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


  • 58 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

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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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...

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • coaching, collegiate exchange, self-evaluation

  • work shared according to expertise

  • targeted training

  • external structures manage, admin activity

  • established management framework

  • time allowance


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?

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?

start  throughout  after

throughout

throughout  end

end

start  end


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

  • 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

...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

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

  • 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...

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

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

  • 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