EAS NEWSLETTER – September 2008

A- THE STATE OF THE PROJECT

EAS is now on the last steps of work.

More than one hundred people participated to the pilot for testing EAS. Thirty assessors gave their opinion on EAS and an high number of stakeholders from several European countries provide an analysis of the scheme proposed.

B- SUMMARY OF THE REPORT ON PILOTING EAS

WP3– August 2008 (KADIS)

Description of piloting EAS

Prepared by Sasa Niklanovic–KADIS - SI

The aim of the WP 3 was to test European Accreditation Scheme for guidance practitioners (EAS), which was developed in WP 2, and obtain feedback about testing. EAS was tested in the group (sample) of practitioners whom we called applicants. Four EAS partner countries (Italy, Spain, Slovenia and United Kingdom) and 7 non-partner countries (Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Romania, Portugal and Lithuania) were involved in testing. Testing was done as a simulation of real accreditation procedure i.e. applicants completed all requested forms for accreditation and provided all relevant documentation on their formal and informal education, training and work experiences. Assessors checked the application forms and documentation and carried out interviews with all applicants. Interviews were carried out by telephone or via Internet.

To obtain feedback on EAS we used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Feedback was collected from all parties involved. We developed separate feedback questionnaires for each involved party:

  • Feedback questionnaire from 90 career practitioners.
  • Feedback questionnaires from assessors (18 assessors participated).
  • Feedback questionnaire for stakeholders (25 stakeholder organisations participated).
  • Feedback questionnaire for potential awarding bodies (11 organisations participated).

All accreditation procedures were carried out on-line via Internet. Applicants used special on-line application tool which also includes possibility to attach scanned documentation. Assessors got application form via e-mail and assessed it with by using on-line assessment tools. All feedback questionnaires were also on-line. All on-line tools and questionnaires were protected by passwords and usernames.

Results of testing

We used elaborated feedback questionnaires which provided us large amount of information. All results are presented in the document Report on results of pilots and feedback from stakeholders (15 June 2008) while this Summary only includes main findings. Feedback questionnaires gave us general picture of EAS (approach, structure, procedures) but also specific feedback on each element of EAS (main tasks, common tasks, specific tasks, application form, assessment procedures, etc.). Both feedbacks could be useful for further development of the scheme and its’ documents.

With the quantitative part of the feedback questionnaires we were mostly trying to find out if EA scheme itself, documents and procedures are clear and relevant. Results are positive in general clearness of EAS is good or very good with some exemptions which are described in WP 3 report. There are only few elements of EAS which are in eyes of assessors and applicants less clear than others, for example procedure for assessment and evaluation (this is the opinion of assessors).

Majority of applicants (97%) and assessors (89%) think that EAS main represent main activities of career guidance practice though some additional have been suggested. They mostly think that main tasks are highly relevant but some less than others: main tasks 1 (Establish communication with client) and main task 5 (career education activities on training paths) were assessed as less relevant compared to other three main tasks.

Assessors think that EAS assessment procedure is quite efficient (0% assessors said very efficient, 78% quite efficient, 11% less efficient and 11% not efficient). Assessors do not think the assessment procedure is fully able to distinguish between competent and not competent practitioners while 78% think it is quite able and 22% it is less able.

Qualitative feedback gave additional information about EAS. Highest proportion of comments of all involved parties refers to the procedure itself which is, in eyes of some applicants and assessors, too long, to complicated and complex. Since complexity of EAS procedure is similar to comparable schemes in some EU countries, this opinion might be also the consequence of the fact that practitioners did not get any payment or any other benefit to participate in the project and mostly did not expect they will need so much time to complete the procedure and feedback questionnaire. Two additional problems also contributed to such opinion: first is language since we translated only description of EAS and application form into national languages but not the on-line application and assessment tools which only exist in English; second are on-line tools which were used first time and were consequently less robust and caused some difficulties, especially to applicants and assessors who used on-line tools for the first time.

Second most frequent set of comments refers to main tasks. Tough most of applicants think main task 1 (establishing communication with the client) is clear and relevant many do not think it is separate (self-standing) in practice and therefore it could not be treated as a separate task. Some respondents stressed that establishing communication with the client is the beginning of each guidance intervention. Many applicants and assessors also argue that main tasks 4 (career education-job search) and 5 (career education-training paths) are in practice not provided separately however proposals how to solve this have little in common and no clear conclusion could be drawn from proposals.

Some assessors and stakeholders stressed that EAS defines which common and specific elements should be assessed for each main task but does not define standards i.e. minimal required level of performance of these elements.

Stakeholders are another important group which provide feedback on EAS. Stakeholder in general support the idea of the project and they think it could be useful in the EU context however many of them they are not sure what will be the benefit for their own countries, particularly those from countries where accreditation of qualifications exist.

In EAS we used new ICT online tools for applicants and assessors developed by COREP. All accreditation procedures were supported by computer application. These tools were used for the first time and were actually tested in our project therefore it is understandable that applicants and assessors reported some difficulties during the use. Some difficulties were removed during the testing while others could be minimised in future. Tools need more testing in future, as all computerised tools, to become more reliable and robust. Part of the difficulties can be also attributed to the fact that majority of applicants and assessors did not have any previous experience in the use of such on-line tools.

Assessors also expressed concern that the use of Internet tools offers more space for fraud since they do not see the person during the accreditation process. Therefore some of them proposed to keep personal interview and not do it via telephone.

C- NOTE ON YOUR AGENDA:

We are organising national conferences !!

ITALY

Seminario di studio del Progetto EAS - European Accreditation Scheme for Career Guidance Practitioners

25 settembre 2008

Holiday Inn Turin Corso Francia - Piazza Massaua, 21, Torino

SLOVENIA

Konferenca LDV projekta: Evropska shema priznavanja kompetenc praktikov karierne orientacije

23 september 2008

M Hotel, Derčeva ulica 4, Ljubljana

SPAIN

Jornadas Europeas “EL DESARROLLO PROFESIONAL DE LOS ORIENTADORES”

29/30 de Septiembre 2008

.

UNITED KINGDOM

Contact Mr Chris Evans for more information:

If someone would be interested can contact the coordinator of the project by an e-mail to:

.

The EAS team

D- LINK TO USEFUL WEBSITES

1