Abstract:

Ensuring good quality of adult education services, with a special regard for socially, economically or culturally disadvantaged citizens, has been a key objective for the European Union since 2000. The economic and social crisis has made this objective an even more strategic one, thus prompting at even sharper focus on the conditions required to facilitate the adult education services in the promotion of lifelong learning and social inclusion (CEU, 2000; 2008; 2011; Striano, 2010; Palmieri, 2015). The evaluation of adult education staff is one of these conditions; indeed, evaluation plays a crucial role in guiding changes in institutions, educational, and healthcare services (Vestman & Conner, 2006; Ciucci, 2008; Ferrario, 2013).

The EduEval Grundtvig project - Evaluation for the professional development of Adult Education Staff was carried out within this framework. It involved a partnership of 6 Universities from 5 different European countries. Its main focus was the evaluation of adult education professionals with the aim of drawing up a new profile of evaluators who can support the development of adult education staff.
In order to reach this goal, the partnership first carried out desk research, clarifying the European framework of the evaluation of adult educators, secondly, qualitative research, investigating the gap between European policies and evaluators’ everyday professional practice.

The Italian part of the research involved 20 practitioners whose tasks include the evaluation of adult education staff. They were interviewed with semi-structured in-depth interviews (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Data confirmed that working in adult educational services requires generic and transversal skills, and more specific competences which relate to functions within the adult educational contexts.
Based on the research findings, the partnership built up a pilot course to train the evaluator of adult education staff. It had a blended learning structure (Driscoll, 2002) and was tested countrywide. Partners adapted the course to the particular features of the different national contexts.

The Italian team chose an active methodology. Flipped classrooms (Freeman Herreid & Schiller, 2012; Tucker, 2012; Lowell, Utah, Verleger, & Beach, 2013) were used to involve 14 professionals, allowing them to experience different evaluation tools, practices and situations under the guidance of the trainers. While 20 classroom hours were spent in experiential activities, 10 hours of online contents allowed learning theory and reflecting on it.

The final survey completed by the participants shows that the course was useful, with a significant impact on their daily working life. The participants declared great interest in the “triangulation model” that EduEval proposed, in order both to understand and manage the complexity of evaluation. This model articulates the evaluation of the context with external and self-evaluation. The participants also highlighted the importance of putting the tools and the methodologies proposed into practice, and reflecting on their own evaluation practices. More time would have been necessary in order to practise the complex skills required to evaluate adult education staff and improve their development.

Keywords:

Evaluation, Development, Training, Adult Education.