1

External evaluation report on

Project title: A model for quality of trans-national student

placements in enterprises (Q-Planet)

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Angress

Internal Version

15 September 2010

Start date of project: 1 October 2008 Duration: 2 years

Table of Contents

This project has been funded with support from the European

Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the

author and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any

use which may be made of the information contained therein.

PU Public PU

2

Introduction Executive Summary Introduction General Project Evaluation Findings Project outcomes/Delivrables Summary Conclusions and Recommendations Annex:

List of Delivrables (as of 1st September 2010)

Minutes of meeting between external evaluator and coordinating institution KOOR/BEST in Karlsruhe

First Feedback from external evaluator in Istanbul (Power Point Presentation)

Financial Table (as of 9 September 2010/meeting in Istanbul)

3

Introduction The author of this evaluation report was approached by the coordinator of the project, Edmund Zirra, director of KOOR/BEST, on behalf of the partnership carrying out the Q-Planet Project and asked to review the project as external evaluator and readily greed to do so. Q-planet is a project funded and carried out in the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union for a period of two years (1. October 2008 – 30. September 2010) under the action line University-Enterprise cooperation. This external evaluation report was commissioned three months prior to the end of the project and submitted by the author with the end of the project duration. Although its actual activities were not defined in more detail at the stage of the project proposal the objectives of the evaluation can be inferred from the Quality Manual: Its main objectives are, above all, to assess as to whether the project’s activities and products (“deliverables”) are in line with the aims and objectives outlined in the original application which forms an integral part of the grant agreement with the EU/EACEA. Linked to that this evaluation seeks to assess as to whether all pertinent project activities have been realised according to project plan in due course and to certify that no delays have occurred with a negative impact on the project results. Finally, the author aims to conclude with a feedback on the outputs (“deliverables”) and recommendations on potential improvements. The evaluation report will thus seek more closely to:

- analyse to what extent the project has followed the activities in line with the objectives and aims outlined in the original project proposal and annexed to the grant agreement, i.e. the survey on practical placements, the establishing of several (pilot) regional quality reference centres (QRC), practical placement quality assurance tools and instruments such as checklists and templates, guidelines for the integration of student placements into the curriculum as well as for the organisation of transnational work placements.

- assess the acceptability of the deliverables with regards to content and correspondence to project and programme objectives

- assess, more specifically, with regards to the deliverables their relevance, the quality of achievements, the quality of presentation of achievements and the layout/editing.

- conclude by evaluating the acceptability of the project’s results and by giving recommendations on potential improvements

In order to carry out the evaluation the author was given full access to all relevant external and internal documents on the corresponding project website. Documentation comprises above all relevant documents including the original project proposal as part of the official grant agreement, progress report and evaluation of the latter by (experts appointed on behalf of) the EACEA. Several meetings and follow-up contacts were realised with the project manager, Edmund Zirra, the quality manager, Claudia Bernarding, as well as with the project partners. The author visited both the coordinating institution KOOR/BEST in Karlsruhe on 16/17 August to follow up on issues discussed prior to the meeting and gave already a first feedback at the final project meeting in Istanbul. Annexed to this report are the minutes from the author’s

4

visit at KOOR/BEST in Karlsruhe as well as the author’s first feedback (power point presentation) in Istanbul. As envisaged the report was submitted shortly after the Istanbul project meeting end of September (end of project duration).

Executive Summary The ERASMUS multilateral project Q-PlaNet aims to develop, among others, a website, reports, training and seminars and the establishment of Quality Reference Centres at regional level in order to contribute to assess and ensure the quality of students/graduates placements in the countries participating in the LLP programme. The objectives and outcomes described in the grant agreement clearly fall within the targeted scope of the LLP – to enhance the cooperation between universities and enterprises by way of work placements and thus contributing to the knowledge triangle and the Lisbon process. The objective to set up and pave the way for a concrete system of quality assurance of student placements by labelling host companies offering quality placements within a European wide network of Quality Reference Centres is innovative and important not least in the light of the EU’s rather ambitious objective to increase ERASMUS mobility, including student placements, in the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme, in order to realise 3 mio. mobile ERASMUS students by 2012 (which would mean at least an increase of mobility of about 6 to 7% per year from now). The crucial question of the sustainability of the project and its results is directly linked to the potential to expand the network of Q-PlaNet, disseminating products to a wider EU content by involving, above all, ERASMUS consortia, National agencies, the respective units in the DG EAC and EACEA and stakeholders at European level e.g. Business Europe, ESN. It will also be important to transfer the results and get actively involved in the discussion and preparation of the future design of the next programme generation as of 2013 onwards. Taking things further on EU program level would also mean seeking to create a one-stop shop for HEI and enterprises by integrating placements of students and graduates (currently under Leonardo da Vinci( into one single program.

5

General Project Evaluation Findings Project management The coordinating institution KOOR/BEST has acted as consortium leader throughout the project. From the onset, the coordinator appointed a quality manager besides the overall project manager. In order to assure quality as an ongoing process built into the project ISO 9001 was used. A manual on quality procedures entitled “Quality Procedures and Templates” (Deliverable 9.1) was written with the help of Partner 3 EUE-NET and Partner 9 Siemens PSE Brasov and formed the basis for the modus operandi in the realisation of the project. All partners were informed regularly about the project progress and remaining tasks and activities and in total ten meetings were held in the two years. Communication seems to have been working overall quite satisfactorily or seems to have had no major negative impact on the project’s findings. However, there seems to have been no steering committee or advisory board accompanying the project with different stakeholders (this was however not explicitly stated in the project proposal and is therefore not really subject to evaluation). Project partners The project partners are well-experienced in the field they have joined forces to contribute to the enhancement of the student placements. Student placements now not only form an integral part of the ERASMUS program but they are also high on the agenda of the Bologna process as they do not only foster future graduates’ employability by enabling them on-site practical training but also have the potential to boost a kind of partnership that was long the poor relative of most higher institutions in Europe – effective and sustainable cooperation with enterprises. No changes have occurred in the partnership and all partners seem convinced and committed to contributing to the realisation of the work plan as envisaged. The progress report and its assessment certify full respect of all partners’ responsibilities and this finding was confirmed through conversations both with the project management/coordinator as well as the individual project partners. Tasks and projects were well defined from the onset and the individual work package leaders were appointed and thus identifiable for the project group (as well as for the external evaluator as contact persons). The partners of the University of Brasov and Bucharest, as well as representatives of AIESEC and JEUNE were interviewed. All showed great commitment and even enthusiasm regarding the projects objectives, outcomes but also future beyond the project duration. Partners from Brasov university, the coordinating institution of the thematic network EUE-NET participating to the project, also comprised academics publishing research articles on the project and its focus and ensured that a focus merely on placements in the corporate sector for the majority of Engineering or Business was avoided and NGO and the not-for profit sector would be included as well as the latter constitutes an important employment potential for graduates of humanities.

6

The representative of AIESEC in Romania highlighted the added value and insight the project has given her/the local AIESEC committee by specifying the work experience AIESEC has been promoting successfully worldwide for more than fifty years and by underlining the need to work more closely with university representatives in the light of the Bologna process/with the integration of placements into the curriculum. The representative underlined its role and future activities in the project with regards to “talking more to university” and the need to increase transparency at international level also by passing on results of the project to the international secretariat of AIESEC in Rotterdam. AIESEC Romania/Brasov has helped to identify practical placements for the labelling process (a Romanian student serving an internship with DHL in Germany) and has committed to promotings the project on its national website of AIESEC (www.aiesec.ro).

Representatives of the different QRC underlined the important role the project played as catalyst for triggering internal reforms inside the universities. Still the work seems only to have begun and some stakeholders like representatives of academics see its major challenge also in the continuous progress of reforming internal HEI processes. Project Dissemination The project website is very well-structured and almost all relevant information can be found there. From the onset ,the project developed a leaflet about its objectives, partnership and envisaged outputs and disseminated this leaflet through various channels such as

- conferences (see annex; deliverable 7.2) e.g. ERACON Cyprus, an ERASMUS thematic meeting in Istanbul, the conference CareerCon in Vienna

- forthcoming an envisaged contribution at first European consortium meeting on Student placements in Brussels organised by German NA DAAD and other NA, 27 October (cf. http://www.eu.daad.de/veranstaltungen)

- contacting relevant EU networks in that area (LeoNet etc) - establishing contact with relevant contact persons in the NA ERASMUS in the

Member States Newsletters have been published with information about Q-PlaNet within the partner organisations’ mailing lists: twice a EUE-Net newsletter, the AIESEC alumni newsletter, the AIESEC media partners newsletter, and twice in a JEUNE newsletter. So far, no scientific article as outlined in the proposal has been published. Also at that stage, the progress report evaluators’ recommendation to include a link to the website of another related ERASMUS project - Euronet PBL – Practice Based Learning and project based learning has not been realised yet but the link is included in Delivrable D1.1 (introduction). The main question now relates to the active dissemination of the project’s activities and results. How can the project partnership now engage effectively in using its various networks to enforce a powerful dissemination and communication of the project’s results? How can the website and its products be maintained beyond its actual project duration (see also recommendations and minutes Karlsruhe 16 August 2010). With regard to an effective dissemination strategy reaching out to the direct target groups, the author suggested putting the different checklists and templates available for HEI, students and companies at the website as individual documents in a

7

download section to make access as easy as possible for the different users and to help promote the idea of using Q-PlaNet website as one-stop shop for stakeholders on quality assurance of practical placements but also inviting QRC to share their vision and create the possibility of remaining flexible and open in allowing for the updating and continuous improvement of documentation/templates/experience with regards to quality assurance matters of practical placements. Financial management It is not the objective of this report to assess the project in financial terms, however financial tables at that stage of the project were analysed while taking account of the financial assessment of the interim report. The financial table (dated beginning of August) shows the declared costs since the progress evaluation report are in line with the costs listed in the project proposal/grant agreement and eligible. The assessment of the interim report states that actual costs for staff and travel are less than half of the sum agreed in the budget annexed to the grant agreement. No explanation was given in the interim report, however this did not seem to impact negatively on the project’s achievements. Staff costs: The staff costs are expected to correspond largely with the actual costs. Travel and subsistence costs will be in line with the estimate outlined in the grant agreement. What remains to be done at the stage of the report is the filling in of the date of the meeting so that the corresponding table in the EU final draft report form is in chronological order and can be sorted according to each partner (in the proposal the estimate was based on the number of meetings). There were around ten meetings plus two extraordinary meetings in Germany between the two German ERASMUS Consortia/QRC Karlsruhe and Ilmenau (Frankfurt train station/Ilmenau, see also minutes). There were no costs declared for equipment. Subcontracting costs were estimated with a max. of 3,4000 Euros and include all travel and other costs besides a fee for the external evaluator. Other costs (around 39,000 Euros) comprise a final printed publication (layout, editing, etc) , bank fees, fees for meetings at and participating to conferences (8,000 Euros and around 10,3000 Euros, respectively) and will be in line or even below the estimate). Quality assurance and Evaluation A quality system to inform each other and to carry out self-assessment on the quality of the project management and the process of the project was put in place right from the onset with ISO 9001. This involved drawing up a manual with relevant templates and forms to be respected and used during the project. As minutes of the meetings underline major milestones have been achieved timely and from the information received this quality assurance system seems to have been working effectively. Deliverables have been continuously developed during the project in line with the ISO standard by the quality manager and the most updated version was put on the website. The project coordinator was responsible for updating the deliverables after meetings and the achievement of milestones.

8

II. Project Deliverables

All work packages and deliverables as specified in the grant agreement have been achieved, albeit at present at varying degrees of perfection. The main project deliverable (D 7.3.), will be printed and submitted in time for the final report end of November 2010 according to the project management and partners. The results seem well under way and in line with those planned within the original application. For an overview of the deliverables developed within the project see annex “List of Delivrables”. D.1.1 Survey on practical placements of students in Europe This is a survey on practical placements carried out in the network of EUE-NET, the thematic network on university-enterprise cooperation with major partners such as the project coordinator of this thematic network under ERASMUS being one of the core partners and leader of this work package (University of Brasov). The report bears the input and “handwriting” of several authors and needs still major editing with regards to a coherent English style, layout, and above all structure. The structure should be following the issues identified in the project group and outlined in one of the minutes (legal situation/legal framework, reference to the driving processes as outline e.g. enterprise or university driven, discipline-specific issues, obstacles and good practice examples etc.). Some concluding observatory remarks, a short key message at the end of this survey which is setting the scene would be highly welcome as well as EU reference projects and relevant links to relevant websites. D.2.1 Establishment of regional reference centres for quality of placements in enterprises The document is succinct and clear and highlights the operational functioning and structure and, most importantly, the way it is integrated internally into the respective HEI body. The two new QRC in Germany that have been created (they have been long standing consortia under Comett, Leonardo da Vinci and ERASMUS) are mentioned D.7.3. Two or three concluding remarks on why the five pilot QRC were set up in the selected countries, what were the main driving forces and actors in the process of setting them up, what were the main challenges in the past and with regard to their effective operating in the future. D.3.1 Guidelines for curriculum development for practical placements This deliverable on guidelines demonstrates well how difficult it is to come up with clear criteria (content rather than processes-focussed) when it comes to matters of the heart in different academic disciplines. It becomes clear that is not possible to create fit-all solutions, starting from the different situations of HEI in the respective member states/participating countries, the variety of different HEI in Europe and their different missions and profiles and , last but not least, considering the variety of disciplines and the role and learning objectives related to the different study programs. Curriculum development is very much in the hands of the different HEI departments. Tuning Learning outcomes according to the Dublin descriptors and applying this to the area of practical placements seems to be a challenge and concrete task for the future. Assessing and evaluating learning outcomes of social skills and non-discipline

9

related competences and other skills that are developed during a practical placement is one of the challenges in this field. The role of ECTS also needs to be given more detailed attention with regard to credit bearing placements as still a lot of countries, HEI and disciplines may very well accept and welcome “en principe” placements without having made the effort however so far as to integrate them into the curriculum as to make them credit bearing (e.g. in the UK with the exception of so called sandwich degree programmes). The points at the end of the documents could be edited and disseminated as some guidelines/checklist document or template for course designers as they are quite helpful and can be applied to different disciplines. D.4.1 Guidelines for the organisation of practical placements As for this document the user-friendliness and its effective dissemination will very much depend on the capacity to have ERASMUS consortia and concrete users/target groups endorse these guidelines. As highlighted in the recommendations since they are part of the core objective of the project it would be recommendable to have them as templates and individual documents in a Download section on the website according to the respective target group (company, QRC, HEI, student etc.). Some parts will have to be completed and edited still as the part on insurance and details on the pilot placements. A scientific article written both by the project coordinator and the coordinator of EUE-NET is in the making and a publication planned in due course. The article will be finished during October and sent to Prof. Lee Harvey, working for the journal “Quality in Higher Education” which is full for this year, but has already shown interest in the project and a possible publication during 2011. Other articles and conference papers e.g. by academics from Brasov University need to be put on the website still. D.5.1 Quality standard for practical placements of students Ok, individual templates, downloads for different stakeholders, differentiate or highlight documents in the framework of LLP and other/general also regional/national usage, add link to Europass/EU transparency tools (in more detail see recommendations in concluding chapter). D.6.1 Establishment of the European Network of QRC and a network of networks The labelling of host organisations who meet the criteria of offering quality placements is, after all, the evidence per se for an operating (network of) QRC. The necessary formal documents have been completed with an attractive design of label/document for QRC for labelling host companies – with and without EU logo (depending on whether the labelling takes place in the framework of this project or beyond its actual duration). Prior to that, the newly established QRC will be receiving a kind of charter recognising them as QRC (this document is signed by the coordinator of the EUE-NET, one of the core project partners). D.7.1 Project website From its onset, the project has created a very attractive and well structured website. At that stage in the evaluation process, articles in scientific papers and papers given at different conferences are still missing, but this seem to be under way. A recommendation will be to create during the project or when it is transferred to an operating networking website after its actual project duration as of October 2010

10

onwards a Download area with individual documents/templates/checklists at hand for the various concrete end users. D.7.2 Project external publications The project team has worked on publications in smaller and larger scale during the two years:

a) 4 issues of the Parliament Magazine (Q-PlaNet publications in issues 284, 287, 305 and 308, copies of title/content/article attached)

b) JEUNE newsletters: January-March 2009, April-July 2009, August-September 2010 (P1/P7)

c) EUE-Net newsletter: December 2009, September 2010 (P1/P3) d) A presentation held publicly at a conference in Tallinn University of

Technology, on general project objectives and work (P1, power point presentation)

e) A presentation held publicly at a conference in Thessaloniki (P3, power point presentation)

f) A presentation on Q-PlaNet in Istanbul on the Erasmus Thematic Meeting on Student Placement (P3, power point presentation)

g) A presentation on the work of QRC Brasov at a conference for quality management in Bucharest (P4, power point presentation)

h) A presentation on quality management and QRC structures at the CareerCon in Vienna (P4, power point presentation)

i) A presentation about Q-PlaNet at the Career-EU conference in Cyprus (P4, power point presentation)

j) Article in scientific journal “Quality in Higher Education” k) Q-PlaNet leaflet for general usage/dissemination (from the onset)

These are in line and actually go beyond to what was laid out in the project proposal.- D.7.3 Guidelines for transnational practical placements of students in Europe This document will be printed for dissemination purposes and summarises the main project findings. It first sets the European scene, referring to relevant EU documents, policy papers and initiatives to promote the quality and quantity of transnational mobility (for learning purposes). The project is strongly embedded in two major political processes shaping the EU context of HEI: on one hand the Bologna process with its promotion of employability and learning outcomes and compatible/converging degree structures (BA/MA/Phd) to promote and boost (transnational) student mobility; on the other the LLP programme of the EU has set itself an ambitious target as to realise by 2012 3 mio. ERASMUS students (with ERASMUS placements forming an integral part to this kind of mobility for learning purposes) and to promote the cooperation between universities and enterprises. Here current initiatives at EU level such as “Youth on the move” (to prepare the future EU generation of education programmes) and “New skills for new jobs” should be incorporated. It then goes on to summarise the rationale of the project and its findings with Q-Planet trying to fill a void of assuring quality when it comes to transnational periods of learning in the area of practical placements (in contrast to studying periods and quality assurance instruments at hand such as the ERASMUS charter and the Learning Agreement but also the accreditation of the individual degree programs).

11

However it should be mentioned that with the new program LLP the extended ERASMUS Quality Charter as well as the Quality Commitment as annexed to the Training Agreement for student placements in ERASMUS already do seek to provide a framework for quality commitment in that area. It is true however that unlike the huge but finite number of HEI in ERASMUS participating to the program that operate both as sending and receiving organisations based ideally on reciprocity no equivalent exists for the corporate sector and the cooperation with enterprises. It is true and to be highly welcomed that this project seeks to establish a system of checks and balances in seeking to engage HEI as future QRC departing from the principle that each of the actors can know and communicate best with the enterprises in its own region. Some issue to be taken into account: - It should be stressed that all HEI have free access to the labelled enterprises. - Host companies which could be seen as best practices may react very unwillingly to hundreds, even thousands of students or HEI approaching them for potential placements the number of practical places they can offer is finite and unlike ERASMUS study places can be subject to continuous change. - The European Register for Quality Assurance could serve as some example in the area of networks of networks on one hand and quality assurance mechanisms on the other. Other recommendations:

Provide the concrete lists and documents as annexes at the end of the document and make clear whether applicable in LLP context or in general

Put it in a nutshell for companies – what are the minimum criteria it has to fulfil to be awarded the label and therefore participating.

Does it mean that this is an exclusive right, meaning that all enterprises that do not have the label cannot participate in the programme/placement scheme. Is this like an entry ticket like for HEI the ERASMUS or extended charter for HEI/ERASMUS consortia?

It should be explained why companies not placements are labelled: In general, companies will be labelled, not each placement they offer, as the QRC is supposed to be in contact with a central responsible at the host organisation who is in charge of placement issues. From this contact, knowledge and with the checklist for labelling, a secure judgement on the general quality of placements in this company is possible. It would not be realistic for QRC staff to “check” each placement, interview each supervisor, etc.

How can the QRC and actors involved promote a label attractive to companies?

Add good practice examples/testimonials and websites, contact persons, that makes it easy for newcomers in all fields to start the process and not give up too soon

Create FAQ and mentors on the website

12

Curriculum Development: It is very hard to find all encompassing rules, the twelve guidelines at the and can be helpful as starting point and should be edited to be more attractive and downloadable as guidelines/checklists directly from the website The main purpose here is to make course designers think on the quality of delivery of their education programmes and how the programme objectives and learning outcomes are in line and appropriate with the offer and what role integrated placements could play and what type of placements and integration etc would be appropriate and effective as to be embedded in the curriculum as to contribute to realising these objectives/learning outcomes. QRC

Refer to application process and documents to be submitted (similar to accreditation process) in a nutshell/in short/overview

Add the two German QRC which have been newly created as well within the framework of this project

The true impact of the project rational however can only be assessed and evaluated fully with an established systems of QRC operating across Europe. Q-planet Quality Standards Placement officers, ERASMUS consortia etc seem to favour regularly a so called black list of companies that have offered poor quality placements. This is a very contested issue as not only would NA and other stakeholders bear the risk of seeing some legal action taken against them but also clear evidence is hard to find and it does not suffise to take into account only one student feedback e.g. to make a company a bad placement company. But what is a good host organisation, what sets it apart from other companies that seem to live on hiring interns as cheap labour? These are all difficult and even thorny issues which have been out for ages and no actor no project so far has found a satisfying answer to this problem simply because it does not seem that simple after all. The project embarks on a positive mission, identifying clear (minimum) criteria to label a host organisation as a good quality placement provider. In order to be able to do so a QRC has to be competent and has to have the necessary know-how and be operating in practice. A so called Q-PlaNet standard is formulated which is at the heart of the project’s rationale.

General requirements e.g. info and guidance, learning plan, personnel, general preparation, logistical support, mentoring and integration

Higher education institutions curriculum and framework conditions: with regard to the definition and realisation of learning outcomes and ECTS still too general but also not possible under this project, needs to be linked to accreditation/Bologna and module descriptions/learning outcomes on the other hand framework conditions supporting effective placements abroad. As these are widely autonomous processes of self-commitment This must ideally stem directly from the internationalisation strategy of the HEI and the mission of the HEI.

13

Host organisation: resources, process and competent contact persons/mentors that can supervise the placement as such

The Labelling process: supporting proof or evidence that organisation is capable of demonstrating its compliance with the standard set out in QPlaNet

Make sure you stress that the focus here is more on principles/criteria than on processes (the latter is ISO but less appropriate here).

And last but not least: How can the label become attractive, commitment be built and an effective and Europe wide dissemination be achieved

D.8.1 References operational in all 5 partner universities/QRC This will be the Documentation/evidence for labelled host companies and the award of label (end of September). D.9.1 Quality Procedures with regard to Project Management The manual was the guideline before starting the actual project management. At the kick-off meeting one representative of the project partner from Siemens, Aura Moja, (who mainly wrote the document with her colleagues from Siemens) met with the project coordinator/quality manager to discuss the purpose and use of the manual. It influenced strongly the document management of the project regarding the processing and editing of documents (file names, templates). A documents list was created by the quality manager according to the file names foreseen in the manual. Siemens gave support on checking the completion and correct implementation of the list with regards to the ISO norm. All document versions, especially of deliverables, are saved with the complement “_v0x” to number the different versions. Older versions are saved in an archive folder and the most updated version is – in general – online. Important documents, such as the Quality Standard, are sent to all project partners with the latest changes to ask for approval. D.9.2 External evaluation and follow-up reports The undersigned report serves as external evaluation report and feedback before the submission of the final report to the EACEA. It is in line with what was laid out in the project proposal. (The follow-up reports mentioned are notes by the quality manager and project coordinator on how the project team envisages to address the evaluation suggestions for improvement. A follow-up report are the minutes written after the meeting with the external evaluator in Karlsruhe. D.10.2 Project midterm and final report The reports are available and show good progress and all activities and results so far achieved have been in line with the objectives laid out in the grant proposal annexed to the grant agreement. (see annexes/annex to final report). A first draft of the project’s final report to the EACEA was made available but not explicitly subject to evaluation in this report but shows the project will conclude in due course and supports evidence to the assumption that no further obstacles in this very last stage of project will be expected. All partners have received a first and second instalment on the basis of the EU grant the coordinator has received from the EU and it has been stipulated that the balance for each partner can be adapted according to the EU’ final balance/instalment upon assessment and approval of the final project report.

14

Summary Conclusions and Recommendations Evaluation The report concludes by certifying that no major problems and delays impacting negatively on the project outcomes have occurred. All project activities and deliverables developed at that stage of evaluation are in line with the proposal and the individual deliverables (see list in annex) have been achieved – at albeit varying degrees of perfection. One of the major strengths of the project is the partnership and its extensive experience and relevant networks in the project. The developed deliverables/results are of direct relevance to the stakeholders outlined in the project – students, student placement officers in higher education institutions/career services and international offices dealing with ERASMUS student placements, course designers as well as enterprises/host organisations. The website is very well-structured, easy to access and very attractive and provides relevant links which allow to put the project in its EU context. Three major challenges seem to remain given the project objectives:

- The labelling process of the host organisation and promotion of quality placements

- Wide dissemination of results, making the Q-PlaNet network and its website with its concrete products and results, documents, checklists and templates widely known among the relevant stakeholders – above all HEI, students and companies

- Sustainability of the network beyond its actual project duration During the project it soon became clear that it was going to be a challenge to identify and win appropriate companies for the pilot placements (based on reciprocity with one student from one of the partner’s countries serving an appropriate practical. At that stage, no articles have been published yet other than two advertisements in the Parliament Magazine promoting the project and its objectives. However, one article written by the coordinator of the project and the coordinator of EUE-NeT seem to be now under way (end of September 2010).

15

Recommendations As for dissemination purposes and to enhance user-friendliness of the documents developed and gathered it becomes evident that the more concrete and practical the usage of the individual documents become the more it would be appropriate to put them directly as downloads of the website e.g. checklist on finding placements, monitoring quality etc. The aspect of linguistic and intercultural preparation (which is still an explicit part of funding under Leonardo projects) should form an integral part of the quality criteria in the process. This could be added into D.4.1 and 5.1 as well as the main D.7.3 e.g. by integrating this aspect into the list of criteria for preparing/matching candidates. It is unfortunately still a fact that in the ERASMUS practices both at study and placement level adequate linguistic and intercultural preparation is still the poor relation in mobility. However linguistic and also intercultural skills and competences can be one if not the decisive selection criterion to recruit a candidate as well as it can determine success or failure of a candidate on a placement (and study period). On a more general note, the author also recommended to make the focus on principles = criteria/content rather than on processes (used in the ISO methodology) for that project more explicit and clear. It would be advisable to create here different sections/subsections according to the direct target groups: students, higher education institutions/consortia, regional reference centres, companies and classify the documents in chronological order of a placement lifecycle (from planning a placement abroad via job search to assessment and academic recognition/acknowledgement of the placement by home university). Another recommendation is to add concrete good practice examples and statements/testimonials to promote the project among its respective target groups more effectively e.g. statement by a company that was awarded the label and what added value the label is for them; benefit for students and placement officers at universities etc. In this context, also the recommended link to the other EU project should be put up by the end of the project and integrated into the final product/report. Project results and best practices should be used by relevant stakeholders to prevent further “re-inventing the wheel” in this area to the benefit of promoting and enhancing the quality and quantity of student placements. It will also be crucial to reflect and work on a strategy as to promote the labelling of host organisations and making this process of labelling attractive to the corporate world (through involving students associations like AIESEC, UNICE etc, but also concretely by the five QRC (reaching out to ERASMUS consortia as one concrete target group that has a vested interest in the quality assurance of placements and is anchored institutionally in the LLP. A network and tools for the quality of student placements in Europe all users are identified and projects in line with needs. The real impact of this project is the network, these experienced partners with powerful and convincing expertise that have both assembled and collected useful tools for the quality assurance of

16

placements. It is now the main task to strive for a powerful encompassing dissemination approach as this project/website with all its tool does have the potential to act as one-stop shop for procedures and tools in SMP at European level – and even beyond. The author recommended to reach out for dissemination beyond the actual network of project partners by involving also stakeholders of the so called EU transparency tools that could be linked to the process of placements, particularly the EUROPASS mobility (certifying in a EU standardised way training or learning periods abroad according to certain parameters and available in all EU languages website: ....), the European CV (a standardised document that could be used inside the university in the process of selecting student candidates) as well as by recruiters from companies and finally the Diploma Supplement. That is why the printed version of the final deliverable 7.3 with an accompanying letter referring to the project website and its future beyond the actual project duration also to stakeholders such as the Europass Centres in the respective member states/participating countries, CEDEFOP, EURES and Euroguidance Centres could be helpful particularly as there is a website reaching out to both companies and candidates submitting for their application for all kind of training or working periods across Europe. As for the future of the network and creating a so called network of networks the author recommended to look at the way the European quality register works with its members and the website it addresses to different stakeholders and target groups (website: www.equar.eu). This could serve as a possible source of inspiration as to how to reflect on the way to organise the network of network and redesign/re-engineer the website beyond actual project duration for the future. Sustainability can be achieved when linked to programme structure and when it is encompassed by NA, EC and Erasmus consortia and when these actors have a clearly identified framework and programme to operate in and when the quality of placements continues to be an integral part of the ERASMUS extended charter or the entry ticket to the program for actors in the field of practical placements.

17

Annex:

List of deliverables – Status 1st September 2010

project Q-PlaNet, agreed with EACEA in the grant agreement and with the

partners in the kick-off meeting in Brussels (January 2009, see meeting minute)

Deliverable WP Leader Status / To Do

D1.1. Survey on practical

placements of

students in Europe

P3 EUE-Net (Doru Talaba) Wird noch mit einem kleinen Abschnitt über andere

ähnliche Projekte erweitert (ca. ¼ Seite)

D2.1. Establishment of 3

regional reference

centres for quality of

placements in

enterprises

P4 Uni Brasov (Simona

Lache)

D3.1. Guidelines for

curriculum

development for

practical placements

P2 Uni Bukarest (Magdalena

Iordache-Platis)

D4.1. Guidelines for

organisation of

practical placements

P5 Technische Uni Tallinn

(Madli Krispin und Kristel

Laaniste (Kristel mehr für

Administratives), eigentlich

ein ziemlich großes Team,

das gemeinschaftlich

arbeitet)

- Der Versicherungsteil wird nochmal überarbeitet

(von KOOR)

- Die Ausführungen über unsere „Pilot Placements“

werden noch eingefügt (derzeit ist noch nicht

endgültig entschieden, welche Praktika sich dazu

eigenen), von KOOR

- Ein Artikel über das Projekt, mit Hauptblick auf

D4.1, wird voraussichtlich Anfang nächsten Jahres

im Journal „Quality in Higher Education“

veröffentlicht – der Artikel ist gerade in Arbeit

(Herr Zirra und Herr Talaba von EUE-Net)

D5.1. Quality standard for

practical placements

of students

P5 Leonardo Büro

Thüringen (Frank March)

D6.1. Establishment of the

European Network

of QRCs and a

network of networks

P1 KOOR - Hierzu fehlt noch die offizielle Vergabe der

“Urkunden” an die QRCs (Layoutvorlage ist fertig

und wird nach Istanbul ausgefüllt und gedruckt)

- Ein Plan für das weitere Vorgehen und die

Erweiterung des Netzwerkes wird in Istanbul

diskutiert werden und das Ergebnis wird noch als

Abschnitt eingefügt

D7.1. Project website P1 KOOR

D7.2. Project external

publications

P1 KOOR + P3 EUE-Net +

P7 JEUNE + P10 AIESEC

(als Netzwerke)

D7.3. Guidelines for trans-

national practical

placements of

students in Europe

P1 KOOR Text wird gerade zusammengestellt (aus fertigen

Deliverables, von P1) und wird in Istanbul als Draft

verabschiedet; das Booklet soll bis Ende September in

den Druck gehen.

D8.1. Reference centres

operational in all 5

partner universities

P3 EUE-Net Dazu fehlt noch der Nachweis über die geprüften

Firmen, die von unseren 5 QRCs das Q-PlaNet Label

und die “Urkunde” bekommen haben. Die Urkunden

werden nach bis Ende September an die Firmen

18

verliehen.

D9.1. Quality Procedures P3 EUE-Net (Manual wurde

von P9 Siemens Brasov

erstellt)

D9.2. External evaluation

and follow up

reports

P1 KOOR

D10.1. Project midterm and

final reports

P1 KOOR

In the context of this deliverables list, we agreed on 3 main actions:

1. survey

2. Reference centres

3. Standards

+ network

19

Annex: Minutes of results from meeting between project coordinator and external evaluator in Karlsruhe

Project evaluation meeting, Karlsruhe, Germany

Evaluation follow-up report I

Time: 09.00 – 13.00 hrs Venue: Hochschule Karlsruhe, LI 126, Germany Date: Tuesday, 17 August 2010.

1. Attendees:

2. Topics

a) Presentation of project ideas to give an introduction to Prof. Dr. Angress:

- Q-PlaNet as two-years project, realised with the wish of some universities to do more

in quality assurance in the context of student placements, and in the context of EUE-

Net project

- Currently there is no EU funded prolongation of the network project, but a network

expansion will happen

- There are some alternatives: to present a new project to the Commission in the context

of Entrepreneurship / start-ups, which could be linked to quality check of host

organisations in European regions; synergies with alumni services and work could be

used, Leo-Net could be integrated.

Aim of the external evaluation is to judge the degree of realisation for project deliverables

and objectives, compared to the grant agreement.

As introduction, we discussed

- the overall goals of the project, and three main actions which are the survey, the

establishment of QRCs and the Quality Standard

- the current status of the project work (what currently was accomplished / still open –

see also list in Annex to this minute),

- how the project in general was managed and challenges of project management,

especially the specifities of our partnership,

- the future plans to develop a self-sustained network and the contacts already taken

with, especially, the German National Agency.

P1

Edmund Zirra M.A.

P1

Claudia Bernarding B.Sc. M.A.

Ext. evaluator

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Angress

20

b) Deliverables

D1.1 Survey on practical placements of students in Europe:

- Very interesting deliverable

- Needs strong improvements in language / wording

- An improvement in layout (similar structur of each paragraph for 1 country, same

headline-structures, keyword-box for each country with links, literature, etc.) is not too

time-consuming but will improve the overall impression strongly

- The conclusion needs to mention: big diversity in the placement situation in Europe,

Q-PlaNet standard could be nevertheless used for all those countries as it is universal

- The footnotes will be integrated in the keyword-boxes

D2.1 Establishment of 3 new QRCs

- The role of the expertise of LBT and KOOR could be mentioned (presentations before

project start, workshop in Karlsruhe in March 2009)

- An explanation of reason why the 3 universities are partner and wanted to realise

QRCs at their offices could be included (Brasov because they are very actively

involved in EUE-Net, as coordinator; Bucharest because the university have an

understanding of the advantages of the Q-PlaNet model for their university; Tallinn

because the international office is active in EUE-Net, model was interesting for their

university; and a participation is generally interesting for “young” EU member states)

D3.1 Guidelines for curriculum development

- Aim of the deliverable: “what do I need when I want to integrate student placements in

the curriculum?”, guidance towards HEI where new study courses are created, old

ones are modified (on faculty level), or for university regulations (on university level)

- Tip: in the context of curriculum and syllabus at universities, the Bologna terminology

/ Dublin Description are very accepted; the deliverable could contain a remark such as

“learning outcomes are in line with Bologna...”

- Review of writing style necessary (point of view is partly too “romanian”, shall be

more general, ex. p. 3: “placements are in a very beginning stage” not everywhere!)

D4.1 Guidelines for organisation of placements

- Aim of the deliverable: “what do I need when I want to organise a student placement

at my university?”

- A placement contract example is included in the annex; probably an updating is

necessary, more language variation is possible (en, fr, dt, es)

- The two graphics are ok, but need visual improvement and will receive a text

explanation under the graphic in order to explain the intention of the graphic

- Information about the ongoing pilot placement will be included during September

2010

D5.1 Quality standard

- Form for the student evaluation needs to be clearer in the heading (“evaluation of the

placement by the student”)

- Annex 3 will be added: a short “checklist” for host organisations in order to show

them their “obligations” on 1 page in case they want to be labeled

D6.1 Establishment of the European Network of QRCs and a network of networks

- Final decision about the network structure will be taken in Istanbul together with the

partners, especially EUE-Net

21

- Possible is a “free” structure without board/president/coordinator, but the network as

such is recognising new members in a system where every member needs to agree, or

at least a majority.

D7.1 Website

The website contains all necessary information but its future needs to be decided before

the project’s end. This is important especially in view of sustainability for Q-PlaNet. This

issue will be decided in Istanbul at the EUE-Net conference.

D7.3 Guidelines for transnational placements for students in Europe

- The document is the aggregation of all work done in the project and will be used for

dissemination measures, especially towards the NAs immediately after the project’s

end.

- It will refer to EU policy with the Lisbon process, the Erasmus quality commitment,

the European Charter for mobility, Erasmus university charter

- The glossary is important and will be finalised in September; it shall include a clear

definition of placement (“what, in the eyes of Q-PlaNet, is a placement?) and a

clarification of used synonyms (practical placement, student placement, work

placement, internship, traineeship, practical period, training period)

D8.1 QRCs operational in all 5 partner universities

The deliverable is twofold: it is based on the fact that the QRCs have been established

(this is proven by the official recognition by the network of each QRC after the acceptance

of the application form and the issuing of the paper certificate) and on the proof that they

are operational, which means that they are able to label host organisations. This is proven

by the labelling of at least one host organisation per QRC.

D9.1 Quality procedures:

The quality procedures manual was mainly done by P9 (Siemens Brasov); it was used by

the quality manager during the project. P9 was guided by ISO standards; and a link to ISO

/ DIN could also be useful for the future of the network (accepted and known to host

organisations, legitimation, etc.)

The report for EACEA needs to include a short explanation why Prof. Dr. Angress has

been chosen as external evaluator. Her expertise shows that she is appropriate for this

task, see http://www.h-ab.de/index.php?id=angress.

Prof. Dr. Angress external evaluation report will have the length of 3-5 pages.

c) Next steps

- To the follow-up minute of this meeting will be referred in the final external

evaluation, as the minute is part of the quality documents (in the same way as all

meeting minutes)

- Special focus shall be on the glossary and a coherent use of terms (such as

QRC/RCP/etc. which was not clear at the beginning of the project)

d) EUE-Net conference in Istanbul

Prof. Dr. Angress will attend the EUE-Net conference in Istanbul to speak to all work

package leaders and to learn more about the other project’s context. She will also give a

first impression and feedback to the partners, based on her notes from this meeting.

22

Annex: First Feedback from external evaluator in Istanbul (ppt presentation at project meeting in Istanbul)