Quality Criteria for the ELINET Database of Good Practice Examples
For evaluating literacy practices, we will differentiate between "good practice" and "promising practice":
- good practice is based on a research-based programme theory and is evaluated in some form (e.g. quasi-experimental pre-post design)
- promising practice is based on a research-based programme theory proven practicability; but without evaluation. The practice may act as a source of inspiration for new projects.
All selected examples are committed to fostering literacy skills at different levels. Our quality criteria for selecting good or promising practices reflect the following aspects:
- A clear focus on struggling readers/writers. For pre-primary years, also universal programmes will be taken into consideration as they often have preventive character.
- A clear and sound conceptual basis (programme theory) which is well grounded in scientific research.
- A clear definition of objectives
- Documentation concerning the implementation of the program (clear information about the activities to be carried out, about participants, stakeholders and target groups etc.)
- In case of good-practice: Transparent documentation of the evaluation of the project and its effects on the target Group
- Transferability: The practice or project have the potential of being applied to parallel or similar situations in the same or different regions.
- The program outcomes (flyers, manuals, materials) should be available in print or –preferably - in the internet.
Not all good or promising practice examples fulfill all of the points outlined in this list. This is mainly because some practices are new and therefore evaluations have yet to be completed.
Nevertheless, they have been included in the analysis because of their innovative approach that may serve as inspiration for similar projects. To reflect the lifelong and lifewide perspective of ELINET, peer reviewers are appointed across age-groups according to their expertise. Naturally, they will not evaluate examples they are involved in themselves. The outcome of the review will be one of the following:
a- approved as good or promising practice
b- request for more information for a second round of review
c- not approved.
Please note: Entries to our database of good and promising practices were composed on the basis of available information submitted by the project responsibles. As ELINET was not able to conduct on-site assessments of the projects, ELINET cannot be held responsible for the quality and the content of the project descriptions. The selection and presentation of the examples do not represent commitment on the part of ELINET.