Transcript Results of the SPHERE UG Project Evaluation in the context of ‘embedding’ employability at UoW Dr.

Results of the SPHERE UG Project
Evaluation
in the context of ‘embedding’
employability at UoW
Dr. Ann Bicknell C.Psychol.
[email protected]
Dr. Jan Francis-Smythe, Dir. Of
CP@W
Topics for today:
• A brief history of SPHERE
• Consider Graduate Employability …again….?
• Is HE Supporting graduate functionality: an applied as
well as an academic education?
• …In light of ‘Graduate Competencies’
• Consider some results from one evaluation of WBL
focusing on the UG dissertation
• What is needed at UoW now ? (and in light of the above
discussions)
Shared Police and Higher Education
Research & Enterprise (SPHERE)
• SPHERE partnership initiated in 1997:
• To enable the force to utilise academic expertise to
enhance its operational effectiveness
• To allow University students and staff the opportunity to
enhance their applied research and knowledge transfer
experience
• 47 projects completed to-date by under-graduate/postgraduate students and staff
• Topics- from police training and careers to the impact of
neighbourhood wardens on communities
SPHERE Achievements:
•Research and knowledge transfer outputs (47 academic
publications/conference papers, 17 student theses)
•Input to teaching programmes: Public Sector
Management, Human Resource Management,
Psychology, IT, Sociology, Education, Geography
•Queen’s Award for Innovation in Police Training and
Development; the SCOP Lambert Review 2003; Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Best Value
Training Review 2005; case study of best practice in 3rd
stream activity by (HEFCE) in 2005
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
& what do we think about that
A recent development:
“Universities could be funded according to their ability to
produce employable graduates, as the Government
seeks to measure their success in ‘up-skilling the
workforce’.”
“While making it clear that there is no immediate plan to
implement such a regime, HEFCE says that a graduate
employment indicator ‘has the long term potential to be
one of a basket of measures that could collectively be
used as a basis for incentive funding mechanisms’.”
(THE 23.10.08)
Paper requested from HEFCE by John
Denham re future of sector to 2020.
Employability 1 of 5 policy areas
What do we think about this
A concerned response from HE:
“All it would do is reinforce what we already see of
students only wanting to study subjects that will get them
an immediate job, often at the expense of subjects that
might be better for their long term development”.
“…There is no reference among those headings to the
development of scholarship, no reference to what higher
education is ultimately about”.
(Roger Brown, Prof. of Higher Education at Liverpool
Hope).
Are the two (employability &
the development of
scholarship) mutually
exclusive
Can we ask students not to
be focused on employability
in the current economic
situation
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
Do Our Undergraduates know about these
things? Or HE Staff?
The ‘Great 8’ Competency Framework:
1. Leading and Deciding
2. Supporting and Cooperating
3. Interacting and Presenting
4. Analysing and Reporting
5. Creating and Conceptualising
6. Organising and Executing
7. Adapting and Coping
8. Enterprising and Performing
Bartram, D. (2003) SHL Group.
Our Problem:
• If 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!
Why is this happening
?
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.
New Location for SPHERE
• Now within BDO – A new opportunity
• Improve continuity and liaison between
university and organisation
• Re-launch two SPHERE pathways to
emphasise the Student-Initiated project route
• Broaden access for students
• Broaden uptake by other UW departments
SPHERE IS Pathway #1
Partner Initiated
WMC provide list of general projects to
UW by beginning November each year
with a named WMC contact. The project
will normally be part of a WMC corporate
project with a full Project Assignment Brief
(PAB).
Or….
SPHERE IS Pathway #2
Student Initiated
Student’s tutor approaches (SPHERE) with
student’s own project idea. JFS will discuss
with relevant individual in WMC. If agreed
workable after initial discussion, added to
potential student project list. These projects
would not normally be a corporate program in
WMC and PAB would therefore be optional
(to be agreed by WMC lead and student).
Why so much detail in
Partnership?
• Based on 10 years of applied experience
• Appropriate for this Partner
• Others may be similar or require modification to
this system
• Provides ‘insurance’ for the student and
supervisor once project proposal is signed
• Ensures necessary UW administration
procedures are adhered to
• Sets expectations on both sides
• Provides grounds for audit and follow-up
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)
SO: supporting the development of scholarship
• Considering career choices (mature students as well)
• Dealing with challenges (negotiation, planning, liaising, team working)
• Confidence building
And: developing functionality and applied ‘value-added’
experience for employers
Students – Needs:
•79% would like to learn more about
SPHERE in project seminars
• 54% would like workshops on managing
relationships with external organisations
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.”
Some feedback from this Partner
& recommendations for UW
looking forward:
Some feedback from this Partner:
• It would appear that some academics struggle to
maintain an ‘objective distance’ on their own
stereotypes
of what the Police Service is.
.
• Occasionally projects are ‘out of date’…on issues
that are based on stereotypes of the Police
Service but which don’t explore any new
territory…just dichotomies that no longer exist.
Are we at risk of under-estimating what
the demands of industry really are ??
Some feedback from the Partner:
• UG project questions can be limited by the
research skills of the student and their capacity to
deal
. with a particular research question.
• PG projects and PhDs provide more immediate
benefits to WMC.
• We are very open minded and will discuss any
project ideas put forward to us and from whatever
discipline they come.
Are we and/or our students not being
creative enough in our approaches to
Partners?
Levels of UoW Response:
1 Strategic
Endorsement for ‘KT’ activity → WBL
Liaison and Administration support for Partners
Students (ensure QA, sustainability, managed
&
relationships)
2 Staff
Awareness raising
Support & & ‘KT competency’ development
interventions (e.g. training & coaching)
Incentives & recognition
3 Students
Awareness raising & ‘idea encouragement’
Facilitation & Process support