Topics for today:

1. SPHERE UG Project Evaluation UW Learning & Teaching Conference 2008Dr. Ann Bicknell C.Psychol.a.bicknell@worc.ac.uk

2. 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?

3. 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).

4. Why is this happening?

5. 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)

6. 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).

7. 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

8. 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). What else is directly involved in employability? • The ‘Great 8’ Competency Framework: • 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.

9. 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!

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 pre-determined 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.”

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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%

18. 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).

19. 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.”

20. Students – Needs: • 79% would like to learn more about SPHERE in project seminars • 54% would like workshops on managing relationships with external organisations

21. 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