Tools and Analysis – the results Lucília Santos COMMIT project MT

1. Tools and Analysis – the resultsLucília SantosCOMMIT project MT Final Learning Event for Networks and Stakeholders Dublin, 01 June 2016 Dublin City University, Ireland

2. COMMIT Partners • Eucen • Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium • University of Turku, Finland • University of Brest, France • University of Aveiro, Portugal • University of Stuttgart, Germany • Dublin City University, Ireland • University of Bogazici, Turkey • University of Genoa, Italy • University of Ioannina, Greece • University of Iasi, Romania • University Rovira i Virgili, Spain • University of Pecs, Hungary

3. COMMIT Outputs • Four self-assessment Tools : • The Strategy Process Tool • The Strategy Content Tool • The Benchmarking Tool • The Monitoring Attainment Tool • A “Self-Assessment Kit”, consisting in a set of documents to be used by partners when organising the peer-learning visits. • Executive Summary • Policy Reminders • Technical Report

4. Structure of the tools • The tools are very comprehensive and can be used in different environments and in different ways, depending on what the respondents aim to find out or achieve. • In general, a list of different actions are required or recommended, among which: • answering questionnaires • establishing key priorities • performing a SWOT- analysis • plotting and visual understanding of the results • reflecting on a set of additional questions • and others.

5. Main purposes of the tools • The purposes of the tools are twofold: • To involve people within universities and help them tostart reflecting on the content of their institutions’ Lifelong Learning strategy. • To collect information on their institutions’ Lifelong Learning strategy.

6. Tool 1- Strategy Process

7. Tool 1- Strategy Process Goal • To highlight five permanent guiding principles* during the process of strategizing. * AfterWittington

8. Tool 1: Main findings Why begin? • External drivers • Positive influence: duty to support social development; European Legislation; National legislation • Negative influence: National public finance; economic problem • Internal drivers • Positive influence: previous experience in LLL; necessity/demand for LLL programs; desire to improve access to university • Negative influence: budget available; staff devoted to these tasks; university structure • Globally, even if there are negative influences related essentially to economic aspects (funding, budget, staff devoted...), all partners declare to be encouraged to implement a LLL strategy.

9. Tool 1: Main findings Who? • Internal actors • Most active doers: the responsible person of specific LLL structure; the teachers and researchers in LLL • Most active decision makers: the rector and vice rector in charge of LLL and the head of specific LLL/SD department are the most influential actors. • Highest levels of hierarchy well informed; influence of decision makers slightly superior than the doers (even if 4 times more present); • Rather weak influence and number of researchers: number of people involved: from 5 to 65 (average 20.5)

13. Tool 1: Main findings Who? • External actors • Most active influential people: specific ministry, government • Most active researchers: other universities

14. Tool 1: Main findings How? Processes • Informal processes: general tendency to support cooperation within university; interaction with society; university teaching culture • Formal processes: global learning strategy • Global low score for the research based approach • Globally, universities seem to adopt more informal processes than formal ones => status/recognition of LLL in the universities?

15. Tool 1: Main findings How? Communication • People • Most internal people informed: deans and department heads, and then students and all university members. • Most external people informed: policy makers • Tools • Most internal tools used: meeting and the intranet • Most external tools used: university web site

16. Tool 1: Overall picture • Process Extension • Limited process extension • Emerging process • Established process • Extended process • High scores on almost all dimensions • High scores on one or two dimensions and average scores on the other dimensions • A process such as LLL/SD strategizing is profoundly unique from a university to another and many factors (start date, drivers, actors…) may intervene and influence the process. • Completing the tools every year allows to observe the evolution of the LLL/SD strategizing process.

17. Tool 1: Conclusions • Dominance of a collective approachstrategic planin the methods used by universities. • A middle-bottom-up approachis more likely than a top-down one. • Quite an intense communication activityregarding the number of internal targets (especially the highest levels of faculties and departments) and the external targets, and regarding the diversity of communication tools used. • Uniqueness of LLL/SD strategy process within each university, due to the specificity of its environment and itsculture. • A very low influence of a formal ‘research based’ approach in the LLL strategizing.

18. Tool 2: Strategic Content

19. Tool 2 – Strategic Content • To identify and evaluate the institution’s current LLL-strategy • invites the user to: • reviewthe strategy • formulate three priorities for the medium term • analyse them in more detail • An Action Plan will be produced for them.

20. Tool 2 – Strategic Content • What was adressed • Mission • Societal and individual • Implementation • Education offer and access • Organization • Quality and staff development • Region and networks • Goals of the strategic content • Education and audiences • “Its not only about education” (support services) • Capacity building • Structures and arrangements • Three priorities • SWOT analysis

21. The three piorities

22. Tool 2 – Strategic Content - Priorities • New audiences • Wider educational offer • Quality of learning experience • Social engagement

23. Tool 2 – Strategic Content Priorities - SWOT analysis Strengths • High-quality research and faculty • Support from leadership • Support from external sources • ULL practices and organizations Weaknesses • Educational offer and institutional arrangements • Difficulty to change – difficulty to recruit experts • Resources and priorities

24. Tool 2 – Strategic Content Priorities - SWOT analysis Opportunities • Offer, methods and arrangements • Audiences & demand • Regulations Threats • University culture and practices • Audience, markets and political context • Finances and incentives

25. The Social Dimension of University Lifelong Learning in its strategic context Content, strategy and organization • Concepts and relevance • Formal and informal status • Actors • Indicators Key activities • Student recruitment and admission • Education provision • Guidance and counselling • Research Stakeholders • Internal and external • Customer orientation, flexibility • Staff development for new audiences and contexts • External stakeholders In decision-making

26. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool

27. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool against the EU’s Charter on LLL • Intends to provide HEIs with an insight into their performance in lifelong learning and the third mission – the Social Dimension • Designed with the intention of fostering awareness of the LLL-SD commitments, to allow ranking purposes and in-depth analysis. • HEIs are invited to reflect on their activities and to match them against the 10 Commitments of the European Charter on LLL.

28. EUA’s Charter on LLL • Embedding concepts of widening access and lifelong learning in their institutional strategies • Providing education and learning to a diversified student population. • Adapting study programmes to ensure that they are designed to widen participation and attract returning adult learners • Providing appropriate guidance and counselling services. • Recognising prior learning • Embracing Lifelong Learning in quality culture • Strengthening the relationship between research, teaching and innovation from a Lifelong Learning perspective • Consolidating reforms to promote a flexible and creative learning environmentfor all students • Developing partnerships at the local, regional, national and international level to provide attractive and relevant programmes • Acting as role models of lifelong learning institutions

29. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool Diversity

30. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool Diversity 50%

31. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool Diversity 50%

32. Importance of the 10 Commitments to the Social Dimension

33. Tool3 - Problems in implementing your LLL-SD strategy framework • Finance • Only one partner has “not real budget problems… up to now…”. In the majority of the partners “there is lack of financing tools”, so it is “a major problem”. • Staff Attitudes / Internal communication processes • “Social engagement is seen as a task of a specialized unit.” “Communication has to be enhanced at internal level” “a new office dedicated to external partnership and networking…” was recently created

34. Tool3 - Problems in implementing your LLL-SD strategy framework • Organisational barriers • HR, as communication does not happen or is difficult. “Generational barriers and much of elitism and academic ‘ivory tower’”; Low ICT skills. Institutional leadership vs faculties autonomy. • University Priorities • “the concept of social dimension is used in the strategy as social engagement is seen as a service function”. the economic factor is present. • Strategy (vision not clear or goals not yet defined) • although strategy is very clear, putting strategy into practice would need more cooperation from different participants spread around the university.

35. Tool3 - Transversal Analysis’ overview (i) • The appropriation of the EU LLL Charter by the HEIs has an average value of 2.3 in a 5 level scale, ranging from 1.4 to 3.1. • Different levels of appropriation of Lifelong Learning can be found. • Things are moving but at different velocities. • “Social engagement is seen as a task of a specialized unit”.

36. Tool 3 - Transversal Analysis’ overview (ii) • Very interesting testimonies produced • Evidence of different perceiving of the same commitment by different profile’ respondents. • Very different degrees of appropriation of the 10C. • Very little information regarding the next move HEIs intend to take towards a future scenario. • Diversity of priorities towards LLL/SD among HEIs. • “Strengthening the relationship between research, teaching and innovation from a Lifelong Learning perspective” is the stronger priority for HEIs.

37. Tool 4: Monitoring Attainment

38. Tool 4: Monitoring Attainment Goals • To promote strategies for a more comprehensive approach to LLL/SD • To monitor not just participation but also attainment levels. • Focusing on lifelong learning and adults in HE • Identify a set of selected indicators that enable the monitoring of the achievement of learners. • Includes three sets of questions: • On the arrangements that are (or not) offered by the institution for individuals and citizens. • To try to monitor the reality of each of these arrangements, in terms of the level of activity or usefulness • To try to monitor the reality of the arrangements made at a collective level.

39. Making social interaction work in universities Support from leadership Extending strategic processes LLL in structures and processes Into quality systems Relevance of restructuring? Cultural change! Learning and income! Building consortia Research for and on LLL Hosting learning? (Making use of the materials of the COMMIT project )

40. The challenge • How to deal with the complexity of the concepts of social dimension • and social engagement? What does Social Dimension mean in your university? Thank you!