In recent years, there have been changes to the way in which the UK Government funds support for disabled students in England. Higher education providers (HEPs) are increasingly encouraged to embed support for their disabled students and adopt responsibility for funding their own models of support. This has led to questions at institutional level about the impact of the support that is offered and the role of that support in student retention and success. Against a context in which the Office for Students (OfS, 2018) has identified reducing the attainment gap between disabled and non-disabled students as a strategic priority, it seems timely to consider the role of specialist one-to-one support and the potential impact of this for students. Drawing on an analysis of attainment data, as well as questionnaire responses from service users, this research project sought to evaluate the impact of one-to-one study skills support for students with specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) in one, pre-92 university (established prior to the introduction of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992). When comparing the attainment data of students with SpLDs who had accessed one-to-one support, compared to students with SpLDs who had not, 10% of the students who had not accessed support had withdrawn from their studies. None of the students who had accessed support withdrew, and there was a positive correlation between the number of support sessions attended and attainment.
{"title":"Can we measure the impact? An evaluation of one-to-one support for students with specific learning difficulties","authors":"Claire Graham","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.122","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, there have been changes to the way in which the UK Government funds support for disabled students in England. Higher education providers (HEPs) are increasingly encouraged to embed support for their disabled students and adopt responsibility for funding their own models\u0000 of support. This has led to questions at institutional level about the impact of the support that is offered and the role of that support in student retention and success. Against a context in which the Office for Students (OfS, 2018) has identified reducing the attainment gap between disabled\u0000 and non-disabled students as a strategic priority, it seems timely to consider the role of specialist one-to-one support and the potential impact of this for students. Drawing on an analysis of attainment data, as well as questionnaire responses from service users, this research project sought\u0000 to evaluate the impact of one-to-one study skills support for students with specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) in one, pre-92 university (established prior to the introduction of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992). When comparing the attainment data of students with SpLDs\u0000 who had accessed one-to-one support, compared to students with SpLDs who had not, 10% of the students who had not accessed support had withdrawn from their studies. None of the students who had accessed support withdrew, and there was a positive correlation between the number of support sessions\u0000 attended and attainment.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"214 1","pages":"122-134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76104891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article draws on an evaluation of Go Higher West Yorkshire (GHWY) Uni Connect – an initiative by the Office for Students (OfS) to reduce educational inequalities through collaborative widening participation (WP) outreach across West Yorkshire. It contributes to wider debates on widening participation policy through demonstrating how Higher Education Progression Officers (HEPOs) normalised ‘progression’ based on community and learners’ needs. We deploy realist evaluation to examine the role of HEPOs in a range of educational contexts where young people historically do not progress on to higher education (HE) at the same rates as their peers when GCSE results are taken into account. While there are complexities around the introduction of WP resources in such communities, the article highlights the importance of contextualised WP, and offers a new model of community-focused WP that incorporates learners’ needs, educational institutions and the wider community space in which they reside.
本文借鉴了对西约克郡高等教育(GHWY) Uni Connect的评估-这是学生办公室(OfS)的一项倡议，旨在通过协作扩大参与(WP)在西约克郡的推广来减少教育不平等。它通过展示高等教育进步官员(hepo)如何根据社区和学习者的需求规范“进步”，有助于就扩大参与政策进行更广泛的辩论。我们采用现实主义评估来检查高等教育组织在一系列教育背景下的作用，在这些背景下，当考虑到GCSE成绩时，年轻人历史上没有以与同龄人相同的速度升入高等教育(HE)。虽然在这样的社区中引入WP资源存在复杂性，但本文强调了情境化WP的重要性，并提供了一种以社区为中心的WP新模式，该模式结合了学习者的需求、教育机构和他们居住的更广泛的社区空间。
{"title":"Reframing widening participation towards the community: a realist evaluation","authors":"A. Formby, A. Woodhouse, J. Basham","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.184","url":null,"abstract":"This article draws on an evaluation of Go Higher West Yorkshire (GHWY) Uni Connect – an initiative by the Office for Students (OfS) to reduce educational inequalities through collaborative widening participation (WP) outreach across West Yorkshire. It contributes to wider debates on widening participation policy through demonstrating how Higher Education Progression Officers (HEPOs) normalised ‘progression’ based on community and learners’ needs. We deploy realist evaluation to examine the role of HEPOs in a range of educational contexts where young people historically do not progress on to higher education (HE) at the same rates as their peers when GCSE results are taken into account. While there are complexities around the introduction of WP resources in such communities, the article highlights the importance of contextualised WP, and offers a new model of community-focused WP that incorporates learners’ needs, educational institutions and the wider community space in which they reside.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"6 1","pages":"184-204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90539511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to be most adversely affected by the current pandemic and the consequent closure of schools and colleges. The longer-term economic consequences of COVID-19 and the potential for a recession may also have an especially detrimental impact on the educational aspirations of widening participation students. Under these circumstances it can be argued that the need for outreach is greater than ever. Yet, with schools and colleges closed to visitors, this is also a very challenging time for those seeking to widen access. This article discusses how outreach might respond to the crisis.
{"title":"COVID-19 and outreach: the challenge and the response","authors":"Neil Raven","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.255","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.255","url":null,"abstract":"Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to be most adversely affected by the current pandemic and the consequent closure of schools and colleges. The longer-term economic consequences of COVID-19 and the potential for a recession may also have an especially detrimental impact\u0000 on the educational aspirations of widening participation students. Under these circumstances it can be argued that the need for outreach is greater than ever. Yet, with schools and colleges closed to visitors, this is also a very challenging time for those seeking to widen access. This article\u0000 discusses how outreach might respond to the crisis.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"17 1","pages":"255-263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84785698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing respective guidance documents issued by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and the Office for Students (OfS), I argue that the introduction of a new HE regulator in 2018 resulted in a shift in the positioning of the evaluation of widening participation outreach in HE policy. I suggest that the resulting changes have significant implications for the configuration of key evaluation stakeholders and that these reconfigurations, in turn, have implications for the epistemic relationships at play in the evaluation process. In particular, the way in which a mode of evaluation is configured in policy can determine who has the power to shape dominant definitions of meaningful evidence and whose situated forms of knowledge are considered to constitute robust evidence. Paper: The importance of effective evaluation is a recurrent theme in recent HE widening participation policy (Harrison 2012; Harrison and Waller 2017a; Harrison and Waller 2017b; Harrison et al 2018). When Les Ebdon assumed the Directorship of the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) in 2013 it marked a step change in approach. In the foreword to his first Access Agreement guidance Ebdon noted that the new guidance marked an ‘increased emphasis on the need for evidence and evaluation.’ (OFFA 2013:3), underpinned by the need to ‘demonstrate to Government the value of investment in this area.' (OFFA 2013:3). The establishment of the Office for Students (OfS) in 2018 introduced an intensified policy concern with theory-driven evaluation, via practical guidance on the use of Theory of Change approaches (OfS 2019a and OfS 2019b). Indeed the new guidance serves to reposition HE managers and outreach practitioners, rather than policy makers, as the primary audience of evaluation outcomes – thus marking a stronger steer towards evidence-based practice than had previously been the case. This change in dominant has significant implications for the positioning of key evaluation stakeholder groups relative to dominant forms of knowledge and to responsibility for defining what constituted ‘robust’ evaluation evidence. As constructed in policy, the key stakeholders of HE-based WP evaluation are the senior policy stakeholders themselves (Government, HE regulators), senior institutional policy managers (who make strategic decisions about institutional direction and spend), outreach practitioners (who make practical decisions about implementation and delivery) and activity participants in the outreach activities (who are more likely to be sources of data than recipients). Evaluators themselves have assumed an increasingly important role as policy pressure has driven the need for further professionalization. Alongside this constellation of stakeholder groups, different forms of knowledge circulate through the evaluation process. In the dominant OFFA model of evaluation (2006 – 2017), for example, senior policy stakeholders are positioned as the primary audience for robust evidence of “what works” in the dom
pdf。(2019年6月10日获取)。(1997)《现实的评价》，伦敦:Sage出版社。
{"title":"Unknown knowns: implicit epistemological hierarchies in the evaluation of widening participation activities","authors":"Julian Crockford","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.15","url":null,"abstract":"Comparing respective guidance documents issued by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and the Office for Students (OfS), I argue that the introduction of a new HE regulator in 2018 resulted in a shift in the positioning of the evaluation of widening participation outreach in HE policy. I suggest that the resulting changes have significant implications for the configuration of key evaluation stakeholders and that these reconfigurations, in turn, have implications for the epistemic relationships at play in the evaluation process. In particular, the way in which a mode of evaluation is configured in policy can determine who has the power to shape dominant definitions of meaningful evidence and whose situated forms of knowledge are considered to constitute robust evidence. Paper: The importance of effective evaluation is a recurrent theme in recent HE widening participation policy (Harrison 2012; Harrison and Waller 2017a; Harrison and Waller 2017b; Harrison et al 2018). When Les Ebdon assumed the Directorship of the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) in 2013 it marked a step change in approach. In the foreword to his first Access Agreement guidance Ebdon noted that the new guidance marked an ‘increased emphasis on the need for evidence and evaluation.’ (OFFA 2013:3), underpinned by the need to ‘demonstrate to Government the value of investment in this area.' (OFFA 2013:3). The establishment of the Office for Students (OfS) in 2018 introduced an intensified policy concern with theory-driven evaluation, via practical guidance on the use of Theory of Change approaches (OfS 2019a and OfS 2019b). Indeed the new guidance serves to reposition HE managers and outreach practitioners, rather than policy makers, as the primary audience of evaluation outcomes – thus marking a stronger steer towards evidence-based practice than had previously been the case. This change in dominant has significant implications for the positioning of key evaluation stakeholder groups relative to dominant forms of knowledge and to responsibility for defining what constituted ‘robust’ evaluation evidence. As constructed in policy, the key stakeholders of HE-based WP evaluation are the senior policy stakeholders themselves (Government, HE regulators), senior institutional policy managers (who make strategic decisions about institutional direction and spend), outreach practitioners (who make practical decisions about implementation and delivery) and activity participants in the outreach activities (who are more likely to be sources of data than recipients). Evaluators themselves have assumed an increasingly important role as policy pressure has driven the need for further professionalization. Alongside this constellation of stakeholder groups, different forms of knowledge circulate through the evaluation process. In the dominant OFFA model of evaluation (2006 – 2017), for example, senior policy stakeholders are positioned as the primary audience for robust evidence of “what works” in the dom","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"127 1","pages":"15-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74922253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The ultimate goal of widening participation work, which unites policymakers, practitioners and academics, is to enhance the experience of disadvantaged students relating to HE access, success and outcomes. This article presents the Office for Students' (OfS) commissioned project Standards of Evaluation Practice (Phase 2). This project sought to create a step-change in robustness of evidence used and evaluation practices. Our 2017 – 19 project explored evaluation practices among nine partner organisations drawn from higher education providers (HEPs) and third-sector partners. The initial aim was to pilot test the Standards of Evidence of Evaluation developed during Phase 1 research; share practices that work and highlight examples of best practice. As the project developed, a further outcome was envisaged through ongoing discussions between the OfS, academics, HEPs and third-sector parties: a self-assessment tool for evaluation practitioners. This tool provides a framework and guidance which allow practitioners to map their own evaluation approaches. Through using prompts, the five dimensions of the tool highlight strengths and weaknesses of evaluation within five domains (strategic context, programme design, evaluation design, evaluation implementation and learning). This new tool is, in effect, a five-point framework setting guidance about good evaluation practice. It was rolled out to all HEPs in spring 2019, when providers were invited to return the completed tool and their reflection as part of their access and participation planning.
{"title":"Enhancing widening participation evaluation through the development of a selfassessment tool for practitioners: learning from the OfS project Standards of Evaluation Practice (Phase 2) 2017–2019","authors":"Anna Mountford-Zimdars, Joanne Moore, R. Shiner","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.44","url":null,"abstract":"The ultimate goal of widening participation work, which unites policymakers, practitioners and academics, is to enhance the experience of disadvantaged students relating to HE access, success and outcomes. This article presents the Office for Students' (OfS) commissioned project Standards\u0000 of Evaluation Practice (Phase 2). This project sought to create a step-change in robustness of evidence used and evaluation practices. Our 2017 – 19 project explored evaluation practices among nine partner organisations drawn from higher education providers (HEPs) and third-sector\u0000 partners. The initial aim was to pilot test the Standards of Evidence of Evaluation developed during Phase 1 research; share practices that work and highlight examples of best practice. As the project developed, a further outcome was envisaged through ongoing discussions between the OfS, academics,\u0000 HEPs and third-sector parties: a self-assessment tool for evaluation practitioners. This tool provides a framework and guidance which allow practitioners to map their own evaluation approaches. Through using prompts, the five dimensions of the tool highlight strengths and weaknesses of evaluation\u0000 within five domains (strategic context, programme design, evaluation design, evaluation implementation and learning). This new tool is, in effect, a five-point framework setting guidance about good evaluation practice. It was rolled out to all HEPs in spring 2019, when providers were invited\u0000 to return the completed tool and their reflection as part of their access and participation planning.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"25 1","pages":"44-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76349208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Office for Students' (OfS) aims are clear that it wants to increase robust evidence to understand the impact of outreach activities. There are different mechanisms to collate this evidence which outreach departments can use. To support the collection of robust evidence, this paper outlines the development of Students' Intentions towards University (SITU), a survey that practitioners can use as part of evaluating outreach activities such as ad hoc events or intensive interventions. This paper outlines the four stages that were undertaken to develop SITU to ensure a reliable and valid measure was constructed. At each stage, young people (aged 13 to 18) were consulted to ensure the measure was fit for purpose. The final survey comprises 15 items and is a quick, easy-to-administer survey that practitioners can use confidently. It is proposed that the survey will provide a valid data-collection tool to measure the outcome of outreach activities and the paper will be used as a guide for outreach departments to construct their own measures. Further research is required to test the application of the measure.
{"title":"Development of SITU: a survey to measure the impact of outreach activities","authors":"Emma J. Vardy, P. Upton, D. Upton","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.162","url":null,"abstract":"The Office for Students' (OfS) aims are clear that it wants to increase robust evidence to understand the impact of outreach activities. There are different mechanisms to collate this evidence which outreach departments can use. To support the collection of robust evidence, this paper\u0000 outlines the development of Students' Intentions towards University (SITU), a survey that practitioners can use as part of evaluating outreach activities such as ad hoc events or intensive interventions. This paper outlines the four stages that were undertaken to develop SITU to ensure a reliable\u0000 and valid measure was constructed. At each stage, young people (aged 13 to 18) were consulted to ensure the measure was fit for purpose. The final survey comprises 15 items and is a quick, easy-to-administer survey that practitioners can use confidently. It is proposed that the survey will\u0000 provide a valid data-collection tool to measure the outcome of outreach activities and the paper will be used as a guide for outreach departments to construct their own measures. Further research is required to test the application of the measure.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90662297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: Widening Access to Medicine (WAM) supports nontraditional applicants throughout application to study medicine and beyond. Many WAM programmes use medical student mentors, however, there is a paucity of research into what makes a good WAM mentor and what qualities they require. This research helps fill a gap in the literature about WAM scheme mentors and provides context for recruitment/training. Methodology: Purposive sampling was used to select three year 9 mentees, four year 9 mentors, four year 12 mentees and four year 12 mentors. No limitations were placed on gender or ethnicity. Thirty-minute semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed qualitatively, drawing on an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. This study received ethical approval from the Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS) Research Governance and Ethics Committee. Results: Four main themes were identified: mentor – mentee relationship, mentor background and attitudes towards WAM, qualities and behaviours of mentors and differences between year 9 and year 12 mentors. Discussion and conclusions: The results are discussed within the context of the existing literature. This research identifies the requirements for WAM mentors from both mentors and mentees' perspectives. This will inform future WAM schemes run at BSMS and may provide a basis for future research and improvement of WAM mentors nationwide.
{"title":"Medical student mentors in widening access to medicine programmes: 'we're lighting fires, not filling buckets '","authors":"J. Whiting, Samantha Wickham, Darren Beaney","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.205","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Widening Access to Medicine (WAM) supports nontraditional applicants throughout application to study medicine and beyond. Many WAM programmes use medical student mentors, however, there is a paucity of research into what makes a good WAM mentor and what qualities they require.\u0000 This research helps fill a gap in the literature about WAM scheme mentors and provides context for recruitment/training. Methodology: Purposive sampling was used to select three year 9 mentees, four year 9 mentors, four year 12 mentees and four year 12 mentors. No limitations were\u0000 placed on gender or ethnicity. Thirty-minute semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed qualitatively, drawing on an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. This study received ethical approval from the Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS) Research Governance\u0000 and Ethics Committee. Results: Four main themes were identified: mentor – mentee relationship, mentor background and attitudes towards WAM, qualities and behaviours of mentors and differences between year 9 and year 12 mentors. Discussion and conclusions: The results\u0000 are discussed within the context of the existing literature. This research identifies the requirements for WAM mentors from both mentors and mentees' perspectives. This will inform future WAM schemes run at BSMS and may provide a basis for future research and improvement of WAM mentors nationwide.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"26 1","pages":"205-224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87968259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Roberts Zivtins, Timothy B. Jay, Robert J. Winston, A. Alexander
Evaluating widening participation (WP) interventions is complex. Early efforts at WP evaluation were criticised for lacking rigour. These criticisms were accompanied with suggested approaches to research, typically favouring randomised control trials. Yet these recommendations have, in turn, become the focus of much discussion and debate within the WP evaluation sector. This paper presents the use of a 'mixed methods single case study research' (MMSCR) study design to WP evaluation. It describes the work of a PhD researcher evaluating the school – university partnership science outreach programme between the Wohl Reach Out Lab at Imperial College London and a local secondary school. The article highlights potential challenges when using MMSCR, namely in ensuring internal validity and trustworthiness of the study. Solutions to these challenges are presented and the case is made for broadening what is seen as meaningful research in the sector.
{"title":"Mixed methods single case study research (MMSCR): Challenges in WP evaluation","authors":"Roberts Zivtins, Timothy B. Jay, Robert J. Winston, A. Alexander","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.225","url":null,"abstract":"Evaluating widening participation (WP) interventions is complex. Early efforts at WP evaluation were criticised for lacking rigour. These criticisms were accompanied with suggested approaches to research, typically favouring randomised control trials. Yet these recommendations have,\u0000 in turn, become the focus of much discussion and debate within the WP evaluation sector. This paper presents the use of a 'mixed methods single case study research' (MMSCR) study design to WP evaluation. It describes the work of a PhD researcher evaluating the school – university\u0000 partnership science outreach programme between the Wohl Reach Out Lab at Imperial College London and a local secondary school. The article highlights potential challenges when using MMSCR, namely in ensuring internal validity and trustworthiness of the study. Solutions to these\u0000 challenges are presented and the case is made for broadening what is seen as meaningful research in the sector.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"22 1","pages":"225-237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81719698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nona McDuff, A. Hughes, John Tatam, Elizabeth A Morrow, F. Ross
Within higher education, inclusion of students from diverse nations, socioeconomic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds is vital for social mobility and economic development. Despite some international successes in widening participation, inequalities in student experiences and differentials in degree attainment for traditionally underrepresented groups, remain a major challenge. Institutional approaches to inclusion that value diversity as an inherent source of learning are underdeveloped. This paper adds theoretical insights and evidence to the debate on inclusive curricula by showing the benefits of institutional change through a strategic approach and innovation in practice (case studies). We argue that the Inclusive Curriculum Framework (ICF), underpinned by core principles of inclusion, can enhance equality of opportunity all the way through the student journey. The paper innovatively and rigorously bridges theory and practice in relation to inclusivity in learning and teaching and student success. It describes early and positive impact at Kingston University, adoption and spread in other institutions in England and potential international relevance.
{"title":"Improving equality of opportunity in higher education through the adoption of an Inclusive Curriculum Framework","authors":"Nona McDuff, A. Hughes, John Tatam, Elizabeth A Morrow, F. Ross","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.83","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.83","url":null,"abstract":"Within higher education, inclusion of students from diverse nations, socioeconomic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds is vital for social mobility and economic development. Despite some international successes in widening participation, inequalities in student experiences and differentials\u0000 in degree attainment for traditionally underrepresented groups, remain a major challenge. Institutional approaches to inclusion that value diversity as an inherent source of learning are underdeveloped. This paper adds theoretical insights and evidence to the debate on inclusive curricula\u0000 by showing the benefits of institutional change through a strategic approach and innovation in practice (case studies). We argue that the Inclusive Curriculum Framework (ICF), underpinned by core principles of inclusion, can enhance equality of opportunity all the way through the student journey.\u0000 The paper innovatively and rigorously bridges theory and practice in relation to inclusivity in learning and teaching and student success. It describes early and positive impact at Kingston University, adoption and spread in other institutions in England and potential international relevance.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"28 1","pages":"83-121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89917901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of widening participation (WP) activity is becoming a core expectation within higher education. It now forms a central focus to access and participation plans: a key document to qualify as a higher education provider within England. The new regulator for English higher education providers, the Office for Students (OfS), has placed their evaluation strategy within discourses of value for money, risk and accountability, reflecting the marketised higher education system (OfS, 2018). This innovative practice article extends a concept presented at the Open University's Access, Participation and Success event 'Evaluating WP initiatives: Overcoming the Challenges' in February 2019. In this article we provide an example of how the Southern Universities Network (SUN) is developing the concept of the rhizome into evaluative practice that challenges established evaluation methods currently celebrated by the regulator. As part of the strategically funded Uni Connect programme (OfS, 2020), our evaluation practice is expected to provide evidence of 'what works' in wid ening participation activity. As evaluators, our practice should ensure our activities are fit for purpose and provide positive outcomes for our participants. Within this article we outline why our current evaluative practice does not allow for transformative widening participation (Jones and Thomas, 2005) and why we must think wider than linear timelines and fixed measurements to truly understand what works.
{"title":"Becoming not Being: using the rhizome in widening participation evaluation","authors":"Naomi Clements, M. Short","doi":"10.5456/wpll.22.2.246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5456/wpll.22.2.246","url":null,"abstract":"Evaluation of widening participation (WP) activity is becoming a core expectation within higher education. It now forms a central focus to access and participation plans: a key document to qualify as a higher education provider within England. The new regulator for English higher education\u0000 providers, the Office for Students (OfS), has placed their evaluation strategy within discourses of value for money, risk and accountability, reflecting the marketised higher education system (OfS, 2018). This innovative practice article extends a concept presented at the Open University's\u0000 Access, Participation and Success event 'Evaluating WP initiatives: Overcoming the Challenges' in February 2019. In this article we provide an example of how the Southern Universities Network (SUN) is developing the concept of the rhizome into evaluative practice that challenges established\u0000 evaluation methods currently celebrated by the regulator. As part of the strategically funded Uni Connect programme (OfS, 2020), our evaluation practice is expected to provide evidence of 'what works' in wid ening participation activity. As evaluators, our practice should ensure our activities\u0000 are fit for purpose and provide positive outcomes for our participants. Within this article we outline why our current evaluative practice does not allow for transformative widening participation (Jones and Thomas, 2005) and why we must think wider than linear timelines and fixed measurements\u0000 to truly understand what works.","PeriodicalId":90763,"journal":{"name":"Widening participation and lifelong learning : the journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network","volume":"68 1","pages":"246-254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89954356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：