The Influence of Widening Participation Evaluation in Higher Education

高等教育扩大参与评价的影响

• 批准号: 2094845
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Bristol
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2018
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2018 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2094845
• 关键词: Influence; Widening; Participation; Evaluation; Higher

Following Aim higher (2004-2011), widening participation (WP) departments in universities across England have been developing frameworks and tracking students to evaluate the impact of their WP outreach delivery (Bowes et al, 2015; Hayton & Bengry-Howell, 2016). The trend for more robust evaluation (qualitative and quantitative) has continued, and in 2017, the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) proposed standards for the evaluation of outreach interventions (Crawford et al, 2017). Yet, whilst focus on evaluation is growing in the Higher Education (HE) sector, there remains a gap in research exploring the influence of evaluation approach, methods and findings on WP practice and policy (Henry and Mark, 2003, Butcher et al, 2012). To address this gap, in collaboration with OFFA, this research aims to investigate the influences of WP evaluation on outreach practice and policy.Proposed research questions (RQs): 1. How has HE widening participation evaluation been conceptualised and designed at the institutional and national levels post-Aim higher?2. From the perspective of HE WP practitioners and national policy makers, what is the influence of evaluation approach, methods and findings on HE WP practice and policy at the individual (practitioner), institutional and national levels? Stage 1: Document analysis and literature review This stage will address RQ1 and at the institutional level will include a document analysis of a representative sample of ten universities' access agreements since 2015. To identify a heterogeneous group, English HE institutions will be selected using proportionate stratified sampling based upon institution type (Patton, 1990). Access agreements are working documents that HE institutions use to report to OFFA on the support they provide and evaluation outcomes of access to HE and retention within HE for under-represented groups (Bowes et al, 2013). A thematic analysis of each agreement will be conducted, allowing themes to emerge from the data (Bowen, 2009). Furthermore, to guide and support the thematic analysis of institutional access agreements, literature on WP evaluation (at the national level) published post-Aim higher will be synthesised, including peer-reviewed articles, white papers, and government reports. This additional analysis will provide further understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of WP evaluation. Using three years of access agreements will allow for the tracking of changes in the conceptualisation of WP evaluation and practice over time (ibid). OFFA will provide access agreement data for the document analysis. Stage 2: Interviews with WP practitioners and policy-makers This stage addresses RQ2. It will include in-depth interviews with thirty WP practitioners from the stratified sample of ten HE institutions (three per institution), three national policy-makers from the Office for Students and three from the Department for Education. Literature regarding pathways to impact, or what Henry & Mark (2003) refer to as "influence pathways", will inform the interview protocol and questions. Evaluation influence can be conceptual, instrumental and symbolic (Henry & Mark, 2003). Therefore, to allow for the exploration of emergent theoretical constructs regarding evaluation influence at individual and interpersonal levels (Starks & Trinidad, 2007), thematic analysis of the data will be employed (Ritchie & Lewis, 2014). For example, to identify how evaluation has influenced practitioner's behaviour and attitudes towards WP practice. Or how discussing the process or outcomes of WP evaluation with other practitioners in the field has influenced interpersonal rhetoric about WP practice and evaluation (Henry & Mark, 2003). To reduce biases and corroborate the findings, interview data will be triangulated with data from the document analysis (Bowen, 2009).

继目标更高（2004 - 2011），扩大参与（WP）部门在英格兰各地的大学一直在制定框架和跟踪学生，以评估他们的WP推广交付的影响（鲍斯等人，2015;海顿和Bengry-Howell，2016）。更强有力的评估（定性和定量）的趋势仍在继续，2017年，公平准入办公室（OFFA）提出了评估外展干预措施的标准（Crawford等人，2017）。然而，虽然对评估的关注在高等教育（HE）部门日益增长，但在探索评估方法，方法和调查结果对WP实践和政策的影响方面仍然存在差距（亨利和马克，2003年，布彻等人，2012年）。为了弥补这一差距，本研究与OFFA合作，旨在调查WP评估对外展实践和政策的影响。高等教育扩大参与评估是如何在高等教育目标之后的机构和国家层面上概念化和设计的？2.从HE WP从业者和国家政策制定者的角度来看，什么是评估方法，方法和结果对HE WP实践和政策在个人（从业者），机构和国家层面的影响？第一阶段：文件分析和文献综述本阶段将解决RQ 1，并在机构层面将包括对自2015年以来十所大学访问协议的代表性样本进行文件分析。为了确定一个异质性群体，将根据机构类型采用比例分层抽样方法选择英国高等教育机构（Patton，1990）。访问协议是高等教育机构用来向OFFA报告他们提供的支持以及评估代表性不足群体获得高等教育和保留高等教育的结果的工作文件（Bowes等人，2013）。将对每项协定进行专题分析，以便从数据中找出主题（Bowen，2009年）。此外，为了指导和支持机构准入协议的专题分析，将综合Aim Higher之后发表的关于WP评估（国家层面）的文献，包括同行评审文章、白色文件和政府报告。这一额外的分析将提供对可湿性粉剂评价的理论基础的进一步理解。使用三年的准入协议将允许跟踪随着时间的推移可湿性粉剂评价和实践的概念化变化（同上）。OFFA将为文件分析提供访问协议数据。第二阶段：与可持续工作方案从业人员和政策制定者的访谈它将包括从10个高等教育机构（每个机构三个）的分层样本，从学生办公室和三个从教育部的三个国家决策者30 WP从业人员的深入访谈。关于影响途径的文献，或者亨利和马克（2003）所说的"影响途径"，将为访谈协议和问题提供信息。评价的影响可以是概念性的、工具性的和象征性的（亨利和马克，2003）。因此，为了探索关于个人和人际层面评价影响的新兴理论结构（Starks & Trinidad，2007），将对数据进行主题分析（里奇&刘易斯，2014）。例如，确定评价如何影响从业人员对工作方案做法的行为和态度。或者，与该领域的其他从业者讨论工作方案评价的过程或结果如何影响了关于工作方案实践和评价的人际修辞（亨利和马克，2003年）。为了减少偏见和证实调查结果，访谈数据将与文件分析的数据进行三角测量（Bowen，2009）。