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
A peer review involve
Qualified and equal standing individuals within the relevant
field.
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 knowhow 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.
Participants
in any
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
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
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
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.