (1998). "Inside-Out" and "Outside-In": Learning from past and present school improvement paradigms. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1286–1298). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Cuttance, P. (1998). Quality Assurance reviews as a catalyst for school improvement In Australia. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1135–1162). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Dalin, P. (1998). Developing the twenty-first century school, a challenge to reformers. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1059–1073). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Dalin, P., & Ayono, T. (1994). How schools improve: An international report. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  8. Dalin, P., Rolff, H-G., & Kleekamp, B. (1993). Changing the school culture. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  9. Fink, D., & Stoll, L. (1998). Educational change: Easier said than done. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 297–321). Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27–32.Google Scholar
  11. Fullan, M. G. (1992). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press/Toronto: OISE Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fullan, M. (1998). The meaning of educational change: a quarter of a century of learning. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 214–228). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Giacquinta, J. B. (1998). Seduced and abandoned: some lasting conclusions about planned change from the Cambire School Study. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 163–180). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D, Wilcox, B., Farrell, S. & Jesson, D. (1999). Improving schools; performance and potential. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gross, N., Giacquinta, J., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (1998), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1163–1178). Dordrecht/ Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Hopkins, D. (1998). Tensions In and prospects for school improvement. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. House, E., & McQuillan, P. (1998). Three perspectives on school reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 198–213). Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Huberman, M. (1987). Steps towards an integrated model of research utilization. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(4), 586–611.Google Scholar
  21. Huberman, M. (1989). Predicting conceptual effects In research utilization: Looking with both eyes. Knowledge In Society: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer, 2(3), 5–24.Google Scholar
  22. Ives, B., Olson, M. H., & Baroudi, J. J. (1983). The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 26(10), 785–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joyner, E. (1998). Large-scale change: the comer perspective. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 855–876). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Keating, D. (1998). A framework for educational change: Human development In the learning society. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 693–709). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Lander, R., & Ekholm, M. (1998). School evaluation and improvement: a Scandinavian View. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1119–1134). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Louis, K. S. (1998). Reconnecting knowledge utilization and school improvement: two steps forward, one step back. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1074–1095). Dordrecht/ Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Mayntz, R. (1984). Information systems and organizational effectiveness: The social perspective. In Th. Bemelmans (Ed.), Beyond productivity information systems development for organizational effectiveness. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Maslowski, R., & Visscher, A. J. (1999a). The potential of formative evaluation In program design models. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson N. Nieveen, & Tj. Plomp (Eds.), Design methodology and development research In education and training. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited; macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.Google Scholar
  30. McLaughlin, M. W. (1998). Listening and learning from the field: Tales of policy implementation and situated practice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 70–84). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Miles, M. B. (1998). Finding keys to school change: A 40-year Odyssey. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 37–39). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Mumford, E., & Weir, M. (1979). Computer systems In work design – the ETHICS method: Effective technical and human implementation of computer systems. London: Associated Business Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nias, J. (1998). Why teachers need their colleagues: A developmental perspective. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1257–1273). Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Reynolds, D. (1998). "World Class" school improvement: An analysis of the implications of recent international school effectiveness and school improvement research for improvement practice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1275–1285). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press, MacMillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation; a systematic approach. Newburgy Park/London/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Sanders, J. R. (1994). The program evaluation standards: how to assess evaluations of educational programs. Sage: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  38. Saunders, L., & Rudd, P. (1999, 2–5 September). Schools’ use of ‘value-added’ data: a science In the service of an art? Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Sussex.Google Scholar
  39. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think In action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In: R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives on curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  41. Scriven, M. (1991). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In: M. W. McLaughlIn & D. C. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (pp. 19–64). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sebba, J., & Loose, T. (1997, 11 September). Examples of schools' approaches to collecting data. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  43. Slavin, R. (1998). Sands, bricks, and seeds: School change strategies and readiness for reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1299–1313). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data In the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2&3), 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, L. M. (1998). A kind of educational idealism: integrating realism and reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 100–120). Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Stasz, C., Bikson, T. K., & Shapiro, N. Z. (1986). Assessing the forest service's implementation of an agencywide information system: An exploratory study. Santa Monica, CA.: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  47. Stringfield, S., Millsap, M. A., & Herman, R. (1998). Using ‘Promising Programs’ to improve educational processes and student outcomes. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1314–1338). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Visscher, A. J. (1992). Design and evaluation of a computer-assisted management information system for secondary schools (Ph.D. dissertation). Enschede: University of Twente, Department of Educational Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  49. Visscher, A. J. (Ed.) (1999). Managing schools towards high performance. Lisse/Abingdon/ Exton/Tokyo: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  50. Visscher, A. J. (2001). Public school performance indicators: Problems and recommendations. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 27 (3), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Visscher, A. J., Wild, P., & Fung, A. (Eds.). (2001). Information technology In educational management; synthesis of experience, research and future perspectives on computer-assisted school information systems. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Weiss, C. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–545.Google Scholar
  53. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Improving the use of evaluations: Whose job is it anyway? In A. J. Reynolds & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Advances In educational productivity (Vol. 7, pp. 263–276). Greenwich/London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  54. Weiss, C. H. & Bucavalas, M. J. (1980). Social science research and decision making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. West, M. (1998). Quality In schools: Developing a model for school improvement. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 768–789). Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  56. Whitford, B. L., & Jones, K. (1998). Assessment and accountability In Kentucky: How high stakes affects teaching and learning. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (Vol. 5, pp. 1163–1178). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Witziers, B. (1992). Coördinatie binnen scholen voor voortgezet onderwijs [Coordination withIn secondary schools]. Enschede: Department of Education, University of Twente.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Organisation and Management, Faculty of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of TwenteThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations