B Rural Innovation Van Hall Larenstein University of ... VanHall... · Vlindersingel 220 NL 3544 VM Utrecht +31 30 87 820 87 [email protected] B Rural Innovation Van Hall Larenstein University

Vlindersingel 220

NL 3544 VM Utrecht

+31 30 87 820 87

www.AeQui.nl

[email protected]

B Rural Innovation

Van Hall Larenstein University of

Applied Sciences (Wageningen)

Report of the limited programme assessment

16 and 17 May 2011

Utrecht, The Netherlands

August 2011

www.AeQui.nl

Assessment Agency for higher Education

2 Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences

� This document is best printed in duplex.

B Rural Innovation August 2011 3

Table of contents

Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Summary................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Colophon .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 7

1. Intended learning outcomes................................................................................................................................. 9

2. Teaching-learning environment.......................................................................................................................... 12

3. Assessment and achieved learning outcomes.................................................................................................... 20

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix 1 Assessment committee ....................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix 2 Program of the assessment ................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 3 Quantitative data................................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix 4 Final qualifications............................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix 5 Overview of the programme ............................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 6 Documents........................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix 7 Declarations of independence............................................................................................................. 36


Summary

On 16 and 17 May 2011 an assessment committee of AeQui has performed an assessment of the programme B

Rural Innovation of Van Hall Larenstein in Wageningen. The overall judgement of the committee regarding the

quality of the programme is satisfactory.

The aim of the professional Bachelor’s programme Rural Innovation and it’s major Regional Development and

Innovation, is to ensure graduates are suitable candidates for jobs offered by rural development organizations.

They know how to deal with challenges faced by people living and working in the country side throughout Europe

as well as in developing countries. Graduates are capable of co-managing rural development projects, mobilizing

rural development expertise (local and non-local), reinforcing grass root level rural organizations, facilitating multi-

stakeholder processes and strengthening networks between stakeholders of rural development interventions.

Graduates as process facilitators have sufficient knowledge and experience to advise on innovative processes, be it

at farm level or at regional level.

This RDI programme is fairly unique in the Netherlands with its 4-year English-taught programme in regional

development with a focus on the Netherlands, Europe and developing countries.

Intended learning outcomes

The assessment committee qualifies the intended

learning outcomes as satisfactory. The programme

focuses on three job profiles to which RDI graduates

may be promoted after an estimated five years:

Project or programme coordinator/manager,

Facilitator of multi-stakeholder processes, and Area

broker/networker. Since facilitator and area

broker/networker have similarities, the RDI

programme trains its students to become junior

project/process managers and junior facilitators in

regional development programmes, in both

European and Non-European countries. Career

opportunities for RDI graduates exist in govern-

mental and non-governmental organizations that

implement projects and programmes in rural areas

in and outside the EU.

However, a lot is changing in professional working

field in the last couple of years: for example the

effects of the economic crisis and also the effects of

globalisation are getting much clearer. This and

more has lead to the collapse of the Western-

European labour market and a change toward more

private oriented markets. These changes demand

adaptation of the competences from the graduates.

That’s why the assessment committee advises the

RDI team to develop a shared vision on these

developments, ultimately to create clarity for the

students and graduates and make the programme

sustainable for the next ten to fifteen years.

In the programme, the intended learning outcomes

are matched with the up to date job based

requirements of the professional discipline. There is

coherence between the Dublin Descriptors and the

intended learning outcomes. The programme

assured this through comparing the assessment

criteria of each competence at the final level with

the Descriptors.

Teaching-learning environment

The assessment committee qualifies the teaching-

learning environment as satisfactory. The program-

me covers the learning outcomes. There are several

strong points to the programme: because of the

students from abroad the student population

automatically creates a multicultural setting, which

prepares the students on the professional domain.

The assessment committee is very positive about the

fact that students get a lot of experience in multi-

cultural teamwork. This is one of the crucial

competences they will use once they graduated and

enter the professional domain. Because the

programme emphasis this so strongly, the

assessment committee qualifies this aspect as

excellent.

The down side to that is the fact that students

indicate they would like to have more theory in the

programme. Since the professional field has been

changing quite rapidly the last couple of years, the

used methodologies in process-approach seem

somewhat outdated. New concepts like place/space-

based development and social responsibility seem

under exposed in the curriculum. Along with

updating the intended learning outcomes, this could

be renewed as well. The support system is good and


accessible, teachers can always be contacted by the

students.

Assessment and achieved learning outcomes

The assessment committee qualifies the assessment

and achieved learning outcomes as good. As the

competences are leading for the assessments, it is

assured that the actual competences are assessed.

Therefore, the assessments are valid in the sense

that they measure the criteria explicitly stated in the

competence descriptions. The assessments measure

what they aim to measure. Also the assessments

make a distinction between students who can apply

knowledge and skills and students who don’t.

Therefore the assessment committee confirms the

validity and reliability of the assessments are

appropriate.

The assessments and thesis report are all of a

professional bachelor’s level, sometimes they can be

fairly complex. Both conversations with students as

well as alumni, and studying the thesis reports have

led the assessment committee to the conviction that

the students are ambitious and motivated.

The assessment committee was surprised to find out

that not many students get typical RDI jobs. For

example: in the early days 80% of the alumni found a

job they were trained for. But nowadays social

projects and development projects are cut down by

the new government. Regional expertise is hired

first. So these days alumni get a job that doesn’t fit

the programme and the majority does a master’s

study after graduation first.

Recommendations

Overall, the assessment committee has a positive

picture of the RDI programme. There are some

points for further improvement.

The European labour market has strongly diminished

for traditional development jobs. The students that

graduate will find extreme competition on the

labour market from more experienced development

consultants. It appears that the funding of the labour

market is shifting to more and more private or semi-

private parties. To find a job and work for those

parties, students need slightly different competen-

ces. Most of all, the assessment committee recom-

mends the programme to develop a shared vision on

developments and shifts in the labour market and

the to be achieved competences. In the same move

the programme should update the used

methodologies and concepts. The Professional

Advisory Committee should have a role in this

process.

Definitely the assessment committee thinks that

students can and need to be trained in networking

and spotting opportunities, more than is happening

now in the current programme.

The assessment committee got the impression that

some of the used instruments for evaluation and

grading, are somehow more complex than

necessary. There might be a good role for the

examination board in its new position to encourage

developments in simplifying the used assessment

framework.

All three standards of the NVAO assessment framework are assessed positively and hence the assessment

committee awards a positive recommendation for the accreditation of the programme.

On behalf of the entire assessment committee,

Utrecht, August 2011

Ir. R. S. Kloosterman A.J.C. van Noort MScMC

Chair Secretary


Colophon

Institute and programme

Institute: Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool Larenstein, Wageningen)

Address: Droevendaalsesteeg 2, 6708 PB, Wageningen

Telephone: (0317) 48 62 30

Status institution: publicly funded

Result of institutional assessment: applied for

Programme: Rural Innovation (Dutch: Plattelandsvernieuwing)

Level: HBO Bachelor

Number of credits: 240 EC

Nomenclature: Bachelor of Rural Innovation

Location: Wageningen

Mode of study: fulltime

ISAT: 34859

Data on intake, graduates and drop-outs: see appendix 3.

Responsibility for the quality of the programme: G. Oosterhof, VHL Wageningen Programme Director.

Assessment committee

Ir. R. Kloosterman, chair

Prof. A. Fuller, domain expert

O. Ntenje MSc, domain expert

Dr. F. van Schoubroeck, domain expert

A. de Brouwer, student

A. van Noort MScMC, secretary

The Committee was presented to and approved by the NVAO for approval (NVAO-dossier #5117).

The assessment was conducted under responsibility of

AeQui VBI

Vlindersingel 220

3544 VM Utrecht, The Netherlands

+31 30 87 820 87

www.AeQui.nl


Introduction

Van Hall Larenstein (VHL) is part of Wageningen University and Research centre (Wageningen UR). Courses are

provided at three locations: Leeuwarden, Velp and Wageningen. With a staff of more than 400 FTE, VHL provides

education to more than 4,000 students in 14 registered Bachelor courses, 3 Master and 6 Associate Degree

courses.

Van Hall Larenstein offers programmes that focus on nature and the environment, health of both humans and

animals and sustainable entrepreneurship.

The institute

Aside from Wageningen, the programme Rural

Innovation is also offered within VHL at Leeuwarden.

The main differences between Wageningen en

Leeuwarden are the language of instruction and the

aim of this course. In Leeuwarden the programme is

in Dutch and alumni will get jobs in Dutch

organizations. In Wageningen the language of

instruction is English. The focus is on the

Netherlands, Europe and developing countries.

This report concerns the programme Rural

Innovation and it’s major Rural Development and

Innovation (RDI) at location Wageningen.

Because the focus is on the Netherlands, Europe and

developing countries, the programme appeals to a

committed group of prospective students, most of

which have purposively selected RDI for their

interest in working in developing countries.

The programme

The aim of the professional Bachelor’s programme

Regional Development and Innovation is to ensure

graduates are suitable candidates for jobs offered by

rural development organizations. They know how to

deal with challenges faced by people living and

working in the countryside throughout Europe as

well as in developing countries. Graduates are

capable of co-managing rural development projects,

mobilizing rural development expertise (local and

non-local), reinforcing grass root level rural

organizations, facilitating multi-stakeholder process-

ses and strengthening networks between

stakeholders of rural development interventions.

Graduates as process facilitators have sufficient

knowledge and experience to advise on innovative

processes, be it at farm level or at regional level.

RDI generates competent graduates by combining

the acquisition of the knowledge, skills and attitude

necessary to work in the professional domain. It

combines in-house teaching with outdoor

placements and stimulates learning by doing

through projects. It has a conducive learning

environment because Dutch and foreign students sit

in the same classroom, lecturers are experts in the

field of regional development and RDI students are

able to meet Master’s students from developing

countries.

This RDI programme is fairly unique in the

Netherlands with its 4-year English-taught

programme in regional development with a focus on

the Netherlands, Europe and developing countries. If

the topic of development cooperation is taught as a

course under regional development, it is a minor

while at RDI it is a major. When comparing RDI to

foreign universities it appears that the foreign

universities have professional Bachelor’s program-

mes in rural/regional development or sustainable

agricultural development, but often not in

combination and do not provide a full 4-year

programme. Their focus is often on developing

countries and they are often more academic and


economics-oriented while the RDI programme has a

professional and more generic focus.

The assessment

Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences

(VHL) has assigned AeQui VBI to perform a quality

assessment. In close co-operation with VHL, AeQui

has convened an independent and competent

assessment committee.

A preparatory meeting with representatives of the

programme has taken place. In this meeting the

program for the site-visit and the interviewees were

determined, see attachment 2.

Two weeks prior to the site-visit, Van Hall Larenstein

announced the open consultation to students and

staff. Neither students nor staff has used this

possibility.

The assessment committee has made a choice of

theses over the last two years, and has reviewed

these theses. The results of this review were input

for discussions during the site-visit, see chapter 3.

The committee assessed in an independent manner;

at the conclusion of the assessment the results were

presented to representatives of the programme.

The concept of this report was sent to the

representatives of the programme; their reactions

have led to this final version of the report.


1. Intended learning outcomes

The intended learning outcomes of the programme have been concretised with regard to content, level and orientation; they meet international requirements.

Explanation: As for level and orientation (bachelor’s or master’s; professional or academic), the intended learning outcomes fit into the Dutch qualifications

framework. In addition, they tie in with the international perspective of the requirements currently set by the professional field and the discipline with regard to the

contents of the programme.

Based on the interviews and examination of the underlying documentation, the assessment committee qualifies

the intended learning outcomes as satisfactory. A lot has changed in the professional working field in the last few

years; the effects of the economic crisis and of globalisation are getting much clearer. This and more has led to the

collapse of the Western-European labour market and a change towards more private-oriented markets.

Development work has changed over the last two decades with a change of orientation from direct targeting of

poorest groups in rural areas to either commerce-oriented capacity building or macro-level creation of enabling

environments. Small-scale private-run initiatives rarely hire community workers such as the programme produces.

These changes demand adaptation of the competences from the graduates. Consequently, the assessment

committee advises the RDI team to develop a shared vision on these developments, ultimately to create clarity for

the students and graduates and prepare them for jobs likely to be available and make the programme sustainable

for the next ten to fifteen years.

Links with professional practice

The current programme was developed in 2005. The

major issues from that time still exist:

- Globalization is causing a continuous and rapidly

changing context in which rural households

operate. It influences agricultural development,

the rural and regional economy, liveability, rural

planning;

- The three functions of the rural environment

(nature and landscape, agriculture and

supplementary) are increasingly being

integrated, leading to a change from a sector to

an area policy. This stimulates the

decentralization of government tasks, which

necessitates good governance and a more

interactive, participative planning and decision

making process. Local NGOs in developing

countries now have the capacity which rural

development workers with a western

background and education used to provide in

the 1980s-1990s;

- Most poor people live in rural areas.

Inspired by discussions with professionals and by

these issues, the RDI team chose three job profiles to

which RDI graduates may be promoted after an

estimated five years:

1. Project or programme coordinator/manager. In

this position RDI alumni coordinate the work of

a department, project or programme. They

manage projects and programmes, from

acquisition to implementation, and to moni-

toring and evaluation; if they work in the region

of their origin.

2. Facilitator of multi-stakeholder processes. RDI

alumni help stakeholders to understand their

common objectives and help them to plan to

achieve these objectives without taking a

particular position in the discussion. Now, such

capacities exist in most developing countries –

partly as a result of development work in the

1980s-1990s.

3. Area broker/networker. RDI alumni help to link

multiple, otherwise disconnected stakeholders

who have similar problems, needs and

objectives in order to create networks that use

their knowledge and experience in the domain


or rural development to be innovative in

creating solutions.

Since facilitator and area broker/networker have

similarities, the RDI programme trains its students to

become junior project/process managers and junior

facilitators in regional development programmes, in

both European and Non-European countries. Career

opportunities for RDI graduates exist in

governmental and non-governmental organizations

that implement projects and programmes in rural

areas in and outside the EU (for example in the

Netherlands: Landelijke vereniging Kleine Kernen,

Netwerk Platteland, STIMULAND, Movisie. Examples

of Dutch organizations that employ project officers

in developing countries are Novib, Hivos and

Cordaid).

Aside from the job profiles, the competences for RDI

students were developed on the basis of two

considerations:

1. All Dutch programmes on Plattelands-

vernieuwing formulated competences in 2002;

2. VHL preferred to have so-called generic

competences applicable to all programmes

taught in Wageningen.

This led to eight competences for RDI, of which

competences A to G are generic competence that

apply to all programmes taught at VHL Wageningen,

while learning outcomes and learning environment

are RDI specific. Competence H is RDI specific (see

appendix 4 for an overview of all competences).

Up to date

The fact that job profiles, competences and learning

outcomes are up to date and correspond with the

requirements set by the professional domain is

assured in four ways: through consultation with the

Professional Advisory Committee (PAC), through

placements and the thesis, projects undertaken by

the staff and feedback from alumni (survey and HBO

monitor).

In general the assessment committee thinks that a

clearer and more shared vision could be developed

on the job profiles. Developments such as the

accession of new EU countries with traditional rural

areas; or in The Netherlands and other western

European countries the shrinking of the rural

population seem not to have touched the

curriculum. The reason to advise this is the fact that

students and alumni mostly talked about the skills

they have learnt, instead of the field they can work

in after graduation. Most of the students do not

have a clear vision on the job they want to apply for

after graduation. The course is supposed to help

them figure this out, although students also say the

course is so broad that it is difficult to get a clear job

perspective.

The strong point still is that all students are happy

with the programme, but there is a downside : only a

minority of the students get into a job they are

educated for. That is a symptom of the fact that the

labour market for traditional development aid for

Western Europe has become absent, and in the

Netherlands there is a turn towards a more private

market-driven development. Governments employ

less and less community development workers and

rely on local private sector to provide such services

with a clear commercial goal.

Since formal and informal discussions are held with a

diversity of professionals from the domain, but also

with the PAC, the assessment committee thinks the

PAC should play a big part in updating the job profile

for the programme.

Recurring points for discussion are changes in rural

development practice, the effects on job profiles,

competences, and whether RDI graduates have the

professional qualifications to function as juniors in

organizations. Some members of the PAC are

external examiners for thesis research, which allows

them to have insight into the achievement of the

formulated competences.

Lecturers are informed about the relevance of the

job profiles, competences, learning outcomes and

curriculum, through the reports and through

discussions with staff in organizations that provide

opportunities for placements and thesis research.

The same happens when they participate in national


and international projects. Guest lectures and

visiting symposia also provide insight in recent

developments in the professional field. Finally,

lecturers discuss the relevance of the job profiles

during educational development days and also

discuss the RDI programme with alumni, for instance

the effectiveness of the learning outcomes.

The RDI programme faces a number of external and

internal developments. Especially the external

developments may influence the demands the

alumni will have to face in the professional field. For

instance, rural development organizations are

increasingly asked to support rural people to adapt

to conflicts at regional, national or international

level, and to contribute to the reconstruction of rural

areas. This may lead to an increasing demand for

project staff with expertise in development aid. On

the other hand the Dutch government has decided

to cut the budget for development cooperation

which hits the field-level rural development work

particularly hard. In addition, a strategy shift has

occurred worldwide: project financing has become

less important while sector and budget financing

have become more important. This may have a

negative effect on the demand for project managers

with a western background.

One of the internal points of improvement is that

the connection between the VHL professional

Bachelor’s and professional Master’s programmes

will be further strengthened. This is relevant to RDI

as the students in the Management of Development

programme are professionals from developing

countries. Furthermore, the network with

organizations working in the domain of regional

development in the Netherlands, Europe and

developing countries needs to be strengthened

according to the RDI team to increase the

possibilities for placements, thesis research and job

opportunities.

Concrete

In the programme, the intended learning outcomes

are matched with the up-to-date job-based

requirements of the professional discipline. This is

done by defining the intended learning outcomes in

terms of competences that are derived from the job

based requirements.

The competences are described on three levels,

building up complexity of the professional situation,

extent and complexity of the task and independence

in implementation. During the propaedeutic phase

students work on acquiring level 1 of the

competences; level 2 of the competences can be

achieved after the first year of the main phase and

finally, level 3 is reached at graduation.

The choice between level 2 and 3 as final level of a

competence is determined by the job based

requirements for graduates and information

provided by the professional domain. The RDI team

wants to improve the Course Specific Education

Regulation, specifically the section describing the job

profiles, competences and learning outcomes.

Dublin Descriptors

There is coherence between the Dublin Descriptors

and the intended learning outcomes. The

programme assures this through comparing the

assessment criteria of each competence at the final

level with the Descriptors. The result of this

comparison was showed to and studied by the

assessment committee. The committee states that

this comparison was insightful and adequate.

If competences are adapted and/or assessments

and/or their criteria are changed, the modifications

are checked with the descriptors before being

implemented.


2. Teaching-learning environment

The curriculum, staff and programme-specific services and facilities enable the incoming students to achieve the intended learning outcomes.

Explanation: The contents and structure of the curriculum enable the admitted students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The quality of the staff and of

the programme-specific services and facilities are essential to that end. Curriculum, staff, services and facilities constitute a coherent teaching-learning environment

for the students.


the teaching-learning environment as satisfactory. The programme covers the learning outcomes. There are

several strong points to the programme: due to international students, the student population automatically

creates a multicultural setting, which prepares the students for the professional domain. Another strong point is

the fact that the students gain a lot of applied experience, due to many projects and several placements, at an

early stage of the programme. The downside to this is the fact that students indicate they would like to have more

theory in the programme. Since the professional field has been changing quite rapidly in the last couple of years,

the used process approaches seem somewhat outdated. New concepts like place/space-based development and

social responsibility seem under exposed in the curriculum. Along with updating the intended learning outcomes,

this could be renewed as well. The support system is good and accessible, teachers can always be contacted by the

students.

Programme covers the learning outcomes

RDI trains project/process managers, facilitators and

area brokers/networkers. One of these roles and

appropriate competences are leading during a term

or semester. They shape one or more project

assignments that are as much as possible selected

from real-life cases in the professional field.

Additional assignments may be included that are

commonly closely linked to the focus and tasks of

the term or semester.

There are several projects and project teams during

a term. Students think this is a lot. The assessment

committee is very positive about the fact that

students get a lot of experience in multi-cultural

teamwork. This is one of the crucial competences

they will use once they graduated and enter the

professional domain. Because the programme

emphasizes this so strongly, the assessment

committee qualifies this aspect as good.

On the other hand students feel that because of the

number of projects, they get acquainted with project

management roles (like chairman, secretary etc.)

only in a superficial way. Not only would the

students like to deepen these management roles,

they also would like to further develop a few

important social skills, like debating and negotiating.

Especially since these are crucial skills in the

professional field, whether they will work as a

project/process manager, facilitator, area broker or

networker.

The execution of the project assignment is

supported by subject matter lectures (on domain-

specific theory and skills), coaching (consultations

focussing on the process) and training sessions

(largely but not only focussing on skills and attitude).

Students go on a short placement, preferably in a

developed country: five weeks at a rural enterprise

and five weeks at an organization to work as a junior

facilitator. The long placement lasts five months. The

placement provider is a major actor in the RDI

domain. Students have to find this organization

themselves. In the fourth year, students study a

minor that should broaden or deepen their expertise

on rural development. The minor can be studied at

VHL or any other university worldwide. Finally, in the

second half of the fourth year students carry out

their graduation project. This 5-months project


concerns applied research, commissioned by a rural

development organization in the Netherlands or

elsewhere. The project results in a written report, a

consultation with the commissioner to communicate

implementation advice, and an article for a broader

audience.

Students appreciate the fact that there are so many

placements during the programme, and quite early

on in the programme as well. This way they get a

realistic view from the professional domain in an

early stage of the programme.

Evaluations show that students do not always see

the link between the job profiles, competences,

learning outcomes, assessments and lectures given.

Therefore an introduction on this link is given in the

first term of the first year. Each following term starts

with an introduction to the competences, learning

outcomes, assessments and lectures of that term.

Students told the assessment committee they would

appreciate more theory in the programme. Espe-

cially in the first year there is a strong focus on prac-

tical skills and project, which gives the students the

impression the theory provided is limited. This

already improves from year 2 onwards and in the

choice of the minor the student can influence it

himself. The fact that students want more theory in

the programme is a signal the RDI team cannot,

however, ignore, according to the assessment

committee.

Students told the assessment committee a strong

focus in the programme still is on the Netherlands.

Most of the students prefer working abroad, so they

do not take much interest in theory about

developments in the Dutch professional field,

although students understand this is necessary to

make a relevant comparison to developments in

other countries.

There is strong focus too on agriculture. For students

who do not want to work with farmers

(development aid is broader than just agriculture

and non-agricultural rural sectors (processing,

marketing, tourism, etc.) are going to provide rural

jobs) this does not meet their expectations. Students

think an excursion to, for example, Nuffic is just as

relevant to them. The programme is broad though

and therefore sometimes it is difficult for students to

say what contributes to the programme and what

does not. But in general students agree that

excursions to organizations other than farms would

be interesting. In some cases the relationship

between the excursions and the content of the

programme on the one hand and the intended

learning outcomes on the other hand could be made

more insightful to the students.

The students and alumni who spoke to the assess-

ment committee made it clear that it is not always

obvious what the relevance of certain subjects is in

relation to the intended learning outcomes. The

further one gets in the programme, the more

obvious the relevance becomes. When you are in the

first year and this clarity is absent, it might lead to

confusion and unnecessary dropouts. The students

think this might be solved easily by introducing a

“buddy system”: 4th

-year students explain the

programme and the relevance of the subjects to 1st

-

year students.

Up to date

In order to make sure the programme has links with

current developments in the professional field,

students have to undertake practical placements and

a thesis project at companies or organizations from

the professional field. This is an important part of

their study. This way students learn directly from the

professional field and the professionals mentor and

provide feedback on the quality of students’ work.

On the other hand, some developments can be

anticipated, such as the proceeding depopulation

and aging of rural communities in north-western

Europe. Insofar we assessed, the programme does

not explicitly address such hot issues of the future.

In addition, professionals make contributions to the

educational programme by means of providing guest

lectures and by acting as assessors.

On the other hand it is made sure that the students’

learning environment is based on professional


assignments. Assessments are designed around

recent case studies and (inter)national trends with

links to the latest developments in the professional

field to keep students informed and in line with

current thinking.

The educational programme is continuously adjust-

ting the following sources:

- Lecturers: each term a few days are scheduled

for educational development ( a total of 10 days

per academic year). Lecturers reflect on

competences, assessments and the curriculum,

including the vertical coherence in particular.

- The Academic Programme Committee (APC)

consists of four students and two lecturers and

meets once per term. It discusses the

improvement plans that are made by the

lecturers following the outcome of evaluations.

The professional literature is routinely renewed by

replacing existing textbooks, articles, documentaries,

etc. with new publications or new editions of

existing textbooks.

Structure of the programme

The applied educational concept to reach the

intended learning outcomes is Competence Based

Learning. This means that, to acquire the compe-

tences needed, the students practice these

competences during their study programme. This

practising is done in professional roles and situations

that are strongly based on the professional working

field.

During the programme the students learn to take

increased responsibility for their own learning.

Emphasis lies on developing an attitude of personal

responsibility for lifelong learning.

Projects the students are assigned to, are derived

from professional practice. The assignments are

positioned in professional contexts and the students

have to practice one or more professional roles. The

project assignments mostly have to be conducted

within a team of students. This enables students to

develop basic project-oriented skills.

Also the students learns in a professional setting

through the placements in years 2, 3 and 4. Students

formulate learning objectives in a placement plan.

They are required to explain to what extent the

objectives are achieved. The report shows whether

the student is capable of reflecting on his activities.

Students also have to show in the report that they

are able to apply the knowledge and skills they have

learnt.

Lecturers diversify their way of lecturing as much as

possible. Methods used are plenary sessions,

workshops, and coaching of groups. The use of

presentations is alternated with reading and

discussing articles, watching documentaries and

going on excursions to experience the professional

field. In addition, students have learning activities

outside VHL, like trainings at the Practical Training

Centre (PTC+) in Ede. In order to be able to provide

the practical component at an early stage, the

programme invites guest speakers from the

professional field to talk about their experience with

a certain topic.

Quite an innovative study method is the Visual

Problem Appraisal (VPA) used in the third year,

during the first term. It explores the field of RDI

professionalism through the simulation of a consul-

tancy assignment whereby a wicked, multi-disci-

plinary problem (integrated coastal zone manage-

ment in Kerala, India) needs to be analysed and

framed by means of stakeholder consultation. The

first stage (a desk study) is undertaken individually.

The second stage (‘interviewing’ stakeholders by way

of pre-recorded interviews on DVD) is done in a

team, as is the third stage (writing a project proposal

using an EU format following the Project Cycle

Management approach). Apart from subject matter

expertise and doing research, personal development

is ensured through a structured process of self-

reflection.

Also worth mentioning is The Dutch River Area

Project in Kesteren, that is carried out together with

the Vereniging Kleine Kernen. This is meant to train

third year students in competences that are needed

to interact with the rural population in such a way


that their optimal participation in a project or plan is

possible. In the first semester of the third year,

students undertake a desk research, interview key

informants, identify members of two groups of

stakeholders (both youngsters and elderly people)

for a SWOT analysis on the liveability of the village,

facilitate the SWOT session, and finally inform the

municipality council on the outcomes of the SWOT.

Coherence

The RDI programme is coherent in three ways:

1. All successive educational components build on

preceding components. The levels at which the

competences are described are guiding,

meaning that the scope and complexity of the

assignments and assessments increase year by

year while students have to learn more

independently while advancing their study.

2. The components of any term or semester have

an internal coherence that is shown throughout

the term. This means that the lectures given and

the assignments provided are all in line with the

intended learning objectives, the competences

to be achieved and the assessment held.

3. The relevant professional roles, situations and

contexts are covered throughout the

programme.

The Nationale Studenten Enquete and HBO-monitor

show that students felt that the RDI programme

prepared them well for the labour market. However,

evaluations among fourth year students show that

the quality of the internal coherence of the

programme could be improved. Therefore some

components have been rearranged to increase

internal coherence. For example, some topics of

Chain Analysis and Chain Development were moved

from year 3 to year 2.

Feasible

The academic year is split into four terms ensuring

the study load is distributed quite evenly over the

year. Each term consists of seven weeks for classes,

an eighth week for last feedback sessions to finalize

project work and prepare for assessments, and a

ninth week for assessments. During the first seven

weeks of the term, the study load is divided into

contact hours, project hours and self-study.

If a student falls ill, he can overcome the arrears by

checking the material published on Blackboard, by

consulting his fellow students and the lecturers.

Study progress will not be delayed as a result of

lecturers falling ill, because if this occurs he will be

replaced by a colleague or lectures are postponed to

an agreed new moment. In case a lecturer is

expected to be ill for a longer period, a replacement

is organised.

The following rules and practices exist to avoid

undesired high study loads and to facilitate steady

study progress:

- Students are well informed about the curri-

culum;

- Students are well tutored;

- Students that fail their assessments are entitled

to do a resit. Assessments are offered twice a

year;

- Students are required to obtain at least 30 EC in

the first year; if not they receive a binding

negative advice and have to leave school. At the

end of the second year students are required to

obtain at least 60 EC to continue enrolment;

- In the final phase students are allowed to go on

a five month placement only if they have

successfully completed the smaller (previous)

placement and obtained enough credits;

- Students may enter the thesis assessment only if

they have passed all previous assessments.

The career counsellor and the major coordinator

monitor the study progress of the individual student,

and stimulate the student to complete the

programme within the set time.

For each course the study load is evaluated as part of

the term evaluations. Various evaluations, like the

Nationale Studenten Enquête 2010, as well as

feedback from lecturers revealed that in certain

terms the workload was too low (year 1, terms 1 and

2) while in some other terms it was too high (year 3,

terms 1 and 2). Adjustments have been made in

academic year 2009/2010.


Students confirm that they study for about 30 hours

a week. During the course of the term (the closer

they get to the assessment period) the amount of

hours they spend studying increases.

The majority of students graduate between four and

five years. The number of drop-outs has risen over

the years, from 35% to some 50%. From exit

interviews it became clear that most of them

stopped because they preferred to study a different

subject. Some left after the propaedeutic phase to

study at a university because they preferred a more

academically oriented study. Some left because of

personal problems and only a few were dissatisfied

with the contents of the RDI programme.

Students confirm this: most of the drop-outs did not

leave the programme because it was too difficult,

but because the realised that they do not want to go

abroad or the study did not meet their expectations

in the end. For some students the fact that the

programme is in English makes it more difficult but it

is hardly ever a reason to quit the programme.

Students who already had some work experience or

stayed abroad for a long time before they applied for

the RDI programme see that mostly the younger

students, who recently graduated from secondary

school, have difficulties continuing the programme.

These students suggest that, to diminish the dropout

rate, the RDI team should focus on the quality of the

students instead of the quantity. I.e. the RDI team

should not focus on enlarging the number of

students so that with a certain dropout rate a larger

number of graduates remain than was the case

during the last couple of years. Instead the RDI team

should take actions to the effect that from the

number of students that start the programme

ultimately a higher percentage will graduate.

Possibly a clearer link to a future labour market can

improve the motivation of students to stay enrolled

as well.

Coaching

Teaching staff support students in the execution of

their project assignments. They can have different

roles, which can also be combined. As a coach they

monitor the progress of the deliverables of the

assignment and give feedback on project activities.

As an assessor they design and mark assessments. As

an expert they provide subject matter lectures on

theory and skills. They introduce students to specific

knowledge and concepts and their application

through exercises and feedback. For this purpose

literature is used, as well as first hand experiences

from professionals that are shared with the

students.

The way of teaching is diversified as much as pos-

sible, for instance by adding small (practical) exer-

cises to the lessons or by including workshops. To

provide the professional component at an early

stage, guest speakers from the professional field are

invited to talk about their experience on a specific

subject.

At the start of their study, the students are assigned

to a Career Counsellor. The career counselling mainly

takes place during the first two years of the course.

Students are expected to meet their Career

Counsellor at least twice a term. Career counselling

helps the student to keep track of their personal

development by means of a personal portfolio,

which also contains the Personal development plan

that the students write in the first term of their

arrival. It helps the student manage his own learning

process.

In the final phase of the study, the students are

expected to have acquired an advanced level of self-

management skills. However, the student can still

turn to the Major Coordinator for questions about

career choices etc. In specific cases the career

counsellor or the major coordinator can advise the

student to meet the social dean who, depending on

the problem, may refer the student to specialized

help.

In preparation for the thesis and placement

semesters students are offered classes to prepare

them for this process. During the placement and the

thesis each student is allocated a VHL coach to

support him during this time. The coach will be a

point of contact during the entire process for both

student and placement or thesis company and will

also guide the student in the writing of necessary

assessments concerned.


The assessment committee spoke to students and

alumni. From these conversations it became

apparent that career counselling is important to the

students. As mentioned above, most students do not

have a clear job perspective when they start the RDI

programme because it is so broad. During the study

the student can choose his own focus and develop

his own expertise. Sometimes students find it hard

to make that choice. For those students especially

career counselling is very helpful as they learn to

reflect on their strengths, weaknesses and topics of

interest in order to choose a path towards the jobs

they want most. The fact that lecturers disclose their

networks and help the students wherever they can is

very helpful as well.

Intake

RDI is an internationally oriented programme in

which Dutch, European and non-European students

interact with each other. It is general policy that all

Dutch vwo students are admitted. Dutch havo

students who graduated before august 2007 are also

admitted without restrictions. Since 2007 havo

graduates need to have a NT (Nature and Techno-

logy), NG (Nature and Health), EM (Economy and

Society) or CM (Culture and Society with Mathe-

matics A or B or Economics) diplomas. Applicants

with a diploma from an associated secondary

vocational level may enter in the first term of year 1

to get acquainted with the educational concept,

when regular second-year students are on

placement. After passing the assessment of term 1,

they proceed to term 2 of the second year.

Applicants with previously acquired competences

are offered a personalized programme. Applicants of

21 years or older who do not have a qualifying

certificate may be admitted on the basis of an

admission test. In all these exemption cases,

personal motivation is important.

The level of foreign diplomas is evaluated with

Nuffic-rules. Students need to have A-levels or

equivalent to be allowed into the first year of the RDI

programme and have a sufficient knowledge of the

English language (TOEFL score 550, IELTS 6.0) and

possess basic computer skills. VHL has signed a code

of conduct with respect to international students in

Dutch higher education.

RDI attracts a diverse group of students with

divergent interests. On average, some 75% are

interested in developing countries, the remainder in

rural development in the Netherlands or Europe.

Many of them had spent a long period in a tropical

setting before choosing RDI, the consequence being

that they are somewhat older than those who

continued their studies immediately after graduating

from school. For students with such a history RDI is

more meaningful than for students who come

directly from HAVO.

The admission officer is responsible for maintaining

consistency in the admission and exemption policy.

VHL Wageningen has 2 admission officers. According

to the new law the admission officers have to

operate under the responsibility of the Exam Board.

This will be effectuated no later than September

2011.

Teaching staff

VHL aims to establish expert and varied major teams

with well-qualified lecturers who are able to fulfil the

team tasks together in a professional way.

At VHL the lecturers are expected to meet the

following requirements:

- Substantial knowledge and experience in the

professional field;

- Engaged in various external activities in order to

maintain contact with the professional field;

- The proper didactical authority and the skills

needed to guide the students;

- Compatibility in the team and the culture of the

programme;

- Good command of the English language.

Newly appointed lecturers who cannot show a

didactic certificate are required to follow a course at

the Hogeschool Arnhem Nijmegen (HAN).

The number of staff employed is based on a

staff/student ratio of 1 : 20.


Every spring the team leader consults the RDI

coordinator concerning the tasks to be allotted to

the lecturers. The annual evaluation interviews

between team leaders and lecturers give input in

this discussion. The team leader then makes a match

between the experience of the lecturers and their

tasks. The outcome of this exercise is the personal

plan that gives an indication of the tasks to be

undertaken by the lecturer during the year, term by

term. Included in this individual plan are the hours

devoted to lecturing, coaching, development of the

curriculum, meetings, projects, and self-develop-

ment.

The staff have sufficient professional knowledge and

experience, lecturers keep their knowledge up to

date by working in projects, symposia, and also by

direct contact with the professional field in their role

as supervisor for placement or thesis project. During

the academic year, educational development days

are scheduled to improve the curriculum, share

experiences, discuss good practices and work on

team building.

Student evaluations show that they appreciate the

practical knowledge and experience of the lecturers

The Nationale Studenten Enquête shows that

improvements could be made on didactics, guidance

and inspiring staff. In general, if a poor evaluation is

given, additional research and further activities are

taken.

During each term students are asked to evaluate the

lectures and the lecturers. In addition, the lecturers

do the same. Students’ feedback and recommend-

dations are discussed in the RDI team and with the

term coordinator, which leads to improvement plans

that are discussed in the meeting of the Programme

committee. In addition to the evaluations and major

team meetings, the course manager conducts an

annual evaluation interview with each lecturer.

The assessment committee thinks the programme is

ambitious, like the teaching staff. All lecturers

obviously feel excited to coach the students which

unfortunately leads to a feeling of being overloaded.

In order to avoid the risk that it collapses or

implodes, where possible the number of hours of

lecturing is being downsized so there will still be

enough time to coach the students. Some courses

are also combined with other studies.

Students highly appreciate the professional

experience the lecturers have. Some of them used to

do (or still do) projects in the professional field and

in this way keep their knowledge and experience up

to date. Students say this is a strong added value of

the teaching staff.

Facilities

The move of VHL to the Forum building in

Wageningen brings the advantage that students and

lecturers have easy access to the vast range of

Wageningen UR facilities, which include 80 lecture

halls, class rooms and teaching labs, 23 computer

rooms, 300 individual study areas and the main

university library.

VHL rents the 5th

, 6th

and 7th

floor of the Forum

building and can also use facilities at lower floors if

required.

For housing and social activities students are mixed

with the international Wageningen UR student

population, which is an advantage for the RDI

students. The new location also gives the students

opportunities to follow minors, placement theses or

Capita Selecta at Wageningen UR.

Students are very satisfied with the Forum building

and other teaching and learning facilities.



3. Assessment and achieved learning outcomes

The programme has an adequate assessment system in place and demonstrates that the intended learning outcomes are achieved.

Explanation: The level achieved is demonstrated by interim and final tests, final projects and the performance of graduates in actual practice or in post-graduate

programmes. The tests and assessments are valid, reliable and transparent to the students.


the assessment and achieved learning outcomes as good. The validity and reliability of the assessments are

appropriate. The level of the assessments and thesis reports are convincing: all are of a professional bachelor’s

level, sometimes they can be fairly complex. Both conversations with students as well as alumni, and studying the

thesis reports, have led the assessment committee to the conviction that the students are ambitious and

motivated. The general impression the assessment committee got after studying the thesis reports is that a lot of

work is put in the theses, and that the thesis projects and reports show original work. This is why the assessment

and achieved learning outcomes are considered ‘good’.

Valid and reliable

With regard to the validity of assessments, the

following points from the assessment policy are

important:

- The competences are leading for the assess-

ments;

- Assessments are derived from the professional

practice;

- Assessments are integrated;

- Assessments are individual.

The assessment is made according to quality

standards of the lecturers involved in the teaching of

the term, keeping the level of the competences in

mind. Assessments differ in content and method:

- The conceptual pathway: assessments to check

knowledge concerning theories, concepts and

models. These are most often written

assessments;

- The skills pathway: assessments to check

whether the students can apply learnt skills.

Depending on the required skills the

assessments may be oral or written;

- The reflection pathway: students have to reflect

on what they have learnt or reflect on their

behaviour. This may be writing a reflective

report (often for career counselling) or by an

oral assessment;

- The integral pathway: often an oral assessment

to judge knowledge, skills and attitude.

As the competences lead the assessments, it is

assured that the actual competences are assessed.

Therefore, the assessments are valid in the sense

that they measure the criteria explicitly stated in the

competence descriptions. The assessments measure

what they aim to measure. Also the assessments

make a distinction between students who can apply

knowledge and skills and students who don’t.

Therefore the assessment committee confirms the

validity and reliability of the assessments are

appropriate.

Particularly at the first level of competences, the

assessments are sometimes less integrated. There

are three reasons:

1. To improve the student feasibility of the

programme, as the use of non-integrated

stations allows the students to resit smaller

parts;

2. To assure a certain minimum level of a specific

component of the concerned competence, for

instance for English;

3. To avoid an unrealistic integration disconnected

from the professional context.

Even though group products might be used as an

input for an assessment, the actual assessment is


always individual. This guarantees that for each

student individual results are obtained.

In order to assure the reliability of the assessments

the following points are important:

- Where possible independent assessors, who are

not directly involved in the related part of the

programme, are used;

- Two assessors conduct oral assessments. In

written elements, in general, a sample is

checked by a second assessor;

- The Exam Board awards the credits and does a

final check on the results presented by the

assessor. The Exam Board ensures that the

regulations are being followed.

All bachelor studies from VHL together share one

Exam Board. For its quality controls the Board asks

for all documentation and then uses a checklist to

make sure everything is in line and there is a clear

connection between the several competency levels.

This way the Board gets an image of the quality of

testing. The checklist is used to evaluate and talk

with lecturers about the quality of the tests and how

it can be improved. The process is to talk to the

lecturers about ways of improvement and then

check the quality again half a year later.

In addition to the staff involved with the assess-

ments, input from student evaluations and from the

assessment committee is used in order to monitor

the quality of the assessments. The assessment

committee makes general suggestions for improve-

ment of the assessments.

In student evaluations held at the end of each term

two questions are devoted to the assessment:

whether the content of the assessment is in

accordance with the competences and whether the

method of assessing was appropriate. Student

evaluations show there are some issues, mostly

related to the communication (see the next

paragraph: Transparent).

Transparent

The students can be aware of the competences and

the assessment criteria by:

- The Course Specific Educational Regulations,

which specify the competences per term;

- The competence descriptions. These descrip-

tions include the criteria that students have to

meet;

- The course manuals, in which the criteria are

further specified towards the assessment

station;

- The feedback students receive during the term;

- During year 1 and 2: a diagnostic test during the

term or a representative trial assessment in one

of the last classes of the term.

In the student evaluations that are held after each

term, there are two questions directly referring to

clearness of competences and assessment criteria:

whether the competences one had to acquire were

clear to the student and whether the assessment

criteria were clear to the student. The answers show

that in some cases the students feel inadequately

informed in competences and criteria. The staff puts

a lot of attention to it by making the information

available in several ways and in explaining it in

introductory classes in each term. Nevertheless, it

seems the students are more focussed on the

assessment criteria than on the competence

descriptions. Even though it is still an issue,

evaluations show progress.

Achieved learning outcomes

In the last two years of their study, the students

have their placement, minor and thesis project.

Especially the placement and thesis project are close

to professional practice, so they give the students

the opportunity to assess whether their

competences are at the level of a starting

professional.

Most students opt for a placement in a developing

country. In advance the student drafts a plan on how

to achieve the learning objectives of the placement.

This plan needs to be approved by the placement

supervisor before the student is allowed to go on

placement. The criteria for this are described in the

placement manual and linked to the competences

that need to be developed. The placement

assignments and the related assessments come


directly from the professional field meeting criteria

linked to the defined competences.

The placement is assessed in a combination of a

written (placement report) and an oral assessment.

The assessment includes:

- Knowledge, insight, understanding of the place-

ment organization and its environment;

- Results and process of the placement assign-

ments;

- Self-development and communication.

After the placement, in preparation for the thesis

project, the students have to attend a Self

Development Week in which, amongst other things,

placement experiences are collected and translated

to ‘lessons learned’ that are often applicable for the

thesis project.

The minor helps the student to broaden or deepen

his knowledge, skills, attitude and perceptions.

Students can choose to do their minor at VHL, at

Wageningen University, or at another institute in the

Netherlands or abroad. Students are stimulated to

choose a minor that is in line with their future plans.

The minor needs approval of the major coordinator

and the VHL Examination Board.

As a thesis project RDI students do an individual

applied research project in which they study a

specific problem of an organization that commis-

sioned the research, leading to underpinned,

realistic and applicable recommendations. The

process during the thesis project is mastered in

different steps. First of all, the students have to

apply for approval of the assignment from their

major coordinator. The thesis project is assessed on

potential level to be reached, in relation to the

competence criteria that need to be met, and

practical feasibility. A supervisor from VHL is

appointed to coach the student (for thesis

supervision a maximum of 17 hours is available per

student). How many times the student has contact

with his coach depends on the student and his need

for coaching. Thus, the student has to take the

initiative to speak to his coach, although the coach is

always available.

The thesis project is an individual assignment, in

which the student has to prove he is a competent

professional. The student has to manage his project

by himself. The first task in which the student has to

show this is the execution of an order from an

external company or organization, by tackling a

problem or answering a question, which will result in

a thesis report. The second important task is the

final consultation. During this consultation the

student shows he can communicate the actions and

implications of his research effectively tot the people

directly involved.

The third and final component of the thesis is writing

an article in which students reflect on the role they

had during the thesis project. As the thesis report is

approached as a consultation it is not appropriate to

reflect on their own activities and attitude in this

report. The assessors still, however, want to know

what the share of the student was during the thesis

project. As the article weighs for only 10% of the

total grade it became apparent to the assessment

committee that only a few students put effort into

writing a good article. In most cases the grades were

poor, especially considering the fact that the grades

for the thesis report were sufficient or even good.

Therefore the purpose of the article is not met and it

does not separate good from bad students. Based on

fact that there is no distinctiveness from this

assessment component the assessment committee

thinks it should be reconsidered to maintain this

component as a part of the thesis project.

The thesis report is assessed by two independent

assessors. They are independent in the sense that

they are not involved with the thesis project and

with the supervision of the student involved. One of

the assessors is a staff member of VHL and the other

assessor is external.

As all three components are assessed by two

independent people (next to the supervisors) there

are six assessors in total. This 12-eye principle is

somewhat overdone and therefore could be

simplified, for instance by the Exam board.

Criteria that need to be met are formalised and

related to the competences that need to be met. The

people that assess get clear criteria to work with and

they apply the criteria to the work independent from


each other. Criteria are derived from the Dublin

Descriptors.

The level of the thesis projects is evaluated by

internal and external assessors. Quality is assured by

the VHL supervisors on the basis of criteria and

standards set out beforehand, which are included in

the thesis manual.

Alumni indicate satisfaction with the programme

they have studied. A large majority stated that the

RDI programme has been useful for their current

professional situation, although most continued to

study at Master’s level. Results from the HBO-

monitor show that on average RDI graduates felt

well prepared for the labour market. They also

stated that the programme is built on the RDI

domain but that the link between the programme

and the job opportunities leaves something to be

desired. Still, a large majority would select RDI again

if they were asked to do so.

After studying a number of thesis reports, the

general impression the assessment committee got is

that a lot of work is put in the theses, and that the

thesis projects and reports show original work. In

that perspective marks given were lower than

expected.

The assessment committee was surprised to find out

that not many students get typical RDI jobs. In the

early days, for instance, 80% of the alumni found a

job they were trained for. Currently, however, social

projects and development projects are cut down by

the new government. Regional expertise is hired

first. Therefore alumni now get a job that does not

fit the programme and the majority do a master’s

study after graduation first.

There are more explanations than just governmental

issues. One of them is that during the study much

attention is being paid to facilitating processes. The

problem alumni often face is that employers think

they are still too young to facilitate group processes.

So even if they are able to do this kind of work after

a 4-year study, they are not likely to be employed in

such positions.

Another explanation is that in the RDI field there is a

lot of work to do, but there are not many jobs.

Therefore the RDI team recommends students to

become an expert in processes and certain topics

that are appealing to the student; preferably one in

which after finalising the study they can start based

on free-lancing or local commercial service provision,

so they are not too dependent on the insights of

possible employers. They can build their own

expertise through choosing a minor and the

placements. The students get the advice to build up

their own network during the study. That might

benefit them afterwards. Although there is strong

emphasis on this point (as well as in the vision as in

the execution of the programme), it is not a part of

the intended learning outcomes. This could be

reconsidered, according to the assessment

committee.



Appendices


Appendix 1 Assessment committee

I List of panel members and secretary

Name

(including title(s))

Role (chair / member /

student-member / secretary)

Expert in the field

(yes / no)

Prof. A.M. Fuller member yes

Ir. R. Kloosterman chair no

O.J. Ntenje MSc member yes

Dr. F. van Schoubroeck member yes

A. de Brouwer student no

II Secretary / Co-ordinator

A. van Noort MSc secretary Nov 2010

III Brief job descriptions for panel members

1 Prof Anthony Fuller is Adjunct Professor at the China Agricultural University in Beijing, China, and

retired from the School of Environmental Design and Rural Development at the University of

Guelph, Canada

2 René Kloosterman is director of AeQui and chairs many assessment committees

3 Oliver Ntenje is senior lecturer logistics, marketing and supply chain management at professional

master and bachelor programmes at Arnhem Business School (institute of HAN)

4 Frank van Schoubroeck is an international consultant in governance in NRM and rural

entrepreneurship

5 Anne de Brouwer is a student Language and Culture studies at the University of Utrecht. She is chair

of the student union

IV List of expertise within the panel1

Expertise The expertise is demonstrated by:

a. Expertise regarding the

developments within the discipline

Prof Anthony Fuller is Adjunct Professor at the China

Agricultural University in Beijing, China, and retired from the

School of Environmental Design and Rural Development at

the University of Guelph, Canada

Frank van Schoubroeck is an international consultant in

governance in NRM and rural entrepreneurship

b. International expertise Prof Anthony Fuller is Adjunct Professor at the China





1 Note: the secretary is NOT a panel member.


governance in NRM and rural entrepreneurship.

Oliver Ntenje was a logistics manager at UNHCR, Congo, in

1997. Recently he was involved in strengthening a Tanzanian

business school as part of a Nuffic program.

c. Practical expertise in the professional

field relevant to the programme






governance in NRM and rural entrepreneurship

d. Experience in teaching and

developing education at the relevant

programme level and expertise

regarding the educational format(s)

practised by the programme2





Oliver Ntenje is a senior lecturer logistics, marketing and

supply chain management at professional master and

bachelor programmes at Arnhem Business School (institute of

HAN)

e. Review or audit expertise René Kloosterman is director of AeQui and chairs many

assessment committees

f. Student-related expertise Anne de Brouwer is a student Language and Culture studies

at the University of Utrecht. She is chair of the student union

Appendices

1) Letter from the institution: the letter signed by the board of the institution requesting assessment of the

programme in question by the panel;

2) Curricula vitae of the panel members, stating education and training received and relevant work experience;

3) Declaration of independence: “Independence and Confidentiality” form signed by each panel member prior to

the assessment process.

Short résumés

Anthony Fuller retired as a Professor from the School of Environmental Design and Rural Development at the

University of Guelph, Canada in 2007. In the last 10 years of a 35-year career at Guelph, Dr Fuller focused

increasingly on policy issues such as government programs for community development, rural poverty, rural

transportation, sustainable livelihoods and complexity in policy making. His earlier work and publications include a

research on pluriactivity, the Arena Society and rural outreach. He recently undertook workshops in several

countries on ‘asset mapping’ for rural community and policy development.

Anthony Fuller is currently an Adjunct Professor at the China Agricultural University in Beijing, China.

2 This refers to, for example, distance learning, workplace-related teaching, flexible teaching, competence-oriented education or

education for excellent students.


René Kloosterman has studied Industrial Engineering (TUE) and worked for the consultancy-firm KPMG. Since then

he participated in major projects in food-industry at home and abroad (Russia, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic,

Curacao). Since 1995 he works as an independent entrepreneur and interim manager.

Since 2002 he has been active in educational assessments, both as a director and later as an owner of an

assessment agency. He chairs assessments very frequently.

Oliver J. Ntenje (born in Malawi) studied business studies at HAN and completed his master Supply Chain

Management at WUR. Oliver has a large international experience, e.g. in 1997 he acted for a year as a Logistics

coordinator in Congo for UNHCR, offering Logistical support for relief programme setup in Goma (Congo DRC) and

planning the repatriation of refugees from Tanzania to Congo in Uvira (Eastern Congo DRC).

Since 2005 he is involved in HAN University of Applied Sciences as a senior lecturer on logistics, marketing and

supply chain management. His responsibilities include teaching logistics in the Masters-programme in Business

Management and in bachelor programmes at the HAN-institute ‘Arnhem Business School’.

He is involved in development of study programmes or units within the programme, coaching of students during

their four years and supervising project groups. Oliver carries out research in order to determine the possible

route the institute should take to satisfy the labour market and trained CBE lecturers as part of a NUFFIC project,

NPT/TZA/217, aimed at ‘Strengthen the capacity of the College for Business Education (CBE) to develop and apply

modular, competence based curricula’.

Frank van Schoubroeck studied Plant Pathology and Production Ecology at Wageningen Agriculture University and

received his PhD in 1999 on socio-technical innovation in Bhutan agriculture at the Departments of

Communication and Innovation Studies and Entomology. He worked as an international consultant since, for

among others SNV and the EU / Royal Government of Bhutan IPM development project, for the Ministry of Forests

and Soil Conservation, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal, and for ILIEA.

Frank van Schoubroeck has recent experience to work with:

• Social inclusion for productivity Involve different social groups and women to develop agricultural systems for

optimum productivity

• Open-source innovation Make use of all relevant resources and capacity at hand, such as local and national

government, formal and traditional rules, legislation and strategies, modern and traditional technology, global

policy and know-how

• Socio-technical knowledge Based on ecological opportunity, make use of human ingenuity and organization to

realize durable production

• Governance of agriculture sectors: have local and national government agencies organise “Communities of

Practice” to create “common good”

• Promotion of trees in agricultural systems

Anne de Brouwer is currently studying in Language and Culture Studies at the University of Utrecht, within the

track Political History and International Relations. In 2009 she was selected to participate in the Humanities

College, a faculty-wide Honours programme for excellent students. She is involved in an internship at the Peace of

Utrecht with the assignment to create a digital platform at international and local level in order to sign a new

treaty in 2013.


Appendix 2 Program of the assessment

16 May 2011

12.00 – 14.00 Arrival of committee

14.00 – 14.30 Board and management

Geartsje Oosterhof, Programme Director, VHL Wageningen

Ellen Marks, General Director, VHL

Heinz Evers, Team Leader Food and Business, VHL Wageningen

Robert Baars, Team Leader Development Studies, VHL Wageningen

14.30 – 15.00 Examining committee

Frans Verweij, Chairman

Tom Wiggers, Secretary

Heinz Evers, Member

Wim Schurink, Member

15.00 – 15.45 Show-cases

By students from the 1st

and 2nd

year.

15.45 – 16.15 Open consultations

Possibility for students and staff of the three programmes to exchange thoughts with

the committee. Also documentation review

16.15 – 17.00 Representatives of the Professional field committees

Josien Hissink, VKK, facilitator

Djura Prins, freelance development manager

17.00 – 17.15 Internal meeting of the committee

17.15 – 17.30 Feedback of preliminary findings, focus-points for the next assessment day

17 May, 2011: In-depth assessment of B Rural Innovation

09.30 – 10.00 Arrival of committee

10.00 – 11.30 Teaching staff

Eddy Hesselink

Marcel Put

Annemarie Westendorp

Hans Glas

Koos Kingma

11.30 – 12.00 Internal meeting of the committee

12.00 – 13.00 Students

1st

year:


Stella Bünger

Diederik Leutscher

Salomé Boyd

Teun Gruijters

2nd year:

Bob van Wessel

Felix Lebfromm

Hanneke Lemstra

3d year:

Anneke van den Berg

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch and document review

14.00 – 15.00 Students year 4

Lieke Potten

Margot Kuiper

Tikva Kooiman

15.00 – 16.00 Alumni

Herman Bardeloos

Matilda Rizopulos

Willeke van der Steen

Michelle Hennekes

Fieneke de Jong

16.00 – 16.30 Additional research, formulating conclusions

16.30 – 17.00 Feedback of findings and conclusions


Appendix 3 Quantitative data

Quantitative data regarding the programme

1. Data on intake, graduates and drop-outs (2004-2010)

Cohort

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009 2010

Intake 31 23 23 27 22 30 23

Propedeuserendement

Propedeuse after 1 year 2 6% 7 30% 6 26% 8 30% 5 23% 12 40%

Propedeuse after 2 years 6 19% 5 23%

Total propedeuse 13 42% 8 35% 14 52% 10 45% 12 40%

Opleidingsrendement

Graduated after 4 years 14 45% 8 35% 9 39% 2 7% 1 5%

Graduated after 5 years 5 16% 1 4%

Total graduated 19 61% 8 35% 10 43% 2 7% 1 5%

Drop-out

In 1st year 7 23% 8 35% 7 30% 13 48% 5 23% 12 40% 5 22%

In 2nd

year 3 10% 3 13% 3 13% 1 4% 7 32%

Total drop-out 11 35% 12 52% 10 43% 15 56% 12 55% 12 40% 5 22%

Still registered 1 3% 3 13% 3 13% 10 37% 9 41% 18 60% 18 78%

Source: Administration VHL

2. Teacher - student ratio: 1:20.

3. Average amount of face-to-face instruction per stage of the study programme

Foundation phase (Year 1): 21 hours/week

Main phase: Year 2: 13 hours/week; Year 3: 11 hours/week; Year 4: 10 hours/week


Appendix 4 Final qualifications

RDI competences and their levels

Competence Level

A To manage a unit of a company/organization 2

B To manage a project/process 3

C To execute commercial processes 2

D To execute product/system innovation 3

E To conduct applied research 3

F To communicate in multicultural setting 3

G To develop yourself 3

H To manage interactive processes 3


Appendix 5 Overview of the programme

Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term 4

4

Minor

Thesis

Competences: B, D, E, F, G, H

3

Title of semester: The Area Facilitator (Major specific)

Roles: junior planner and junior facilitator

Competences: B, E, F, G, H

Project 1: Design a project plan following the EU

format, using the Project Cycle Management

Approach

Project 2: Facilitate group processes

Placement 2

Competences: B, (D), (E), F, G, H

Placement 1

Competences: A, B, C, F,

G, H

Title of term: Interactive

Rural Development

Approaches (Major

specific)

Role: junior facilitator

Competences: E, H

Project: Interactive

knowledge exchange

Title of semester: Rural Entrepreneurship

Role: junior consultant/entrepreneur

Competences: A, B, C, D, F

Project: Write a business plan (term 3) and implement

a pilot of the plan (term 4)

2

Self-Development (G)

Title of term: Rural

Business Environment

Role: junior researcher

Competences: C, E, F

Project: NGO looking for

supplementary funding

Title of term: The Rural

Population (Major

specific)

Role: junior planner

Competences: F, H

Project: Design a rural

development plan

Title of term: Rural Business

Organization Role: junior

project manager

Competence: A

Project: Describe a

development organization

Title of term: Rural

Innovation

Role: junior adviser

Competences: B, C, D,

F

Project: Advise on new

purpose for a vacant

agricultural building

1

Self-Development (G)

Notes:

= External educational activities

Students can choose to follow a minor in term 4 of year 3 or term 1 of year 4

Competences between brackets are optional


The RDI programme is coherent in the sense that the competences are developed at three levels as shown by

competence H ‘To facilitate interactive processes’ (see figure 2 and for more details see CSER 2010a, pp. 9-10):

1. At level 1 (end of 1st

year): the professional task of the student is to describe and analyse a village and then

design a project plan on the basis of a certain theme.

2. At level 2 (end of 2nd

year): the student compares the situation in a couple of villages and reports on the

findings in an interactive knowledge exchange meeting with Master’s students.

3. At level 3 (end of 4th

year): the student has to bring together stakeholders of the region and facilitate group

processes. The facilitation is characterized by the fact that it is built on incomplete information, the end result

is not clear and that stakeholders may have different views and interests.


Appendix 6 Documents

- Critical reflection

- Final projects of 13 students

- Literature

- Written assessments and stations, including student’s work and evaluations

- Placement reports and evaluations

- Reports management deliberation (W-team)

- Reports Exam committee

- Course specific Educational regulation

- Competence descriptions

- OPCO regulations

- Reports OPCO deliberation

- Reports team deliberation

- Reports PAC

- Reports from Educational Development days

- Report ‘The Larenstein Educational concept’

- Report about quality improvement assessments

- Reports from Assessment committee deliberation

- Career counselling/self development manuals

- Curricula vitae lecturers

- Evaluation reports

- Employee monitor 2008

- Course manuals

- Placement manuals

- Annual report Wageningen UR 2008

- Appraisal system

- Employee monitor 2008

- Strategic personnel plan VHL and WUR

- ICT facilities

- HBO monitor


Appendix 7 Declarations of independence