Materials concerning the Peer Review method

Start-up Meeting Rome, 3-4 February 2011

PEER REVIEW

nothing to frighten you… Success for the partners and for the Project needs us all to work as a team.

The Peer review is a way to work together as a team.

Aim to be participative and learn from each other’s knowledge, skills and experiences.

PEER REVIEW

field.

A peer review involve

Qualified and equal standing individuals within the relevant

is

A process of self-evaluation and self-improvement through the systematic and collaborative comparison of practice and performance in order to identify own strengths and weaknesses, and learn how to adapt and improve as conditions change”

This process of evaluation

“Offers a way of identifying 'better and smarter' ways of doing things and understanding why they are better or smarter. These insights can then be used to implement changes that will improve practice or performance.”

PEER REVIEW IN MU.COM. PROJECT

If a peer review is an ‘assessment of performance’ from ‘experts’ (peers), the final goal of the PEER REVIEW IN the MU.COM. PROJECT is the individualization of points of strength and weakness, so as to learn, to adapt and to implement the conditions of the transfer of the know how concerning the museum communicator.

The goal is reached through the systematic and

cooperative comparison of the used communicative

practices and the related employment and necessity of professional resources.

PEER REVIEW NATIONAL WORKSHOPS

- Allow the persons from different institutions to share their varied skills and experience, reflect on their own work, make comparison and exchange information -It will be organized on the basis of the results of the DESK ANALYSIS COMPARED REPORT that willl offer a common assessment framework in order to make comparative analysis, - Managed by the national partners -Synthesis reports in English (There is related budget) - IT: at the UNIVERSITY OF ROME (P0) + participation of EURO INNOVANET (PO2); Museo Internazionale delle Ceramiche in Faenza – Fondazione (Fondazione MIC) (PO4) + network of beneficiaries - BG: at the Regional History Museum “Academician Jordan Ivanov” – town of Kyustendil (RHM) (P1) + network of the beneficiaries - RO: at the Universitatea Lucian Blaga din Sibiu (PO5) + Muzeul Naţional Brukenthal (PO6) + network of the beneficiaries - UK: OAKE Europe (PO7) + network of beneficiaries

Objectives

Implementation of quantitative and qualitative data, aimed to give direction to the adaption of the original model of learning in synch with changes in the labor market of the sector target and specific national contexts involved.

-

in any

Participants

The team of peers– 10/15 people

for nation: The target team from each partner The beneficiary museums and institutions Selected students Possibly they are the same people we will train and who will participate to the events The national team leader will be a representative from a partner and will be the ‘figurehead’ for the team. The team leader will return to the partnership and deliver a presentation of the findings from the peer review and the report.

Topics / 1

Peer review National workshops will focus on, investigate and record evidence, setting and share hypotheses on:  A review of the existing situations and practice in the different institutions  Reference occupational sector (characteristics and evolutions) and positioning and evolution of the museum communicator in the regional and national labor market;  distinctive competences pointed out and which it is necessary to integrate, even in terms of training;  analysis of the training needs and related learning areas;  how to adapt and how to transfer the F-MU.S.EU.M course (organizational and technological aspects);

Topics / 2

 assessing the implementation and impact on the different involved institutions  territorial availability to set up curriculum and training course of the museum communicator, e.g. the organisational, technological, training and cultural aspects of the target museums and territory involved in the transfer activity as well as potential improvements;  identifying the stakeholders  benchmarking analysis of the MUCOM experimental prototype with respect to the good practice examples  Provide the raw material and case studies  Stimulate internal and external discussion about current and

Desk review of the peers

The Desk Review of the peers is made up of three parts:    Assessment Questions Hypothesis

FINAL PRODUCT

REPORT ON COMPARED ANALYSIS BASED ON THE PEER REVIEW (IT/EN. Website) (7th month, 04/2011) on the basis of national reports coming from the Peer Review meetings.

It will have an annexed Action Report concerning the definition of the experimentation and transfer actions toward the target organisations.