Measuring impact of lfe and lie activities
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

Measuring impact of LfE and LiE activities PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 55 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Measuring impact of LfE and LiE activities. Dr Anett Loescher Research, Development, Partnerships. Indicators of success. 31% engagement of stakeholders 31% maturity 25% sustained external collaborations 12.5% skills articulation 12.5% self-awareness, confidence

Download Presentation

Measuring impact of LfE and LiE activities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Measuring impact of lfe and lie activities

Measuring impact of LfE and LiE activities

Dr Anett Loescher

Research, Development, Partnerships


Indicators of success

Indicators of success

  • 31% engagement of stakeholders

  • 31% maturity

  • 25% sustained external collaborations

  • 12.5% skills articulation

  • 12.5% self-awareness, confidence

  • 12.5% numbers in placement

  • 12.5% destination

  • 12.5% improved, enhanced learning opportunities

  • 12.5% employers role in curriculum design

  • 6.25% placement numbers

  • 6.25% decrease in withdrawal

  • 6.25% increase in return after study break

  • 6.25% work force development

  • 6.25% curriculum design addresses learner needs


Issues hindrances

Issues, hindrances

  • 31% student ability

  • 25% lack of support and recognition for staff

  • 25% singularity of activity and frictions with academic structures

  • 18% maturity

  • 18% lacking engagement

  • 18% delivery, design too traditional

  • 18% regulation, admin, compliance

  • 12.5% lacking means to measure impact

  • 12.5% costs, fees

  • competition for placements

  • competition from other activities

  • lacking resources

  • pay expectations of placement students

  • culture clash


Lessons learnt

Lessons learnt

  • 37.5% encourage, develop student engagement

  • 31% address learner needs and demands re delivery

  • 18% build, maintain relationships

  • learn lessons

  • be clear about requirements, expectations, commitments

  • realism re time, work, engagement necessary

  • bridge gap theory – practice

  • accept fluctuations in engagement

  • realism re student ability

  • management, admin fit for purpose

  • staff support, recognition

  • ensure learner understanding


Activity is desirable because

Activity is desirable because...

  • fosters collaboration

  • makes provision attractive (recruitment drive, differentiates offer)

  • identifies, remedies skills gaps

  • supports higher level skills

  • prepares for process of finding, securing employment

  • improves retention and success

  • engages employers tangibly

  • drives innovation in developing, delivering learning opportunities

  • supports inst. mission, strategy


Quality assurance management

Quality assurance, management

  • cross-institutional input

  • research, scoping to asses demand, existing provision, learner needs

  • determined by external frameworks

  • sought external expertise

  • representation of stakeholders in management structures

  • visits to partner providers

  • clarified requirements and expectations

  • due diligence


Staff involved staff structures

Staff involved, staff structures

  • dedicated core plus cross-institutional

  • dedicated core

  • staff cross-institutionally drawn as needed

  • external structures and institutional core

  • external structure and staff cross-institutionally drawn as needed


Support to staff

Support to staff

  • coaching, collegiate exchange, self-evaluation

  • work shared according to expertise

  • targeted training

  • external structures manage, admin activity

  • established management framework

  • time allowance


Other resources

Other resources

  • none (50%)

  • technology for communication, data collection and analysis, delivery

  • external funding for operations and management

  • policy group

  • flexibility


Measuring impact how did you plan to do it

Measuring impact – how did you plan to do it?

interest  take-up  academic success  employment

take-up  completion

participation  employability

participation  success  progression

DLHE tracker into employment

reflection  employment  career progression

exam, assessment

feedback

when and how set by external framework

not measured


Measuring impact planned at what stage

Measuring impact – planned at what stage?

start  throughout  after

throughout

throughout  end

end

start  end


Critical success factors

Critical success factors

- 25% participant numbers

- 18% employment, destination after graduation

- 18% positive student feedback

- 18% learners’ progress, achievement, competence

- maturity

- number of links with industry

- quality of employer engagement

- completion

- retention

- numbers on placement

- public awareness

 compare with ‘indicators of success’


Approach method to measure impact

Approach, method to measure impact

  • use institutional management information and combine as appropriate (31%)

  • course and group based

  • no formal way, not done

  • external structure gathers specific data/information, evaluates it


How is impact assessed on

How is impact assessed on

...learners, beyond learning outcomes

...those involved in the activity

not done

feedback

through external structure

success rate of students

evaluation

  • progression statistics

  • questionnaire

  • progression stats and questionnaire

  • feedback

  • learner reflection

  • anecdotal

  • not done


How is feedback collected from

How is feedback collected from

learners

partners

31% not done

31% feedback

through external structure

representation

anecdotal

mix of anecdotal and formal

success rate of students

evaluation

  • 31% evaluation

  • 18% questionnaire

  • 18% not done

  • feedback

  • student representative


Results from impact assessment used for

Results from impact assessment used for

  • 31% targeted improvement (structural, strategic)

    • admin and management

    • tie-in with strategies and plans

  • 25% development, enhancement of learning opportunities

    • modification of operations, delivery, content

    • Information about provision

  • reporting

  • promotion

  • comparison with baseline, measure progress

  • partners more involved in curriculum development

  • feedback gathering formalised


Activities

Activities...

have been around for...

  • less than five years (62%)

  • more than five years (18%)

  • more than ten years (7%)

are...

  • mandatory (37%)

  • optional (25%)

  • not affiliated to any programmes (31%)

  • can be both mandatory and optional


Uptake

Uptake

Targets set...

Targets met...

can’t say

exceeded (31%)

missed (25%)

competition from other activities

re-structure of programmes

target group expectations

incompatible designs

  • entire cohort (50%)

  • not known or set (18%)

  • 50-60

  • 30-40

  • below 20


How is impact measuring useful

How is impact measuring useful

  • tie back outcomes of activity to intended aims, objectives – does it work, where are modifications necessary

  • articulate benefits, recognise value

    • ‘ skills articulation’

    • effect on students

    • differentiate effect/value on academia, and on partners (employers)


  • Login