Transcript IXC – Selection Review

SPHERE UG Project Evaluation
UW Learning & Teaching
Conference 2008
Dr. Ann Bicknell C.Psychol.
[email protected]
Topics for today:
• Consider Graduate Employability …or not?
• Is HE Supporting graduate functionality: an
applied as well as an academic education?
• Consider some results from one evaluation of
WBL focusing on the UG dissertation
• What is needed now to promote integration of
employability into the curriculum?
A general problem:
“Annually Britain turns out quarter of a million
graduates.” (Gordon Brown, 2006)
“a tangible skills gap between what employers want
and what universities are delivering” (Morely, 2001).
almost half of the businesses questioned in a survey
of 222 companies by the Association of Graduate
Recruiters “believe that universities were not
equipping students with the right skills to succeed in
the workplace.” (AGR: Ford, 2004).
Why is this happening?
Employability:
• 65-70% or more of UK HE students report their
reason for attendance is to gain employment at
graduation (HESA)
• ‘Credentialling’ makes commensurate
employment more of a challenge – more of a
competition?
• Concern about potentially under-employed
‘subsets’ of graduates (HEFCE, 2006)
What is the ‘purpose’ of HE?
•The notion of HE as a research training skills area is
not borne out by the most popular subjects studied at
degree; law, design studies, psychology,
management, business studies and computer science
(UCAS, 2006).
•With the onset of tuition fees it is not surprising that
degree choice has become a more ‘rational’ one.
•The learning should not be any ‘shallower’ for having
this utilitarian choice (Brookfield, 1986).
Employability is more than a (good) degree:
The assessment of functionality in a work role – a
competency
“a set of behaviours required to perform a task well”
(Kurz & Bartram, 2002).
• Specific
• Observable
• Objective - can be transparently assessed through
organisational selection procedures
What else is directly involved in
employability?
The ‘Great 8’ Competency Framework:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Leading and Deciding
•
Supporting and Cooperating
Interacting and Presenting
Analysing and Reporting
Creating and Conceptualising•
Organising and Executing
Adapting and Coping
Enterprising and Performing
Bartram, D. (2003) SHL Group.
4 and 5 are predicted by ability
(can be inferred from HE
grades)
The remaining six are
predicted more by personality
or ‘behavioural consistencies’,
in particular 1 and 8.
• Leading (part of 1) was found
to be ‘expected of graduates’
in a recent international study
(Andrews & Higson, 2008).
Our Problem:
• We accept that employability is more than a (good)
degree
• We want our graduates to compete for commensurate
employment in the job market
• So, we offer a vehicle to directly improve their
employability potential (EmP)
• A WBL opportunity to complete a ‘real world’ project for
the UG dissertation
• And hardly any students take it up!
Evaluation demographics:
13 Staff/WMC interviews
(across departments + student services)
45 UW responded to a Staff e-survey
Most respondents 4-6 yrs UW: SL or PL
80% (35) supervised UG projects
(between 3-15 annually)
270 UW responded to a Student e-survey
Most respondents in final year 47% (126)
85% in full time study (226)
80% (214) male
30% (82) 21-25 + further (115) 26-46+ ranges
Staff – Key Themes:
• Awareness & Concerns about SPHERE
• Potential benefits afforded to students through SPHERE
e.g. employability
• Experiences of supervising a student through a
SPHERE project
• Barriers to working (more) with SPHERE in UG
supervision
• Knowledge Transfer Awareness
• Knowledge Transfer activities undertaken
• Issues in KT responsibilities becoming
part of the academic role
• Training and development needs for staff
related to Knowledge Transfer & SPHERE
Staff – Lack of awareness:
• 80% (35) had not seen a SPHERE project titles list
• 80% were NOT aware that there was a student initiated
SPHERE project route at all
• Actions:
• Review advertising and publications strategies for
SPHERE UG student projects
• Re-launch 2 models
Staff – Concerns:
“… the design and eventual nature of the research MUST be free from external
political agenda and must permit the student and staff the academic freedom
permitted by the University. If the external body has too much input and a predetermined project I do not feel it appropriate for Independent Study, but it is
excellent for work placement or a project based module.”
“Subjecting self to control of the authority.”
“Left wing view of what academic life should be like. May feel unable to work
with an organisation in a prescriptive position.”
“Also, concept of IS. Academic atmosphere is different from world of work. Not
to be so vocationally oriented.”
“What must be avoided, is the assumption that a university degree should ….
merely serve superficial demands of industry.”
Staff – Barriers 1:
Almost 50% of e-survey respondents referenced the following issues:
Staff training and development needs:
A presentation on the ethos of sphere and a mentoring system for the first
year.
More suitable topics, faster response to student initiated ideas and more
freedom for the student to develop as researcher not just project assistant.
Strategic management and integration of KT activity:
Greater awareness and communication between all with budgets and
managerial accountability, which ever organisation.
I already try to do KT work. The shear volume of all the work I have to do
prevents me from doing more.
‘Selection procedures’ for students for 'show casing' our institution?
Concern over relative academic ‘merit’ for KT
Staff Barriers - 2:
Resource issues:
Timescales imposed and level of governance received from the 'external'
body
A reduced teaching load, particularly overburdening in science areas with
their concomitant high contact hours.
Awareness that there are very clear systems and processes to support
supervising SPHERE projects; time to give to these.
New ideas should be promulgated which reduce administration rather
than increasing it, as has always been the case...
Further funding and further resource.
Student – Key Themes:
• Awareness of SPHERE
• Experiences of being a student supervised through
a SPHERE project
• Barriers to working (more) with SPHERE UG
projects
• Potential benefits (& challenges) afforded to
students through SPHERE e.g. employability
• Training and development (support) needs for
students related to SPHERE / Partnership working
Students – Lack of awareness:
87% (230) report never having heard of SPHERE UG projects
89% (231) students report knowing almost nothing about SPHERE compared
with only 10% (27) students who report their awareness as ‘good’.
91% (238) students report never having seen a ‘Tableslips’ advert or a SPHERE
flyer
Actions:
In order to improve the marketing impact the 10% (25) indicated how they would
like to receive adverts for similar UG opportunities:
By an all-students email 85%
From your Lecturers 61%
From visiting speakers in your lectures 32%
Through Tableslips in the canteen 33%
At UW Careers Fairs 21%
By contacting the UW careers service 11%
Students – Benefits:
• The benefits of such WBL schemes are widely endorsed, in particular by
Students.
• 103 Students attribute the following characteristics to opportunities such as
SPHERE UG projects:
• Applying learning and theory in ‘the real world’ – 2-way credibility
• Benefits to the IS process (support with focusing their topic and access
to ‘real world’ data)
• Considering career choices (mature students as well)
• Dealing with challenges (negotiation, planning, liaising, team working)
• Confidence building
Thereby improving employability/targeting graduate competencies (such
as planning and organising, communication skills and networking,
cooperating, executing, leading and deciding).
SPHERE Students – Feedback:
Negotiation:
“Early discussion with a member of the west Mercia police team involved
in SPHERE would be useful (maybe by them visiting the university).”
Communications:
“Slightly better communication between the students and the
organisation would be beneficial. There was that flurry of e-mails early
in the month that gave us the impression we were holding them
up. However, it's now the other way around, with us unsure what they
are doing.”
Resource & support implications:
“I understand that our two contacts also have a lot of work to do, and
can't be dedicated to us solely, but perhaps the creation of a once a
month catch up tele-conference? Everyone sits down and makes sure
that everyone knows what the others are doing, rather than chasing
each other.”
Students – Needs:
•79% would like to learn more about
SPHERE in project seminars
• 54% would like workshops on managing
relationships with external organisations
Levels of Response:
Strategic
Endorsement for ‘KT’ activity → WBL
Liaison and Administration support for Partners
& Students (ensure QA, sustainability, managed
relationships)
Staff
Awareness raising
Support & development interventions
Incentives & recognition
Students
Awareness raising
Support & development interventions