You are here: ITL / Projects & Planning / Engaged Enquiry / Scholars Network / Events

Events

Engaged Enquiry Scholars meetings

Meeting 3: Sydney Teaching Colloquium, 20 September 2011

Agenda

Poster presentation

 

Meeting 2: 17 August 2011

Agenda

We were joined by the executive of the Australian Cooperative Education Network, and one of their members, Dr Calvin Smith from Griffith University, gave a short overview of assessment in Work Integrated Learning. He touched on the following topics:

  • TEQSA and the emerging context for assessment in WIL
  • Implications and necessary preconditions for meeting the challenge
  • Role of industry partners and implications for training and collaboration
  • Speculations about relevant pedagogical practices

This was followed by a short project overview from Kimberley Ivory (Project #18, The "My Patient" Program), and then another overview by Dries Verstraete of Project #5 (A Global Experiential Design Studio for International Engineering Collaboration)

Meeting 1: 6th July 2011

Agenda
  1. Welcome and introductions
  2. Overview of the STEPs process – Q & A
  3. Evaluation - approaches for discussion/consideration
  4. Teaching Colloquium plans and participation
  5. Future agendas and next meeting
Meeting Report
  1. Questions were asked about the definition of engaged enquiry. A brief explanation is provided on the website, and essential engaged enquiry is defined through the signature pedagogies – RELT and CELT.
  2. A discussion on evaluation was started, building on the notes provided, but with discussion emphasising the need for evaluation to be aligned with specific project goals and for cultural change in engaged enquiry to be a focus of higher level evaluation.
  3. Participation in the Teaching Colloquium on 20-21 September was discussed. It was agreed that by 22 August each project would provide information for a poster. In the next few weeks Simon Barrie will provide a template for the information, which is likely to be no more than one powerpoint slide. Suggestions for other ways of participating in the Teaching Colloquium were received and network members will be contacted by the Colloquium organising committee.
  4. Agreed to meet again in early August, probably after the AUQA visit. Keith Trigwell suggests 12:30 10 August with an agenda to include brief presentation (10 minutes each) from members of three projects (any volunteers?)
Evaluation - approaches for discussion/consideration

1. 'Theory of Change' methodology for evaluation research

From http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/cilass/resandeval

Through backward mapping, a causal narrative or 'theory' is established which identifies evaluation indicators and becomes the basis for an evaluation plan.

For example,

  • to achieve the desired impact on student learning experiences, the outcomes of the initiative need to be x, y and z;
  • in order to achieve these outcomes, the processes or activities a, b and c need to happen;
  • in order to carry out a, b and c, the enabling factors and resources d, e and f are required.

The narrative thus identifies three different types of evaluation indicator: enabling indicators concerned with the structures and support, process indicators concerned with what needs to happen, and outcome indicators concerned with intermediate outcomes of an initiative and that are tied to broader and longer-term impact goals.

2. Goal-based evaluation

What is the SPECIFIC learning or developmental objective I/we expect to see in students as a result of this learning activity (the RELT/CELT component)?

What are the key elements of knowledge, skill, or attributes/attitudes/behaviors associated with that learning or developmental objective?

What might we observe or measure that would provide an indication of the presence of those key elements?

THEN – consider what would be the best method of gathering data on those key elements? (testing, observation, reflection, presentation, survey, interview, focus group).

3. Overall questions

Briefly describe the intended outcome and on a scale 1-5 (1=not at all, 5=fully), indicate the extent to which the activity supported by the STEP grant produced the intended outcome? Please provide one piece of evidence to support your assessment.

On a scale 1-5 (1=not at all, 2=marginally, 3=somewhat, 4=significantly, 5=substantially), indicate the extent to which the activity supported by the STEP grant has enhanced engaged enquiry? Please provide one piece of evidence to support your assessment.