Enhancement of curricular enterprise education incorporating …/file/USE_EEUK_EE… · The first stage, Information Gathering and Processing, relates to how student perceptions were

Enhancement of curricular enterprise education incorporating students’ perceptions and feedback at the

University of Sheffield

2012 – 2013

Project Funded by: Enterprise Education and Research Project Fund, Enterprise Educators UK (EEUK)

Key investigators: Maria Barluenga, Enterprise Learning Development Officer (Lead Applicant); Chrissie Elliott, Enterprise Mapping Assistant (Primary Researcher); Anna Nibbs, Enterprise Learning Development Officer; Ali Riley, Enterprise Learning Development Officer. University of Sheffield Enterprise (USE)

Enhancement of curricular enterprise education incorporating students’ perceptions and feedback at the University of Sheffield

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 AIMS OF RESEARCH PROJECT ................................................................................... 4

1.1 Overarching Aims ........................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Specific Aims ............................................................................................................... 4

2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 5

3.0 MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: INFORMATION GATHERING AND PROCESSING ...... 7

4.1 Approach to research problem and selection of methods ............................................ 7

4.2 Reasoning for research method selection .................................................................... 7

4.3 Research data gathering process: METHOD A - QUESTIONNAIRE ........................... 8

4.4 Research data gathering process: INTERIM MINI-ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA ... 12

4.5 Research data gathering process: METHOD B - FOCUS GROUPS .......................... 13

4.6 Reflections ................................................................................................................. 18

5.0 SUMMARY RESULTS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................. 19

6.0 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS ........................................... 40

6.1 Focus group overview ................................................................................................ 40

6.2 Focus Group A .......................................................................................................... 41

7.0 COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ............................................................................ 45

7.1 Complementary data - process of comparing with USE’s Mapping Exercise ............. 45

7.2 Complementary information from other sources ........................................................ 47

8.0 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. 49

8.1 Strategic work plan for USE at Faculty Level ............................................................. 49

8.2 Strategic work plans for USE at departmental level ................................................... 50

8.3 Support provided by University of Sheffield Enterprise (USE) .................................... 51

9.0 CONCLUSION, REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS ............................................... 53

9.1 The value of this study to key stakeholders ............................................................... 53

9.2 The future .................................................................................................................. 55


4

1.0 AIMS OF RESEARCH PROJECT

1.1 Overarching Aims

• To identify the gaps between embedded enterprise in the curriculum, as stated by academics in a previous enterprise mapping exercise, and the perception expressed by our students.

• To detect student’s priorities and perceptions of enterprise skills within their curriculum.

• To define a plan of action to incorporate the student feedback into study programmes.

• The overall objective of this project is to improve the quality of the student learning experience and increase their participation in shaping enterprise provision at The University of Sheffield.

1.2 Specific Aims

1. Review prior data on student perceptions of enterprise skills (from spring 2012 mapping exercise).

2. Explore current student perceptions of what is considered as enterprise skills and how this may vary within and across disciplines.

3. Analyse any changes in students’ perceptions of enterprise skills throughout their higher education experience.

4. Identify barriers to gaining enterprise skills through the curriculum.

5. Carry out a reflective analysis of perceptions and barriers, trying to answer the following questions:

a. Is there a disparity between the amount of ‘enterprise’ embedded in the curriculum as stated by academic staff and the amount of ‘enterprise’ embedded in the curriculum as perceived by students?

b. Are students able to articulate their learning of enterprise skills?

c. If so, in what terms do they articulate it?

d. Do any particular types of embedded enterprise activity lead to a clearer articulation of the learning of these skills by students?

e. Are students aware of the value of being able to articulate their learning of enterprise skills, for example to aid their employability?

6. Set strategies and specific interventions at the faculty level to incorporate students’ feedback analysed in the research.


5

2.0 INTRODUCTION Our core aim for the project was to obtain an overview of student perception of embedded enterprise education within The University of Sheffield (TUoS). The intention throughout this research process has been to work more closely with current student voice and opinion. In turn, this critical engagement will inform a deeper understanding of the role enterprise has within TUoS, and will highlight issues to be addressed as a higher education institution.

Subsequently, these opinions will inform a strategic route forward and future curriculum strategies, providing a series of knowledgeable actions to improve both content and delivery of enterprise to TUoS students. As the primary subject and ultimate beneficiary of enterprise education, it was absolutely essential to engage students with enterprise education research and draw upon their valuable first-hand experience.

3.0 MODEL Figure 1 shows a process model based on the way a study of student perceptions of enterprise education was carried out and acted upon at The University of Sheffield. The model will be explained in greater detail in relevant sections, but for now it should be noted that the process comprises three main stages: Stage 1, Information Gathering and Processing; Stage 2, Strategic Development; and Stage 3, Implementation.

It should also be noted that the 50 academic departments in The University of Sheffield are grouped in five administrative units referred to as Faculties (Engineering, Medicine Dentistry & Health, Social Sciences, Science, and Arts & Humanities).

The first stage, Information Gathering and Processing, relates to how student perceptions were gathered and how the information collected was compiled, processed and analysed. This part of the model is explained further in the Research Methodology section of this report. The second stage, Strategic Development, refers to how the information arising out of the first stage was discussed, interpreted and incorporated into action planning by the units within The University, according to their own set goals and strategic aims, in line with those of The University as a whole. The third stage, Implementation, refers to how the action planning devised in the Strategic Development stage might be implemented through curricular delivery. These parts of the model are considered further in the Strategic Development and Implementation section of the report.

In the model, white boxes denote actions, and grey ovals denote outputs. One aspect that is not depicted in this diagram is the stakeholders that have input into or who are impacted by various aspects of the model. However, in each of the relevant sections of the report, they are referred to explicitly. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to, students, academic staff (Faculty and department), and University of Sheffield Enterprise (USE) staff.

It should especially be noted that this was a model developed specifically for The University of Sheffield. Some of the elements of the model can be seen as particular to this institution, but the overall three-stage process of the model is a logical and applicable way to approach gathering and acting upon student perceptions in any context, even whilst some of the elements and stakeholders differ.


6

Figure 1: Flow chart for the process of gathering and acting upon student perceptions of enterprise education


7

4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: INFORMATION GATHERING AND PROCESSING

4.1 Approach to research problem and selection of methods Given the project aims, it was vital to gather and evaluate as wide a range of student opinion as feasibly possible, thus maximising the potential of this project within the time allotted. A multi-method approach was adopted, with the aim of gathering both quantitative and qualitative data. The method and data type obtained are as follows:

METHOD A - QUESTIONNAIRE: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA

METHOD B - FOCUS GROUPS: QUALITATIVE DATA

4.2 Reasoning for research method selection The methods of research were deemed to be justified to the aims of the research, specifically:

4.2.1 Method A - Questionnaire: quantitative and qualitative data

• In order to reach the sample size sample needed to gain a representative sample and established confidence levels, (covered in more detail in 4.37), it was estimated this method would be most suitable to enable the research to reach as wide as possible a target audience within the timeframe allotted.

• The questionnaire permitted different levels and types of data to be gathered in one short instance from a large number of participants who may not all have wished to spend further time engaging with the research at a more in-depth level, such as a focus group. Providing the opportunity to obtain some qualitative data via open-ended questions, as well as quantitative, enabled the investigating team to gather a broad body of data, informed entirely by student opinion, which was one of the core aims of the research project.

• Given the large variation and number of departments within the University of Sheffield, the questionnaire provided an easy replicable, standardised tool, hence delivering a reasonable level of reliability. Additionally, this method proved time effective when dealing with such a large sample, as the majority of engagement time was invested by responding participants rather than the researcher.

• The questionnaire could be completed both anonymously and in private. This was intended to increase the chances of students answering questions, not being affected by the presence of a researcher. Furthermore, it could be reasonably assumed that respondents might answer questions more truthfully in the knowledge that they could not be identified, increasing the validity of their responses.

• The flexibility of digital communications also increased the likelihood of response to the survey – through a quick straw poll amongst students, it was established that most students now read and replied to emails ‘on the go’ via smartphones and tablets. Hence, the place and environment of reply was decided upon by the participant, which offered greater potential flexibility to engage with the research.


8

• As the data gathering was a two-phased process, the quick, easy coding and interpretation of response, allowed for an essential interim analysis of data. Generalised trends and findings could then be used as base point to inform the nature of the subsequent focus groups.

4.2.2 Method B - Focus Groups: qualitative data

• The aim of the focus groups was to further investigate or qualify findings observed in the questionnaire results. Discussion within a relaxed, group context aimed to provide a better description and explanation of particular qualitative, and any brief quantitative, data obtained.

• The method and open situation enabled other lines of discussion, often prompted by students, rather than being led by the facilitator, e.g. ‘Identifying barriers to get enterprise skills in your degree course’. Hence, issues related to enterprise or student concerns could be revealed, shared and more deeply explored through conversation.

• It gave students the opportunity to voice opinions via another channel. Some may have felt more confident articulating ideas vocally rather than through written means. Others may have been prompted to consider ideas more deeply when reacting to the presence of other students, as opposed to replying to a questionnaire in potential isolation.

• Focus groups lent a greater validity to the opinions expressed, as they encouraged further in-depth exploration of questions and issues. Participants were able to provide reasoning for their beliefs on certain issues, particularly resonant in defining and understanding ‘enterprise’. This allowed unravelling of complex reckoning and opinions about enterprise.

• Again, participants were able to qualify their responses, due to the open-ended nature of the discussion and questioning, which when discussing what might have been perceived as ‘ambiguous’ concepts such as enterprise, proved very useful.

4.3 Research data gathering process: METHOD A - QUESTIONNAIRE

4.3.1 Participants

The research inquiry identified all second, third, fourth and fifth year Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught students at the University of Sheffield, as potential participants to engage with the study.

4.3.2 Project coordination and support

• Enterprise Mapping Assistant (EMA): The EMA was responsible for the coordination and research facilitation of the project.

• ‘On CampUS’ Placement (OCP): A second year student, from the TUoS OCP scheme, who provided support to the EMA for 100 hours. The student was selected via an application and interview process, designed specifically for supporting the project. It should be noted that USE regarded it as fundamentally important to incorporate the critique of a current TUoS


9

student into the design, communication and engagement and project research team. The additional perspective was valuable for a project whose primary concern was to gauge the opinions of a TUoS student audience. The use of the placement student greatly aided in the data gathering progress, and developed the student understanding of embedded enterprise education, whilst contributing perspective and support to the process.

• Enterprise Learning Development Officers (ELDOs): ELDOs provided guidance and support on questionnaire structure, and research questions/lines of inquiry, in order to obtain useable data relevant to their enterprise development roles.

4.3.3 Questionnaire structure and Process

4.3.3.1 From the outset it was necessary to produce a Gannt chart defining milestones etc, in order to take account of the student term, exam and holiday timetable. This was essential for forecasting the optimum times to engage with students over their academic year which, by necessity, defined the project timeline.

4.3.3.2 The questionnaire/research lines of inquiry were formulated in collaboration with the University’s Director of Enterprise Education (DoEE), the ELDOs, the EMA and the On CampUS placement student.

4.3.3.3 The questionnaire structure was intended to obtain the relevant insight of student opinion of enterprise, prior to and after being informed of USE’s definition and skillsets breakdown of enterprise. This was an outline attempt to gauge the usefulness of explaining enterprise to the target student audience. See Appendix A for full details of the questionnaire structure.

4.3.3.4 The mix of questions included were specifically designed to generate quantitative and some qualitative data. Those supplying quantitative data employed closed-ended questions and Likert-type scale.

4.3.3.5 The initial draft of the questionnaire was pilot tested by a group of 12 students, organized by the OCP. Comments and opinions as to the structure of the questionnaire were addressed. Comments on the language, question legibility and explanations were expressed in the test group. These elements were then altered to communicate more effectively. This was a very helpful part of the questionnaire building process and finalisation.

4.3.3.6 The final questionnaire was reviewed by the EMA, ELDOs, DoEE and OCP before being distributed to the intended participants. (See 4.3.5 for participant engagement).

4.3.3.7 Respondents were asked to complete the online questionnaire without the aid of a researcher or facilitator.

4.3.3.8 As expected with such a study, students agreed to a disclaimer at the commencement of the questionnaire. Standard consent was asked of the students and explanation was given as to how the data would be used. See Appendix B.

4.3.3.9 The survey could be completed anonymously; the only request for personal information was for an email address to be submitted at the end of the survey, and only if the participant wished to be entered into a prize draw or to take part in a


10

further focus group. Participants wishing to be involved in the focus groups needed to disclose their name and email address in order to attend the group. (see 4.3.8 for Incentives and 4.5 for Focus Groups ).

4.3.4 Participation time

Estimated time to complete the questionnaire: 5 to 10mins.

4.3.5 Participant engagement/recruitment

The OCP undertook an appraisal of current questionnaire and participant engagement projects within TUoS, to collate appropriate contact materials to encourage engagement and response to the survey. A test group of students were also asked to give opinions on the most effective form and style of communication that would encourage them to respond to the survey. From this trial the following forms of communication were decided upon.

• On 29 November 2012, the questionnaire issued to whole of university; second, third, fourth, fifth year undergraduates and postgraduates in all 50 departments.

• A total of 21,967 students were contacted using the University’s central Corporate Information Enquiry System (CIES). This allowed students to be contacted and addressed on a level/year, department and faculty basis, with the intention that students would read an email title and content that directly referenced their chosen department. This use of the central database was very helpful, in ensuring we contacted all students and provided them with an opportunity to voice their opinion of enterprise.

• The questionnaire was also issued through the student ‘My Announcements’ section of the University’s central intranet service which, amongst other uses, provides notifications to all students on their own personal webpage. This allowed contact to be made via another central system, again citing specific reference to each student’s department.

• Within the emails, mentioned above, a link to SurveyMonkey was included, allowing participants to be directed straight to the questionnaire from the email. See Appendix C.

• The emails were periodically issued three times between November and January, in order to ensure every opportunity had been made to contact all students prior to, during and after the Christmas study-holiday period.

• It was decided through appraisal of various methods of communication that the central systems were the most reliable source of communicating the research survey to students, and the most suitable method of contact for the size of the target audience.

• In order to reach students through additional, more informal routes, we also used our USE social media channels: Twitter, Facebook and the USE website blog. The Twitter notifications were programmed to reoccur on alternate days for two weeks after the initial issue of the emails, in order to keep promoting the survey.


11

4.3.6 Further focus group recruitment via questionnaire

Through the questionnaire students were given the option at the end of the questionnaire sign up to attend a focus group, Method B. (See 4.5).

4.3.7 Confidence levels

The sample size for the survey was established as follows for a target participant audience of 21,967 students:

Confidence Level: 95% Confidence Level: 99%

Confidence Interval: 4 Confidence Interval: 4

Sample size required: 584 Sample size required: 993

The Confidence Interval of 4 was adopted and deemed appropriate for this scale and nature of research project.

4.3.8 Incentives

• Incentives were used with the intention of improving the number and speed of returns. The option to add a name and a contact email address in order to be entered into the prize draw and potentially receive a prize did not oblige the respondents to also take part in a focus group.

• The On CampUS placement student was perfectly placed to conduct a miniature survey amongst contemporaries, to gauge which incentives would most likely appeal to students and on this basis the selection was made.

• Amazon vouchers were selected on the basis that students had recently returned to university and needed to purchase books or course materials, whilst others would use the vouchers to purchase Christmas gifts or personal items. This type of incentive was deemed to attract a lot of people, due to the wide range of purchasing options.

• The incentives were described as follows:

“All you have to do is fill out a simple 5 to 10 minute survey, for the chance to win 1 of 3 prizes. The first 300 entrants will be entered into the prize draw, so it pays to be ‘enterprising’ and do it today!”

Prize Draw:

• 1st - £100 Amazon voucher • second - £75 Amazon voucher • third - £50 Amazon voucher

4.3.9 Prize allocation

The prize draw winning students, who were randomly selected using an online selection application, were contacted to collect their prizes. As previously mentioned the survey was anonymously entered, therefore the winners were not publicly noted.


12

4.3.10 Confidentiality

• Any individual contact information was held for communication purposes only and was not, nor will be, shared outside of the research project.

• The primary researcher (EMA) acted as custodian for the data generated by the project. Preliminary analysis of the data took place within the department by the EMA, OCP and ELDO team. The team had access to the data, the analysis and findings to analyse inform university wide strategy.

• As consistent with standard practice, the relevant University Research Ethics Application was submitted for the project to be conducted according to their guidelines (see Appendix D). This was approved by University of Sheffield Enterprise's ethics review committee (see Appendices E and F).

4.3.11 Research duration

• 29 November 2012: questionnaire issued to whole of university.

• 22 March 2013: questionnaire closed.

• The research/data gathering process was carried out over a period of five months in total, from November 2012 to end of March 2013 (Please note: Christmas Holiday and Exam periods are included, to be allowed for, in this five months.)

4.3.12 Materials

• The questionnaire was designed using the online survey tool ‘SurveyMonkey’

• Central university digital services: email, student contacts database

• Social media channels: Twitter, Facebook, USE website Blog

4.4 Research data gathering process: INTERIM MINI-ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA

4.4.1 Description

In order to inform the Method B – Focus Group stage of the research, it was necessary to carry out a mini-analysis of the data gathered from the questionnaire responses. This provided an overview of findings and an understanding of the broad range of student opinion at this initial stage, and how best to use this as a foundation to build research lines of enquiry for any further qualitative data.

4.4.2 University overview

• We contacted a total of 21,967 students.

• 1, 798 students responded to the issue of the survey.

• 1,333 students fully completed the survey (giving a 74.1% conversion rate) and exceeding the sample size of 993 students for the whole university. (See 4.3.7).

• 6.02% (of the target TUoS student population) fully completed the survey.


13

• Therefore, the number of students required to fully complete the survey, in order to obtain results that reflect the target student population with acceptable accuracy, has been fully achieved with 95% and 99% confidence levels with a confidence interval of 4.

• The conversion rate of students who attempted and then completed the survey is pleasing as it conveys that the method and style of contact, incentives, design of the survey and content have encouraged 74.1% to progress forwards and fully conclude the questionnaire.

4.4.3 Departmental overview

For the 50 departments the following elements were specifically noted, and used as reference data for the individual focus groups and overall script:

See Appendix G for a list of departments within TUoS.

• Number of replies: to give perspective on completed replies and spread across the years.

• Responses to Question 4: the percentage of students who think that enterprise is important to have in the curriculum, ‘important’ and ‘not important’ were cumulative, and comparative responses to Question 21. Shifts in the level of neutrality responses were also noted between these two questions.

• Responses to Questions 7 to 10: experience of enterprise within their course. Any modules frequently cited, or characteristics of those modules referenced as enterprising.

• Overview of Questions 13 to 18: looking at the most frequently selected scale response of each criteria category, and any criteria category that presented a strong or noted response.

• Response to Questions 19 to 22: regarding the relevance of enterprise to their future course and career. Strong responses in these questions, were compared amongst differing subjects to gauge a level of relevance for this department and subject matter

• Any further comments.

4.5 Research data gathering process: METHOD B - FOCUS GROUPS

4.5.1 Participants

Participants comprised second, third, fourth and fifth year Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught students at the University of Sheffield, who responded to an open request to discuss their experiences of enterprise within a focus group.

4.5.2 Project coordination and support

• Enterprise Mapping Assistant (EMA): Coordination and research facilitation project/focus groups.

• ‘On CampUS Placement’ (OCP): The focus groups were primarily facilitated by the Mapping Assistant, whilst the On-


14

CampUS placement student observed and recorded the session. However, at the outset of the On-CampUS placement certain goals and targets were agreed with the student, in order to show progression and skill acquisition as part of the placement. Therefore, the student who had not facilitated a focus group prior to this project/placement was supported and fully trained to facilitate a focus group, whilst the EMA took on the recording role in this session. The placement aimed to develop the student’s knowledge of embedded enterprise education and research processes, whilst the team also benefitted from the OCP’s insights into effective working with students in a focus group environment.

• Enterprise Learning Development Officers (ELDOs): The ELDOs provided guidance on focus group research lines of inquiry, in order to pursue pertinent survey findings, which were relevant to their enterprise development roles.

4.5.3 Focus group process

4.5.3.1 In terms of focus group scheduling, flexibility was needed to programme the individual focus groups between February and March 2013.

4.5.3.2 As previously mentioned, analysis had taken place of the returned survey data in order to inform the focus group scripts objectives and structure. Key themes or areas for further discursive exploration were identified from the questionnaire data in order to inform the focus group structure. As expected – and standard procedure for this type of research project – the questionnaire data review process was very helpful in terms of developing and finalising ideas for focus group questioning.

4.5.3.3 The initial focus group script was structured by the EMA and OCP. The line of questioning was trialled with the OCP student as a participant, with the session then reviewed. Amendments were then made to question structure and sequence, in order to improve the flow of dialogue, whilst ensuring that discussion remained focused on topic.

4.5.3.4 The EMA and OCP finalised the script, and shared with the ELDOs for comment.

4.5.3.5 The first focus group was carried out, and on reflection the question order was then slightly amended, and this was used for the rest of the sessions (see Appendix H for further details).

4.5.3.6 The room was laid out in an informal manner, with chairs loosely formed in a circle. A central table was not used as this lessened the formality, and allowed for easy movement around, and participants could easily access the refreshments during the session without feeling restricted or closely watched. This is a very important element to the sessions, so the focus is on chatting and sharing experiences in a comfortable manner, rather than feeling examined to produce ‘correct’ answers.

4.5.4 Focus group structure

4.5.4.1 It was aimed where possible to keep the focus groups subject/department specific, so students would feel comfortable, have a communal understanding of the


15

subject being discussed, not to intimidate students and encourage engaged enterprise discussion.

4.5.4.2 Focus groups were restricted to a minimum of two people and maximum of six. Where possible participants were arranged in the following model focus group composition:

• 2 x second year UG student

• 2 x third or fourth year UG students

• 2 x PG students

Should the number of participants for focus groups have exceeded the anticipated response, selection was made through further random sample. The only deciding factor in participant selection was the coincidence of timings and availability of participants to attend a focus group. Again, this composition was to encourage discussion within a subject area, and allow exchange of experiences from across academic years.

When participant numbers were not high enough to fulfil the model group composition for individual department subjects, then students were grouped into similar subject groups within the same faculty.

4.5.4.3 Focus groups were facilitated by the EMA and assisted by the OCP. For the sake of accuracy, the session aimed to ensure both the EMA & OCP were always present.

4.5.4.4 The focus group sessions were recorded in their entirety (having obtained interviewees’ permission) allowing for later review and analysis. The OCP also made hand notations, observing and picking up on any particular points of interest during the session.

4.5.4.5 Participants were also given the option to write private or shared notes, or even draw a picture, if they wished to capture their opinion but did not wish to verbally articulate their point. They were also given the option to discuss/capture opinions in private after the session, if they felt uncomfortable to do so in the group.

4.5.4.6 Before the session began, the facilitator (EMA) discussed expectations of the focus group, purpose, use of the data, confidentiality, ground rules, mutual respect, tolerance, acceptance that there may be multiple perspectives, no one ‘right’ answer, and encouragement to discuss alternative view.

4.5.4.7 All focus groups were carried out in the same room/environment where possible. The same script was used for each group at the outset; however, difficulty was anticipated to exactly replicate a focus group interview, particular given the wide variation in departmental subjects/degrees. At times it was also, beneficial to diverge into other threads of conversation within the individual groups due to subject variety. Additionally, in order to prompt discussion respondents were asked slightly different questions (non-standardised) when engagement was initially tentative.


16

4.5.5 Participation time

The focus groups were set at a maximum of one hour. If discussion carried over this period, the participants were notified of the time and agreed whether to continue with the group or to end the session.

4.5.6 Participant engagement/recruitment

• Through the questionnaire students were given the option, at the end, to sign up to attend a focus group. Those students, who submitted their email via this method, were contacted with a range of timings to gauge their availability to take part in a focus group. The initial call for focus group participants asked for students to give their availability in order to coordinate suitable times for the groups.

• Again, using the previously mentioned CIES system (see 4.3.5), the whole of the relevant student audience were contacted, covering second, third, fourth and fifth year undergraduates and postgraduates in all 50 departments. A total of 21,967 students were contacted.

• The emails were periodically issued twice between January and February, in order to ensure every opportunity had been made to contact all students.

• Within the email communication students were asked to reply directly to the contact at USE. See Appendix J.

• Additionally, flyers were made and distributed at the January fresher’s fair return and on reception within USE. See Appendix K.

• Other members of staff within USE and ELDOs were also asked to promote the focus groups to other departments.

• In some cases individual academic members of staff were asked to mention it to their department to promote the focus groups where numbers were low.

• Students, who signed up for a focus group, were asked to complete the survey as well, in order to attend the session.

• In order to reach students through additional, more informal routes, we also used our USE social media channels: Twitter, Facebook and the USE website Blog. The Twitter notifications were programmed to reoccur daily for two weeks after the initial issue of the emails, in order to keep promoting the survey. See Appendices L and M.

4.5.7 Risk component

The groups were held within University of Sheffield Enterprise premises, and senior personnel were notified of any out of hours working. This was only necessary on two occasions. As these factors were managed, the focus groups presented a low risk component, but essential element to the research project.

Further details see Appendices B and D.


17

4.5.8 Incentives

Participants who took part in a focus group were entered into one of three prize draws, dependent on year group - second Year UG students, third Year UG + students and Taught Postgraduate students. 1st - £50 Amazon voucher, second - £35 Amazon voucher & third - £25 Amazon voucher. The total incentive amount for this element, funded by the EEUK grant, was £330.

We also provided free refreshments to each group; tea, coffee, juice, water, fruit, biscuits (variety) and cakes. This was popular, and provided a good ice-breaker when entering and settling down to the session.

4.5.9 Prize allocation

The prize draw winning students, were randomly selected using an online, selection application, were contacted to collect their prizes. The focus groups were confidential and therefore the winners were not publicly noted.

4.5.10 Confidentiality

Participants attending the focus groups were informed of the nature of the project, as previously mentioned. They were also made aware of the audio recording via informed consent, and informed by the facilitator at the outset of the group, which specified the recording and use of audio recordings via the following paragraph/description:

“The audio and/or video recordings of your activities made during this research will be used only for analysis and for illustration in conference presentations, lectures and reports. No other use will be made of them without your written permission, and no one outside the project will be allowed access to the original recordings.”

Any transcripts or citations of participant responses during the focus groups will be given pseudonyms or participant numbers, so individuals will not be identifiable beyond the research group.

For further details, see Appendices B and D.

4.5.11 Research duration

February to March 2013.

4.512 Materials

• Central University Digital Services: Email, Student contacts database.

• Social Media Channels: Twitter, Facebook, USE website Blog.

• Printed Flyers.

For focus group session:

• Post-its, Pens, Marker pens, notepads and flip-chart paper.

• Copies of USE’s Enterprise Criteria.


18

• Digital audio recorder and tripod.

• Camera: capture any written or drawn pieces.

• Refreshments.

4.6 Reflections

4.6.1 Questionnaire process

In terms of execution of the questionnaire the process went smoothly, and provided an effective method to reach as large an audience as possible, and the levels of completed replies has enabled a good depth of data.

If the process were to be repeated, it would be advised to replicate certain questions to the exact wording both prior to and subsequent to the explanation of enterprise and enterprise criteria in order to be confident of any findings relating to this line of research.

4.6.2 Focus group process

The methodology for the focus groups was successful in terms of the data and variation of opinion generated in terms of opening a dialogue with students around enterprise education. In connecting with students, and advertising the groups, an additional benefit was the publicising of the enterprise department and our engagement with embedded enterprise education.

This was a very time intensive process and, despite exhaustive efforts, could not reach the depth of research and numbers within the time limit and resources available, to fully engage with groups from every department across the university. In future, given the scope and numbers of students that needed to be reached, student focus groups might be addressed on a faculty by faculty basis, and phased over a longer period of time. Additionally, by focusing more closely on individual departments, particularly those now evidenced as less engaged, would prove beneficial, and aid an understanding for the lack of participation.

The structure of the focus group script worked well to stimulate discussion, but this may be further refined in future sessions by lessening the number of questions. There is evidently a lot of ambiguity and complexities for many students when discussing ‘enterprise’, and a more focused area of discussion that mines specific subjects may be beneficial at subsequent sessions.

A further step on from this process would be to attune the focus group to each individual subject area, and work with the department more closely to set up a focus group that can address enterprise in more specific terms to the subject, and also ask for input from the department in terms of questions they would like to ask students, so both parties are working together to address enterprise within their department. One of the key reflections of this process has been the huge variation and necessary individual characteristics of the differing subjects, and therefore how these varying curriculum subjects interpret, work with and respond to the enterprise will therefore be bespoke.


19

5.0 SUMMARY RESULTS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE The following tables summarise and provide some analysis of the processed questionnaire data, presenting results both for the University as a whole (with some comparisons made between Faculties), and for each of the five Faculties individually. A selection of departmental processed results can be found in Appendix N.

It should be noted that whilst Faculties are identified, all explicit references to individual departments, and specific modules or programmes identified by respondents, have been removed from this report.

These data will, along with further detailed analysis pertaining to responses to each question, be made available internally to the departments and Faculties in question, with view to informing the Strategic Development stage and subsequent implementation of any changes to taught curricula.


20

Template for reporting on student perceptions of enterprise education within the curriculum at The University of Sheffield (Outcomes of a research project funded by Enterprise Educators UK)

Faculty/Department: The University of Sheffield as a whole

Responses: 1,333

Breakdown of respondents per faculty

Arts & Humanities 17.0%

Engineering 17.2%

Medicine, Dentistry & Health 17.9%

Science 17.6%

Social Science 30.4%

Breakdown of respondents per level

1st year UG: 5.0%

second year UG: 30.5%

third year or above UG: 32.3%

PG Taught: 32.2%

BEFORE DEFINITION IS GIVEN:

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Common words/phrases used to define enterprise by students at The University of Sheffield


21

Level of value placed on enterprise in the curriculum

• Very Important 12.5% • Important 35.1% • Neutral 28.4% • Not very important 13.4% • Unimportant 6.2% • Don’t know 4.4%

(47.6% of respondents believe enterprise in the curriculum is important or very important)

Do students believe they have experienced enterprise in their courses?

• Strongly agree 3.6% • Agree 18.4% • Neither agree nor disagree 28.1% • Disagree 32.1% • Strongly disagree 11% • Don’t know 6.9%

(43.1 % strongly disagreed/disagreed with the statement of having experienced enterprise in their courses, and only 22% strongly agreed/agreed.)

If embedded enterprise was recognised in course, how?

20% of total respondents answered this question (e.g. 20% of respondents believed that they recognised embedded enterprise in their course from one of the following sources)

• Enterprise is specifically referred to in the course title: 9.2% • Enterprise is specifically referred to in the module title:

17.6% • Enterprise is specifically referred to in the learning

outcomes: 21.8% • Enterprise is referred to in the learning outcomes: 30.3% • I have an understanding of enterprise and have

recognised the presence of enterprising skills: 43.7% Other additional responses about the recognition of enterprise in the courses include working with external clients as part of a module, placements, participation in challenges, specific lectures on budgeting and funding, teaching by externals and project-based modules.

Examples of particular skills recognised:

Team work, communication, creativity, cost analysis, self-motivation and action orientation, opportunity awareness, strategic thinking, working with constrains, problem solving, management, independence, negotiation, value creation, marketing and branding, finance and budgeting, resourcefulness, time management, working with real scenarios, working with clients, ethical issues, commercial awareness, lateral thinking, leadership and experimental techniques.


22

AFTER DEFINITION IS GIVEN: '...enterprise is about having ideas, doing something about them and taking advantage of

opportunities to bring about change. It is about making things happen.' (Enterprise Education Mission, Vision and Strategy 2012-2016)

Value of having a definition Once USE’s definition of enterprise was provided, 83.8% of students said they had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’

Criteria – key points – which particular skills experienced

The skills which participants indicate to have experienced the most in their courses are Working with constrains and Problem Inquiry and Response. Collaborative work is another skill identified by over half of the students; however, when asked about specific collaborative work with externals, only one third claims to have experienced it. The Understanding and development of leadership expertise (as a component of the overarching Taking action skill) scores also particularly low in the responses.

Employability The majority (80.7%) of students indicated that for them enterprise is an important skill set to aid their future career path (only 3.5% disagreed with this statement). Almost the same percentage of them agreed (27.8%) or disagreed (28%) with having enough enterprising skills to aid their employability included in their current course. Almost the same percentage of students (27.6%) was neutral about this. Almost a third of them are uncertain about this point.

Value of embedded enterprise in the curriculum

The majority (69.2%) of respondents indicated that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum. 50% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it, and 18% believe that it wouldn’t be a deciding factor for them.

SUMMARY/ REFLECTIONS: When analysing the responses from the University as a whole, initially the value placed on enterprise in the curriculum was important or very important for less than half of the respondents. However, there are big divergences among faculties (70% of respondents from Engineering gave a high value versus only 31.4% in Medicine, Dentistry and Health). Before a definition of enterprise is given, more students disagree than agree with having experienced enterprise in their courses, and students from the faculties of Science and Arts & Humanities are the ones with higher disagreement rates. When questioned about specific recognition of embedded enterprise in the curriculum, only a fifth of the participant students responded. At this stage, the most highlighted skills recognised by students were: team work, problem solving, creativity and management.

Providing USE’s definition of enterprise in the survey seemed useful across the University, helping around 84% of the respondents to have a “clear understanding” of the term. Interestingly, this percentage was even higher for survey participants from the faculty


23

of Medicine, Dentistry & Health.

When the different criteria to measure enterprise is presented, the skills which students mostly identified as “developed through the courses” are Problem Inquiry and Working with Constrains. Although if this is reviewed by faculty, those in Arts & Humanities primarily highlighted Innovation and Creativity as one that they had experienced a lot, while Collaborative Work and Communication was the most common for those in Medicine, Dentistry & Health.

Developing enterprising skills is important to aid their future career path for 81% of the participants in the survey. This rises to 94% when responded by students of Engineering, and decreases to 74% for Science students. Overall, only 3.5% of the total students disagreed with “enterprise has a value for your employability.”

At this stage in the questionnaire, when the respondents are asked again about the value placed on enterprise in the curriculum, it is found that almost 70% of them considered it important. This is a significant increase from the figure (around 48%) obtained in a similar question in the beginning of the survey. This upward move in “importance placed” happens in every faculty. However, looking at the University responses overall, only half of the students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it, and just one fifth believed that it wouldn’t be a deciding factor for them.


24

Template for reporting on student perceptions of enterprise education within the curriculum at The University of Sheffield

(Outcomes of a research project funded by Enterprise Educators UK)

Faculty/Department: Faculty of Arts and Humanities

Breakdown of respondents N= 221

First year UG: 3.2%

Second year UG: 37.1%

Third Year or above UG: 33.5%

PG: 26.2%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Common words/phrases used to define 'enterprise' by students from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities


25




• Strongly agree 2.7% • Agree 14% • Neither agree nor disagree 24.9% • Disagree 36.7% • Strongly disagree 16.7% • Don’t know 5%


The majority of students that did recognise enterprise in their courses recognised it either through learning outcomes (54.5%) and/or a general understanding of enterprising skills (51.5%).


14 respondents out of 221 (6.3%) responded to this question.

Particular enterprising skills highlighted included:

• group and team working • creativity, innovation or novel ideas generation • taking initiative/problem solving • perseverance/determination • practical organisational skills such as time management,

independent working

A number of respondents focused instead upon the undertaking of particular activities which encouraged enterprising skills development, such as events organisation, living or working abroad, taking on challenges, or carrying out tasks which prepared them in some way for their future career.

AFTER DEFINITION IS GIVEN:

'...enterprise is about having ideas, doing something about them and taking advantage of opportunities to bring about change. It is about making things happen.'

(Enterprise Education Mission, Vision and Strategy 2012-2016)

Value of having a definition

After being given USE’s definition, 78.7% of students either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’.

Criteria – key points – which particular skills

Innovation and Creativity was a skill that many students chose to highlight as one that they had experienced a lot throughout their course, with 62.9% having ‘very often/always’ or ‘often’ experienced


26

experienced the employment of ‘creative and critical thinking to generate and develop innovative ideas’.

62.1% of respondents had ‘very often/always’ or ‘often’ experienced/used various methods of communication, and 38.5% of respondents had ‘often’ experienced working with constraints.

Students perceived Problem Enquiry and Response, and Calculated Risk Taking as less strongly emphasised in their courses.

Employability The majority (76.9%) of students in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path.


Although a majority (51.6%) of respondents ‘agreed’ that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, the likelihood of students signing up to a course with enterprise embedded within it was less clear-cut, with 33.5% seeing at as ‘probable’ that they might, but 22.2% stating that embedded enterprise would not be a deciding factor.

SUMMARY/ REFLECTIONS:

Enterprise in many ways seemed to be well perceived by students in this Faculty, and awareness seemed high in many cases.

There were, however, strong issues around the language in general use surrounding the term ‘enterprise’ and what this might refer to – prior to USE’s definition of enterprise being provided to respondents, there had been a strong emphasis in their perceptions on commerce and money-making, with negative connotations for some students and, in a small number cases, an extremely strong and emotionally-charged resistance to any notions of enterprise being embedded in an academic curriculum.

It would be important not to dismiss the attitudes and feelings of those students who are less receptive the idea of enterprise. It is key not only to work concertedly to address common misconceptions about the concept, but also to consider very carefully what adaptations to vocabulary might be necessary when raising the subject of enterprise with staff and students in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities.


27



Faculty/Department: Faculty of Engineering

Breakdown of respondents N= 223

First year UG: 0.9%

First year UG: 27.4%


PGT: 41.3%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Busin

ess/

Com

mer

cial

/ Ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p

Crea

tivity

/ Inn

ovat

ion/

For

war

d…

Ente

rpris

e as

a n

oun/

A c

ompa

ny/ A

n…

Proj

ect u

nder

taki

ng

Turn

ing

idea

s int

o bu

sines

s

Prof

it/ M

oney

/ Inv

estm

ent

Initi

ativ

e/ B

eing

pro

activ

e

Hard

wor

k/ S

elf-d

eter

min

atio

n/ S

pirit

/…

Taki

ng ri

sks/

Tak

ing

on c

halle

nges

/…

Achi

eve

an o

utco

me/

Pro

duct

ivity

Appl

y ed

ucat

ion/

know

ledg

e/ sk

ills t

o…

Spot

ting

and

crea

ting

oppo

rtun

ities

Reso

urfu

lnes

s/ A

chie

ve th

e m

ost w

ith…

Mak

e th

ings

hap

pen

Impr

ove

futu

re/ S

ucce

ss

Sale

s and

mar

ketin

g ac

tiviti

es

Empl

oym

ent/

Cre

ate

own

care

er/ S

elf-m

ade

Don'

t kno

w

Soci

al e

nter

prise

/ com

mun

al a

nd so

ciet

al…

New

pro

duct

dev

elop

men

t/ N

ew se

rvic

e

Team

wor

k

Oth

er (S

tar T

rek!

)

Jour

ney

Sust

aina

ble

solu

tions

Cons

umer

rese

arch

and

test

ing

Love

and

dev

otio

n fo

r a jo

b

Expe

rienc

e

Common words/phrases used to define enterprise by students in the Faculty of Engineering


28





• Strongly agree 4.0% • Agree 24.7% • Neither agree nor disagree 31.8% • Disagree 27.4% • Strongly disagree 8.5% • Don’t know 3.6%

(31.8% of respondents did not agree/disagree, while 27.4% disagreed and 24.7% agreed.)


25% of total respondents answered this question (e.g. 25% of respondents believed that they recognised embedded enterprise in their course from one of the following sources)

• Enterprise is specifically referred to in the course title: 7.1% • Enterprise is specifically referred to in the module title: 14.3% • Enterprise is specifically referred to in the learning outcomes:

32.1% • Enterprise is referred to in the learning outcomes: 26.8% • I have an understanding of enterprise and have recognised

the presence of enterprising skills: 42.9%

Other additional responses about the recognition of enterprise in the courses include the direct involvement of industry in teaching, cross-departmental exercises (Global Engineering Challenge, Engineering You’re Hired) and project based modules.


Team work, communication, creativity, cost analysis, self-motivation and action orientation, opportunity awareness, strategic thinking, working with constrains, problem solving, management, independence, negotiation, value creation, marketing and branding, finance, resourcefulness, time management, working with real scenarios, working with clients, ethical issues.





29


After being given USE’s definition, 84.8% of students said they had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’


The main skills identified by respondents as developed through their courses “often” to “very often” are:

1) working with constraints (around 63.7%),

2) collaborative work and communication (60.5%) and

3) problem inquiry and response (58.3%).

However, around half of the respondents also identified Innovation and creativity, Taking action and Calculated risk taking.

Employability The majority (93.7%) of students in the Faculty of Engineering stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path. 33.2% of students strongly agreed or agreed that their current courses contained enough enterprise skills development to aid their future career path, while 35.4% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.


The majority (78.5%) of respondents indicated that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, and 65.1% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it


Before any definition is given about the meaning of enterprise, students in this faculty associated it primarily with business. However, not surprisingly given the nature of their field, they also frequently mentioned terms such creativity, innovation, project undertaking and initiative to define enterprise. Another word commonly used is profit making, with many students stating that it is not just having ideas, but turning them into practical outcomes which generate revenue. It is worth indicating that the responses for this question are very homogeneous and do not vary much across the different departments of this Faculty.

Most students placed a high value on enterprise skills development in the curriculum; this importance increased by 13% after USE’s definition of enterprise was given. It is recurrently mentioned in the survey’s responses that all students in this faculty participate in project-based modules. In fact, they recognised the presence of enterprising skills (before and after the definition) such team work, communication, creativity, problem solving, and working with constrains in their study programmes. An interesting observation from the responses is that while Collaborative work and communication was overall the skill most commonly identified, there are big divergences when the question refers to working with internal (71.6%) or external bodies and stakeholders (39.5%) from the


30

University. An interpretation of this could be that there are not enough opportunities for students in this Faculty to directly liaise with external project partners and work openly with industry as part of their modules.

Additionally, in the survey responses it is often mentioned that through participation in extracurricular activities such Skill Build workshops, Engineering Without Borders and other societies, students find opportunities to develop related skills.

Remarkably, there are no big variations in the responses regarding the level of existing opportunities to experience enterprise in their courses before and after the definition of enterprise is given. While students value enterprise and, overwhelmingly (93.7%!), found it a key element in their career paths, once they understand that enterprise skills are not limited to commercial awareness, they acknowledge that their courses already contain many enterprising elements. But still, they are willing to further develop these skills and the majority of the students would be interested in taking modules with embedded enterprise.


31



Faculty/Department: Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health

Breakdown of respondents N=232




PG: 19.4%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Common words/phrases used to define 'enterprise' by students from the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health


32






The majority of students that did recognise enterprise in their courses recognised it either through learning outcomes (40.0%) and/or a general understanding of enterprising skills (46.7%).


Only 16 respondents out of 232 (6.8%) responded to this question.

Particular enterprising skills highlighted included:

• group and team working • creativity, lateral thinking or innovation in development of

treatment • taking initiative/problem solving • undertaking research/analysing and evaluating information

A number of respondents focused instead upon the undertaking of particular activities which encouraged enterprising skills development, such as performing experiments, undertaking work placements, taking on challenges, delivering presentations or carrying out tasks which prepared them in some way for their future career





After being given USE’s definition, 89.3% of students either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’.

Criteria – key points – which particular

Collaborative Work and Communication was a skill that many students chose to highlight particularly as one that they had experienced a lot throughout their course, with 86.2% having ‘very


33

skills experienced often/always’ or ‘often’ experienced both the ‘understanding of professional behaviour within team working and contribution to a group goal’, and the use of ‘various methods of communication’.

78% of respondents had ‘very often/always’ or ‘often’ experienced Working with Constraints through the ‘application of academic learning to resolve real problems/issues and deliver solutions’.

Problem Enquiry and Response was rated relatively high in terms of experience within courses, with 71.5% of respondents having ‘very often/always’ or ‘often’ experienced the ‘development of strategic thinking in response to problem solving and management’.

Calculated Risk Taking, Taking Action, and Innovation and Creativity were less strongly represented in courses, according to respondents; nevertheless, a majority of students still felt they had experienced these at some point during their courses.

Employability The majority (75.4%) of students in the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path.


Although nearly half of respondents (49.1%) of respondents ‘agreed’, and 13.8% ‘strongly agreed’, that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, the likelihood of students signing up to a course with enterprise embedded within it was less clear-cut, with 28.4% seeing at as ‘probable’ that they might, but 25.9% stating that embedded enterprise would not be a deciding factor.


There appeared to be good awareness of enterprise within this Faculty, and it was reassuring to note, given the particular emphases of the TUoS Enterprise Education Strategy, that respondents put notions of creativity, ideas generation and innovation on an equal footing with business/commercial aspects when providing their own definition of enterprise.

Given the practical, work-based nature of many courses within the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, it was perhaps unsurprising that the development of skills relating to collaboration, team-work, problem-solving and working with constraints was experienced by many respondents.

There was some feeling among medical students, in particular, that certain aspects of the survey did not apply fully to them, and it would be worth bearing in mind, when entering into dialogues with staff and students in this Faculty, that many courses are structured very differently from those of other Faculties within TUoS, and thus to consider terminology used very carefully.


34



Faculty/Department: Faculty of Science


First year UG: 1.3%



PGT: 21.1%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Common words/phrases used to define 'enterprise' by students from the Faculty of Science


35



41.7% of students in this faculty believed that enterprise in the curriculum was important or very important.

21.5% of students in this faculty believed that enterprise in the curriculum was not very important or unimportant.

36.8% of students were either neutral or didn’t know.



15.8% of students in this faculty either agreed or strongly agreed that they had experienced enterprise in their course

52.2% of students in this faculty either disagreed or disagreed strongly that they had experienced enterprise in their course.

32% of students were either neutral or did not know.


14% of respondents answered this question (i.e. 14% of respondents believed they had recognised enterprise skills development in their course at some point). The majority of students that did recognise enterprise in their courses recognised it because they felt that they had an understanding of enterprise and had recognised the presence of enterprising skills themselves.


Managing difficult projects, teamwork, business and finance skills, problem-solving, resourcefulness, creativity, management, initiative.




Value of having a definition After being given USE’s definition, 82.5% of students said they either agreed or strongly agreed that they now had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’.


36


Problem inquiry and response, and working with constraints were two of USE’s ‘enterprising skills’ that students chose to highlight as ones they ‘often’ encountered in their course. Innovation and creativity were skills that they believe they only have chance to develop ‘sometimes’. Working with external bodies is an opportunity that students believed they encountered ‘very rarely or never’.

Employability The majority (74.1%) of students in this department either agreed or strongly agreed that enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path. 41.3% of students did not believe that their courses currently included enough enterprise skills development to aid their future career path. 29.8% of students believed that their current courses did include enough enterprise skills development to aid their future career paths.


The majority (64.4%) of students either agreed or strongly agreed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, and 52.1% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it.

SUMMARY/ REFLECTIONS: In this faculty, most students believed that having the chance to develop enterprise skills within their course was important, but the majority didn’t believe that they were currently being given the opportunity to engage with these skills. Working with external bodies was one opportunity that stood out as one that students believed they rarely had the chance to engage with.


37



Faculty/Department: Faculty of Social Sciences


First year UG: 3.0%



PGT: 38.6%


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Busin

ess/

Com

mer

cial

Crea

tivity

/ Inn

ovat

ion/

new

idea

s/ n

ew…

Entr

epre

neur

ialis

m/ s

tart

-ups

/ new

…

Ente

rpris

e as

a n

oun/

A c

ompa

ny/ A

n…

Initi

ativ

e/ L

eade

rshi

p/ p

ro-a

ctiv

enes

s

Proj

ect/

task

Reso

urce

fuln

ess/

ada

ptab

ility

/ tak

ing…

Mon

ey/p

rofit

Intr

apre

neur

ialis

m/ s

kills

for w

ork

plac

e/…

Risk

taki

ng

Achi

evem

ent/

succ

ess/

reac

hing

a g

oal

Expl

orat

ion/

pio

neer

/ adv

entu

re/ f

ree-

…

Ambi

tion/

driv

e

An e

ndea

vour

/ und

erta

king

/ jou

rney

Chal

leng

e/ e

ffort

/ har

d w

ork/

diff

icul

ty

Mak

ing

idea

s hap

pen

Oth

er (i

nclu

ding

Ren

t-A-

Car/

Star

Tre

k!)

Sale

s and

mar

ketin

g

Soci

al e

nter

prise

/ res

pons

ibili

ty/…

Com

mun

icat

ion/

netw

orki

ng/ t

eam

wor

k

Prob

lem

-sol

ving

/ pra

gmat

ism/ i

ngen

uity

Uni

quen

ess/

orig

inal

ity

Skill

s dev

elop

men

t/ p

erso

nal d

evel

opm

ent/

…

Don'

t kno

w

Stra

tegi

c th

inki

ng

Desig

n (o

f pro

duct

/ser

vice

)

Dete

rmin

atio

n/ p

ersis

tenc

e

Common words/phrases used to define enterprise by students in the Faculty of Social Sciences


38


• Very Important 15% • Important 37.1% • Neutral 29.2% • Not very important 10.7% • Unimportant 3.3% • Don’t know 4.6%




(36% either disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had experienced enterprise skills development in their course, 28.7% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed, 35.3% either did not agree/disagree or didn’t know.)


25.9% of respondents answered this question (e.g. 25.9% of respondents believed that they recognised embedded enterprise in their course from one of the following sources)

• Enterprise is specifically referred to in the course title: 10.8%

• Enterprise is specifically referred to in the module title: 28.4%

• Enterprise is specifically referred to in the learning outcomes: 21.6%

• Enterprise is referred to in the learning outcomes: 27.5%

• I have an understanding of enterprise and have recognised the presence of enterprising skills: 42.2%


Business skills, initiative, creativity, innovation, communication, problem-solving, group working, adaptability, resourcefulness, entrepreneurial skills, strategic thinking, marketing, leadership




Value of having a definition After being given USE’s definition, 83.3% of students said they had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’


39


Just over half of the respondents identified ‘problem enquiry and response’ as a skill developed through their courses ‘often’ to ‘very often’. Just over half of the respondents identified ‘working with constraints’ as an enterprise skill developed in their course ‘often’ to ‘very often’.

Employability The majority (82%) of students in this faculty stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path. 33.8% of students strongly agreed or agreed that their current courses contained enough enterprise skills development to aid their future career path, 35.3% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that their current courses contained enough enterprise skills development to aid their future career path.


The majority (73.4%) of students in this faculty believed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, and 59.2% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it


When asked to define enterprise (before USE’s definition is given), many respondents referred specifically to business. However, creativity and innovation was also strongly referenced. Words such as initiative and resourcefulness also occurred frequently. The strong frequency of referral to ‘business’ might be due to the number of respondents from the Management School within this survey.

A high value is placed on enterprise skills development in this faculty, again perhaps because of the number of respondents from the management school, and other disciplines such as Journalism, where self-employment/freelancing is a likely career path.

However, most students felt like they had not experience enterprise skills learning within their course curricula.

After being given USE’s definition of enterprise, most students felt they had a clear understanding of the term. Problem enquiry and response, and working with constraints were two skills that were particularly highlighted as skills that were developed through students’ courses. The majority of students felt that embedding enterprise in the curriculum was important, and that they would take a course with enterprise skills development embedded within it if they had the opportunity.


40

6.0 ILLUSTRATIVE RESULTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS The data produced from the focus groups will be further analysed and used in comparison with the quantitative findings and the academic mapping process as illustrated in Section 7.0.

6.1 Focus group overview

• 80 students signed up for focus groups.

• 44 turned up and attended the sessions, just under a 50% student dropout rate, which was anticipated with type of engagement.

• 12 focus groups in total were carried out.

• Students from 16 of 33 key academic departments were represented, to provide further qualitative data detail to the questionnaire (quantitative and qualitative) data.

The purpose of this section of the report is to disseminate methodology and observations of the process, as opposed to specific findings within TUoS – specific information about department-level responses is for use purely within the institution. However, some key observations from carrying out the process are worth noting.

As shown within the quantitative data, often a very narrow definition of enterprise was offered by focus group participants, specifically relating to business, finance, money and the corporate world. This initial impression of enterprise was important to gauge at the outset of the focus groups, in order to gauge the level of understanding for the group. Other than obvious research data, this also aids the facilitator in finding the students’ level of conversancy with enterprise, in order to appreciate the tone for the focus group in the particular student subject. This also means in the discussion of enterprise, the groups quite often needed to be guided and encouraged to explore what enterprise might mean in a wider context, and appraise in terms of USE’s enterprise criteria.

As evident within the questionnaire appraisal, students became more conversant with enterprise when it was broken down into a ‘skill set’ and these elements were identified as to their presence in individual degree courses. Prior to this, there was a general reticence and lack of understanding of enterprise beyond a superficial level. Although the data is to be further analysed, before clear conclusions can be drawn, it is evident that the language and communication of ‘enterprise’ as an entity, and enterprise as a skill set needs to be addressed, in order to engage students with the concept and possibilities it can present to them.

Again, as evident from the quantitative data, the students within different subject groups held varying opinions of enterprise and understanding. The key element to iterate from the focus group process is the understanding of subject context, and how this influences the perspective upon enterprise, and inversely how enterprise delivery is shaped by the uniquely differing subjects.

The following information is provided as an illustrative example of some of the data generated by a randomly selected focus group. This important qualitative data will undergo


41

further analysis, to clearly identify trends, correlations, ideas and comments that will inform the approach and content of future strategies.

6.2 Focus Group A

The group began discussion of enterprise with relatively little prompting. There was an initial hesitancy and tentativeness in voicing opinions of the meaning of enterprise, but became more comfortable when it was reiterated that this process was not to try to produce a ‘right’ answer, but to capture how different participants interpreted ‘enterprise’ and ‘embedded enterprise’.

6.2.1 Outline observations

• General interpretation of ‘enterprise’ primarily related to: business, finance, money

• It was observed that ideas, creativity and an understanding of balancing finance and creativity, particularly within this discipline, were observed as important in the professional ‘real world’ context of both subjects, and hence the relevance to enterprise education.

• General group consensus identified some enterprise ‘skills’ or ‘characteristics’ as intrinsic to their course, by the nature of the subject matter and how it is taught. However, students would not necessarily have recognise these elements as enterprising, prior to the focus group discussion, as they are not ‘labelled’ or identified specifically as such in course materials or outcomes.

• On discussion of USE’s ‘enterprise skills’, elements such as presentation, networking, generating ideas, collaboration (in particular working with difficult people), were identified as key elements within their course subject.

• Clear emphasis was placed on the level of interaction with external groups/individuals and the perceived importance to develop these communication and collaboration skills. This was an element that was particularly mentioned to be included more often within their course structure, to give them more opportunities of ‘real’ projects.

6.2.3 Excerpts of transcript

THEME: “Enterprise means different things in different contexts to different people.”

Facilitator: You identified business as a word you associate with enterprise. Is business related or evident within your current course?

Participant A: You do, do an exam on it in third year.

Participant B: Up until then, it’s like you can just ignore all the money stuff.

Facilitator: Do you see a benefit of having it in the third year of your course, or could it be included in another way?

Participant B: I think it might be a good thing to have along the way…

Participant A: An introduction… like in first, or year actually, because first year is kinda new…


42

Participant B: Even if it’s one of those one day activities…

Facilitator: Do you think there are any benefits of introducing a business context earlier in the course, as you suggest?

Participant C: #Well you’re never gonna have a project in real life with no costing implications, so if you go into a career and have no idea about the costing of stuff, then you are a bit naive.

Participant B: You hear about it all the time, every single building, it goes way over budget…

Participant C: Well if they taught it in the first instance then…

THEME: “Not just a drawing, it was real”

Facilitator: If you were to re-write your CV/Resume to include references to the enterprising skills you have experienced in your course what skills would these be and what example would you use to back them up?

Participant F: I’ve had to rewrite my CV for applying for jobs, and I’ve actually put on my Module X one.” [Researcher’s note: Module X: a module cited as enterprising earlier in the discussion that was carried out in the public realm, and viewed by the public.]

Participant D: Really.

Participant F: […] and I’m not sure, but I was on the front cover of the Newspaper X, I was on like a big piece for it. But I wrote down that I was group leader for that project, and I got onto the Newspaper X. So that’s one way that I would write that…

Facilitator: So you’ve referenced that in your CV?

Participant F: That’s in my CV

Facilitator: And so what skills did you mention there, leadership?

Participant F: Yeah, I put like that I was group leader, project leader for it. I thought I might as well.

Participant B: I would.

Participant F: Eh, I got a C for it though! And I’m still not happy about that yeah.

Participant D: You see, that’s interesting.

Participant F: I brought it up that I wasn’t happy about it. I got a C, but I was in the newspaper.

Facilitator: How do you feel about that C?

Participant F: I’m not happy about it.

Facilitator: So you weren’t happy about it. Do you think the mark…I’m just saying you put it on your CV, you’re proud to put it on your CV and if you gave it to someone you’d say this is my project, but I got a C.

Participant F: Yeah, contrasting yeah.


43

Facilitator: Yeah, how do you feel about those two things? Do you think it was valuable or not valuable?

Participant F: Well, I think it was very valuable. Errr, I think the reason I got a C was that even though it looked good to the public, and a nice little image, it didn’t stick true to whatever the brief was for it. […] So even though it looked nice it didn’t technically make a place. So I got a C for that even though it was in the newspaper etc.

Participant D: That’s interesting though. It doesn’t mean, so even A grades… if you get a project and get an A it doesn’t necessarily mean…. Even though I might do rubbish in a project it might have some value still. That’s not necessarily ticking all the criteria that they mark it from, but it’s still valuable in other ways, that you can still use.

Participant E: It might not be important to the tutors but the public might like it anyway, so they’ve got a different opinion

THEME: “A nightmare. But it was really good.”

Facilitator: Do you think you are given enough chances within your course to reflect upon what you have done? So as you just said, you might not have got an A, but there are a lot of other things that you have taken from it. Do you think your course gives you enough chance to do that?

Participant A: I think in Subject A they do that more than Subject B because we get like erm, self-evaluation sheets to fill in and you know….

Participant F: Yeah? That’s a great idea that, yeah. About how you feel it went.

Participant C: Well there is a lot more focus on this in Subject A, more sort of, people’s development. Whereas in Subject B it’s more about achieving a project kind of thing; I mean they are very different kind of styles of working.

6.2.4 Initial observations of focus group

• The students’ view of enterprise was initially viewed from a perspective outside of their subject, as an external concept to their subject. It is only when we began to discuss it within the context of their course subjects that they began to form connections and understanding of how enterprise might relate to their specific course and curriculum. Through discussion it was actually revealed that many of the enterprising skills were intrinsic to this particular group of students, a connection not made prior to the session. Therefore, the session, in itself, can also be seen as a vehicle for promoting for raising awareness of enterprise amongst students, as well as gauging levels of understanding and engagement.

• Although Participant F was unhappy about the grade obtained for the project, the structure of the module demanded many enterprise skills to be employed within its fulfilment, working in the public realm, resource management, group work, leadership, problem solving and innovation. Therefore, the student was able to elicit much more from the module other than a Grade C. The structure of the module meant that a project requirement management and a final realised solution, produced in the public realm was realised, and this was something to evidence and cite within


44

his CV. Additionally, the fact it was a public project meant, it was photographed and appeared in the Sheffield Star, giving an alternative value to his project and perspective of possibilities. The student observed this module as enterprising, once the enterprise criteria had been discussed. Prior to this the student was not aware of this nature of content. Therefore, a case may be put forward for the importance highlighting such elements within a module, in relation to enterprise, as it adds another skill level to the students CV.

• Additionally, the student observed that he did not obtain a higher mark as he did not fulfil the criteria of the brief as successfully as he could, but was able to take something else from the experience other than an academic mark, which was reflected in Participant D’s response. Again this is something to highlight in programming of academic curriculum, to highlight to students, the value and benefit when engaging in a challenging enterprising module of this nature.

• The need for reflection upon skills experienced during a module or course would seem to be reinforced by opinions conveyed during this focus group. When the students were asked to reflect upon their experiences and look at them against enterprise criteria, they can begin to elicit the value of different experiences in terms of enterprise. This element of reflection, as carried by the innate nature of the focus group, is a particularly important element of the enterprise education, and from initial observations, is a recommendation from this focus group.


45

7.0 COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

7.1 Complementary data - process of comparing with USE’s Mapping Exercise

7.1.1 Overview

The mapping exercise was not a part of the research project funded by EEUK, but the results of the mapping exercise were used to complement the data gathered from the study of student perceptions. The mapping exercise was a study instigated by USE in order to gain a broader overview or ‘snapshot’ of the level of embedded enterprise contained within the curriculum across the whole university. The data gathered would allow the Enterprise Learning Development team to identify both areas of good practice and areas where enterprise learning could be developed, in order to meet the University of Sheffield’s Enterprise Education Mission, Vision and Strategy 2012-16, which sets out the aim that every student at the University should have the opportunity to engage with enterprise education at some point during their time at university.

The intention in using this data to complement the student perceptions study was to examine whether the perceptions gathered from the students actually mapped against the perceptions of the academic staff. For example, if a student in a focus group claimed that he/she had experienced absolutely no enterprise education within their course, the data gathered from academics could be examined alongside this. If the data from the academics had indicated a high level of embedded enterprise content, then questions would be raised as to whether this was indeed the case if students were in disagreement. If the module still scored highly on examination, we would be able to discuss ways of making the embedded enterprise content more explicit to students. There is no point in having embedded enterprise content if students are not able to recognise it and articulate its value to their skills development. At the same time, if a student expressed that they had engaged with enterprise education in a module that had not scored highly or not come to attention during the mapping exercise, the module leader could be approached and the module could then be scored, hopefully as enterprising. If academic staff are able to identify embedded enterprise content in their own modules, they will be better able to express the value of the learning undertaken to students, in turn enabling them to reflect more deeply on their learning.

7.1.2 Criteria

Criteria were established to compare modules, to identify and capture the levels of enterprise. These criteria were developed to correspond to our definition of enterprise as outlined above. They were:

• Problem Inquiry and Response

• Working with constraints

• Innovation & Creativity

• Calculated risk taking

• Taking Action

• Collaborative work & Communication


46

Each criterion was then further defined by writing a number of statements associated with each criterion, totalling 15 statements in all. For example, for “Problem Inquiry and Response”:

• Students are given the opportunity to investigate a problem or issue that enables them to respond and identify potential opportunities, aims and ambitions.

• Students are able to experience and appraise different approaches in which a relevant problem solution might be put into action.

• Students are given the opportunity to develop strategic thinking in response to problem solving and management.

7.1.3 Process

• Academics from all departments and faculties were invited to participate in an incentivised survey where they were asked about their modules and the enterprise skills the students have the opportunity to develop. The aim of this survey was to start gathering the academic staff’s perspectives and gain relevant contacts for a further in depth analysis.

• The mapping officer met academic staff who had engaged in any way with USE in the past and survey participants that had expressed their keen interest in learning more about the mapping exercise.

• Academics were asked to mark any modules they have a clear involvement with using the criteria, with clarity being provided by the EMA.

• Modules that were scored were then entered onto a departmental spreadsheet, thereby presenting a wide-ranging picture of the presence and/or absence of enterprising content in the curriculum for each course

7.1.3 Course example: DEPARTMENT A

In the mapping exercise, five modules in the Department A were recorded with the maximum scores across all criteria. Compared to some other departments, this is a relatively high number of enterprising modules.

Comparing this data to the student perceptions survey and focus groups highlighted some discrepancies. Only 8.3% of students believed they had experienced enterprise in their course. No respondents claimed to have recognised enterprise content from module information. No students chose to name a particular module that they thought was enterprising. After being given USE’s definition of enterprise, still only 25% of students believed their current course included enough enterprise. Quotes from the survey include:

“if enterprise is mentioned within the curriculum it doesn’t say anything about it…”

and:

“Yes, what exactly is the enterprising module? If it isn’t mentioned how can your students[…] learn about it?”


47

This prompted closer examination. The majority of students answering the survey were either undergraduate first years or taught postgraduates. The modules in the mapping exercise that scored highly were all optional modules open to second or third year undergraduates. This may be one reason for the discrepancy. On contact with the Department A, it also became clear that these optional modules had caps on their numbers and were therefore not necessarily open to all students on the course.

From this example, the value of using these two methods side by side can be seen clearly. Based on just the mapping exercise, a conclusion could have been drawn that students in Department A have a wealth of opportunity to engage with enterprise in their degrees. Based on just the student perceptions study, a conclusion could have been drawn that no students were able to engage with enterprising opportunities. However, by examining the two side by side, and by working with the department to investigate further, a more balanced and nuanced picture emerged. Based on this picture, the Enterprise Learning Development Officers could go forward with a basis for discussion with the Departmental Director of Teaching and Learning, perhaps with a suggestion that enterprise learning could be embedded in a non-optional module, perhaps earlier in the course.

7.2 Complementary information from other sources When taking forward the information from the Student Perceptions study, the mapping exercise is not the only information that is examined at the same time. By considering a wide range of information, the University can gain a much more subtle and nuanced picture, and further consider and refine the value of enterprise education.

Examples of other sources of information, and the value of considering such information, are outlined below.

• Careers Service – by looking at information about the paths that The University’s leavers take upon graduation from sources such as the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey, statistics and data can be compiled to present to departments and faculties alongside the results of the mapping exercise and student perceptions survey. This may be especially relevant as recently a new question has been added to this survey which asks for graduates' responses to a set of questions whose aim is to establish the extent to which they believe their experience of higher education prepared them for employment, further study and self-employment/freelancing/starting up a business. This information could be used to further support and add value to the delivery of enterprise education within the curriculum.

• Alumni Relations Office – at present detailed information has not be sought from this source, but in the future it is intended that relatively informal conversations could be held with colleagues in the Alumni Relations office to share any observations they may have on the perceptions of graduates of The University, particularly those who are continuing to engage with the University, which may overlap with ‘external stakeholders’ (see below).

• Learning and Teaching Services - This department has overall responsibility for quality assurance in learning and teaching throughout The University. This department therefore has a wide overview of feedback received from students on


48

individual modules or aspects of the taught curriculum. This information can be used as a corroborative source when looking at individual modules that have been identified through the student perceptions study or mapping exercise as enterprising or otherwise. Interesting comparisons could be made between what students answered when responding to the question of how they identified enterprise learning (e.g. from learning outcomes) and the information held by LeTS, which includes module proposal forms which must state the learning outcomes.

• External stakeholders – These could include businesses, local or national/international that partner or interact with the university. Employers are increasingly seeking an entrepreneurial skill set among their new recruits, and so it follows that they may be interested in the results of such studies. In return, such employers could give more specific information about the particular skills they seek, which could in turn be incorporated into the survey to see if these skills are indeed being developed.

• 301 Study Skills Centre – this is a student services unit within the University of Sheffield which provides extra-curricular support to students on essential study skills such as essay-writing, statistics, managing your time and so on. There is an acknowledged degree of overlap between some of the skills development offered through 301 and some of that delivered through USE (and the Careers Service). Information on the uptake and demand for such overlapping services can be shared and compared, as well as student feedback from these instances of delivery, to continue to ensure that efforts are being focused in the right place.

• Students’ Union – the Students’ Union (SU) at TUoS does run a number of different surveys on the student body from which information could be examined alongside data from this study. The SU also acts more generally as the ‘voice’ of the student body. It has representatives from all faculties and departments, as well as sabbatical officers leading on various issues, including an Education Officer who represents the SU on committees related to learning and teaching. It is important that their perceptions are also acknowledged and incorporated alongside this study.


49

8.0 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

8.1 Strategic work plan for USE at Faculty Level

Once the Information Gathering and Processing stage is complete, the Strategic Development stage begins. The first aspect of this takes place at the level of the Faculty. USE, in dialogue with the Faculty produces a strategic work plan to act upon the student perceptions study and the mapping exercise. Each faculty in the University has a level of autonomy, and each is different in character (focus, resources, type of student). Each faculty’s work plan therefore developed independently according to their overall strategic aims, with the input of relevant internal stakeholders.

8.1.1 Stakeholders

Together with the Faculty-facing Enterprise Learning Development Officers from USE, the following principal internal stakeholders have input into this work plan:

• Faculty Pro Vice-Chancellors

• Faculty Directors of Learning and Teaching (and deputies as appropriate)

• Assistant Faculty Directors of Learning and Teaching (with responsibilities for quality enhancement, student experience, etc.) as appropriate

• Departmental Directors of Learning and Teaching sitting on the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee

• Faculty Executive Boards

• Faculty-facing Learning and Teaching Development Managers, Learning and Teaching Services (professional services)

8.1.2 Coverage

This work plan includes mutually agreed recommendations as well as summarising the different foci of each faculty in line with their learning and teaching priorities. Aspects of this work plan include:

• Setting out of Faculty’s strategic aims in learning and teaching, and more specifically enterprise education

• Reminder and review of links and crossovers with other strategies/agendas/priorities

• Initial reflection on departmental starting points

• Suggested templates for departmental work plans

• Case studies of existing successful enterprise education in the Faculty, and in other relevant disciplines

• Signposting to resources and support available

• Guidance on continued evaluation processes and support for these

It is acknowledged that different faculties may take ownership of these work plans to a differing extent and therefore may choose to cascade these work plans to their constituent


50

departments in differing ways. Therefore, depending on the context, USE is more or less involved in this process.

8.2 Strategic work plans for USE at departmental level

A dialogue is facilitated between the Faculty, its individual departments and USE, so departmental strategic plans are discussed. Depending on the autonomy, degree of previous engagement with enterprise education, and resources available, departments may take a different level of ownership on this work plan.

8.2.1 Stakeholders

Together with the Faculty-facing Enterprise Learning Development Officers from USE, the following principal internal stakeholders have input into this dialogue:

• Heads of Department

• Departmental Directors of Learning and Teaching

• Academic staff responsible for careers liaison

• Department-facing links (Careers Service)

• Examinations officers

• Programme directors

• Student Ambassadors for Learning and Teaching (SALTs)

• Departmental student representatives.

8.2.1 Coverage

Potential aspects of a departmental work plan could include:

• Departmental response to faculty recommendations and department strategic aims and priorities

• Actions and changes to be implemented

o Who will be delivering this

o Timeline

o Aims

o Beneficiaries

o Success criteria

o Evaluation plan

• Specific resources committed by the department for enterprise curriculum development (money/staff/time/contacts/learning materials and technologies)

• Plan for communication, dissemination and feedback

• Signposting to external resources (e.g. USE)


51

8.3 Support provided by University of Sheffield Enterprise (USE)

8.3.1 Overview

University of Sheffield Enterprise (USE) is a key partner and mechanism for supporting the development of Faculty-level recommendations and departmental-level work plans during Strategic Development, and seeing these through to Implementation stage.

USE works closely with external partners to provide real case studies and projects for students, which can result in real solutions for these organisations. Working with the Sheffield City Council business support team, Yorkshire Association of Business Angels, the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and other local business support networks ensures that the USE programme of support adds value to core city-wide provision, contributes to the development and delivery of city and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) enterprise strategy development, and provides a two-way pipeline of knowledge exchange opportunities.

USE works passionately with academics across faculties to allow all students access to an enterprising education through their curriculum. An enterprising curriculum provides opportunities for students to become creative problem-solvers to apply their academic knowledge into real life situations and to develop skills in managing limited resources under uncertainty. This can be done as part of the provision of core discipline teaching, modifying the way it is delivered and without necessarily requiring content variations to existing modules. As a result, students benefit from a richer learning experience and a boost to their confidence and employability.

8.3.2 Specific forms of support

Specific aspects of the support provided by USE include the following:

• Professional support:

o Initial discussions and on-going dedicated support to design or redevelop existing modules to make them more enterprising.

o End of year reflective sessions on enterprising modules.

o Shared experiences and knowledge on existing successes.

• Training

o ‘Educate the educators’ sessions, sharing enterprise education tools and resources with academics for them to implement themselves.

o Internal workshops and best practice events on enterprise education.

o Access to and funding for formal training delivered by EEUK, NCEE, HEEG and other national and international networks of enterprise educators.

• Delivery

o Sessions delivered by USE staff within modules on enterprise and entrepreneurship, creativity, team work, networking, conflict resolution, business planning, marketing, etc.


52

• Resources for academics:

o Funding for: new module development or redesign of an existing module, enterprise-related training, attending enterprise and entrepreneurship conferences, enterprise materials, etc.

o Teaching materials (including innovative interactive teaching tools) on business planning, communication, networking, team work, creativity, conflict resolution, and assessment.

o Information: local, national and international events, conferences and training; relevant publications, research and online resources on enterprise education; funding opportunities, etc.

• External engagement

o Facilitation of engagement with external organisations to find curricular projects for students and to identify appropriate guest speakers for modules.

o Networking opportunities with local businesses.

o Referrals to organisations, businesses and other higher education institutions.

o External contacts with other enterprising academics and networks.

• Other support

o Establishment of internal networks of enterprising academics for peer support.

o Establishment of an institutional recognition system through participation in a continued professional development framework.

o Faculty and departmental enterprise awareness efforts.


53

9.0 CONCLUSION, REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS

9.1 The value of this study to key stakeholders

To the best knowledge of the authors, such a wide ranging study of student perceptions of enterprise in the curriculum has not been attempted elsewhere. However the value of this study for other enterprise educators lies not in the results themselves which are peculiar to The University of Sheffield, but in the process and structured model for collecting and acting on such data. It is hoped that by attempting such a study and disseminating the processes involved, a range of discussions may be provoked among enterprise educators on the value of collecting and incorporating student engagement into their work.

It is hoped that the study has value for the three following groups of stakeholders:

• University of Sheffield Enterprise (USE)

• The University of Sheffield

• Enterprise educators

9.1.1 University of Sheffield Enterprise (USE)

For USE, the value of this study has been its effect on the work undertaken by its staff, particularly the Enterprise Learning Development team who work on enterprise in the curriculum. The information from the survey and focus groups, both qualitative and quantitative, was of a depth and quality the team had never had access to before. The results of the study gave the team a firmer foundation based in clear data upon which to communicate with academic departments and faculties regarding the development and implementation of enterprise education experiences. The process undertaken for this study is also easily repeatable, allowing deeper comparisons to be made over time, and allowing a way of tracking progress against the University’s aims. The gaps, needs and issues identified through both the student perceptions study and the mapping exercise aided in strategic work planning and resource allocation for the Enterprise Learning Development team. Much time was spent in the initial stages of the internal mapping exercise on the definition and criteria for enterprise in the curriculum, and the results from the survey and focus groups validated this definition and approach, with students confirming that they gave them a clearer idea of what enterprise skills development entailed. . This model of student engagement could be applied to other areas of the work USE does, including extra-curricular provision.

The Enterprise Learning Development team also saw their own assumptions challenged as enterprise educators through dialogue with the students. For example, there were modules in some departments that USE had often cited as examples and case studies of best practice in enterprise education, but in the results of the surveys and focus groups, these modules were not mentioned by the students as delivering this from their perspective. This led to a questioning of what is held up as best practice and a realisation of the importance of checking whether students are really experiencing what their teachers are wanting them to experience.


54

At the other end of the scale, students participating in the survey and focus group may have made the team aware of other enterprise learning experiences taking place in The University which were not previously identified as best practice, this time highlighting the importance of module and course leaders realising and articulating the enterprising content of their teaching.

9.1.2 The University of Sheffield

For the university as a whole the value of this study was wider. The establishment of a dialogue with students on this topic was a continuation of the tradition and ethos of The University of Sheffield regarding student engagement in teaching and learning. Through this dialogue, The University was able to develop further strategic tools to enhance the learning and teaching provision for students in line with its overall Learning and Teaching Strategy. More specifically, the study allowed the University to benchmark current provision of enterprise education in order to fulfil its Enterprise Education Strategy (which sits under the umbrella of the Learning and Teaching Strategy). The information gleaned is of a much more consistent and transparent nature than was ever available before regarding enterprise education within The University, covering all departments and faculties of the home campus, with no one left out. The information gained from the survey, focus groups and subsequent benchmarking will allow The University to further enhance its marketed ‘offer’ to students, providing what is hoped is a further ‘unique selling point’ to prospective students. The University has long curated the concept of ‘The Sheffield Graduate’, which refers to an ideal set of attributes any student graduating from The University should possess. One of those attributes in ‘an entrepreneurial problem solver’. By conducting this study, The University can show that it is deeply considering the way in which this particular attribute is developed.

9.1.3 Enterprise educators

For enterprise educators, the value of this study lies much more in the process itself rather than the results. Information relating to The University of Sheffield is only relevant to that institution; other institutions are different in terms of their structure, student body make-up, foci, strategic aims, not to mention their approach to enterprise education and infrastructure to deliver such learning experiences. Other HEIs will have different definitions of enterprise, different criteria for curricular enterprise experiences, and different potential channels for engaging students in shared dialogue. If a HEI was to undertake a similar study, it is therefore envisaged that while the elements of such a study would differ, the overall model of the process of gathering student perceptions and taking them forward to strategic level should remain relevant and useful. The aim of sharing the study with other enterprise educators is to showcase a possible model for engaging students in shaping enterprise education so that it is meaningful for them (whatever the character of the student body). This model may particularly be of interest to those in similar institutions (i.e. Russell Group, research intensive, City-based etc.). In providing details of the study carried out, examples of the way such data can be processed and shared with stakeholders have also been set out. One of the key take-aways for enterprise educators may be the value of a clear definition of enterprise, specific to the institution, which students feel able to relate to. One of the outcomes of this study was that, after TUoS’s definition was given to students, they were much more confident in identifying and articulating examples of skills development in this area. This study may also challenge the assumptions of enterprise educators as it challenged those of the Enterprise Learning Development team at USE, or at least highlight


55

the importance of checking such assumptions. This study also demonstrates not just the best practice of engaging students, but the impact of such dialogue. Through processes of meta-learning and metacognition, students can be more fully impacted by enterprise education. By providing a definition, and a clear set of skills that come under this definition, and by asking students to articulate their learning of such skills, students have access to much deeper learning of such skills. This is an important pedagogical point when implementing innovative learning and teaching in any sphere, subject or skill set: deep learning cannot happen without discourse and dialogue.

This section ends with a quote, which illustrates the central value of the entire process.

Student C: "Do you like get results, what you doing with the results? It’ll just be interesting to see…."

Facilitator: “Yeah, yeah. It’s all going to go into a giant report […] there’ll be one from the academics perspective and one from the students perspective as well. And then they go into recommendations for each department, so the kind of things that you have suggested it’s important to incorporate, so we aren’t just academic led as well. But that will be […] disseminated across the university, yeah. And so in some form you will hear about that…”

Student B: “This is very good. This is very positive, you know, for the future of students.”

Students are more engaged with their learning and more interested in the results of such dialogue than might be originally suspected, and have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards being included in the strategic development of their university education, whatever the subject or skill set in question.

9.2 The future This is not the end of this study. At present, there is more scope to interrogate the data further, for example by year group. The survey was also designed to be repeatable, and it is intended that further data is gathered at least every two years, which will provide TUoS with one way to measure the progress of its achievement against the Enterprise Education Strategy. In future iterations of the survey, further levels of detail can be added – for example, it may be interesting in the future to interrogate the data and compare the perceptions of home and international students, a question that was not asked in the first instance of this survey.

Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaire Appendix B: Informed Consent Appendix C: Email sent to students containing questionnaire link Appendix D: Ethics application form Appendix E: Ethics reviewer approval Appendix F: Email confirmation of ethics approval Appendix G: Subject departments within TUoS Appendix H: Focus group script and activity notes Appendix J: Email sent to student containing focus group details Appendix K: Flyer advertising focus groups Appendix L: Facebook, Twitter and Blog details of focus groups Appendix M: Blog by On CampUS Placement advertising focus groups Appendix N: Selection of departmental processed results

Appendix A

Page 1

Survey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise within

This study has been approved by the University of Sheffield Enterprise Department Ethics Committee in line with University policy. All information received is anonymous, confidential, and will be used for research purposes only. Volunteers have the right to withdraw their consent at any time during the study and if they wish for their data to be erased please contact the researcher. By clicking next, you consent that you are willing to take part in the research project and answer the questions in this survey.

For any questions, concerns, or feedback, please feel free to contact Chrissie Elliott via email on [email protected] For the full Informed Consent policy follow click here

DISCLAIMER

Page 2


1. Which level of study applies to your current or recently completed course at The University of Sheffield?

2. Which academic department delivers your course?

3. Which course are you studying?

INFORMATION

*

*Please select a faculty

Faculty: 6

*55

66

Undergraduate 1st Year

gfedc

Undergraduate 2nd Year

gfedc

Undergraduate 3rd Year or above

gfedc

Postgraduate

gfedc

Page 3


4. What do you think the term 'enterprise' means?

5. How important is it to you that enterprise is included in your curriculum?

6. Do you think you have experienced enterprise in your course?

7. If you Strongly agree or Agree with Q6, how did you recognise the enterprise content? (Please select one or more of the points below that apply or use f. to give additional details) NOTE: If you did NOT Strongly agree or Agree to Q6 please move on to Q11 on the next page.

YOUR ENTERPRISE EXPERIENCE

*55

66

*

*

Very important

nmlkj

Important

nmlkj

Neutral

nmlkj

Not very important

nmlkj

Unimportant

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Strongly agree

nmlkj

Agree

nmlkj

Niether agree nor disagree

nmlkj

Disagree

nmlkj

Strongly disagree

nmlkj

Don't know

nmlkj

a. Enterprise is specifically referred to in the course title.

gfedc

b. Enterprise is specifically referred to in the module title.

gfedc

c. Enterprise is specifically referred to in the learning outcomes

gfedc

d. Enterprise is referred to in the learning outcomes.

gfedc

e. I have an understanding of enterprise and have recognised the presence of enterprising skills.

gfedc

f. Other (please specify)

Page 4

Survey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise within8. If you have selected option e. (from Q7 above) please state which enterprising skill you recognised:

9. If the enterprise you experienced was within a specific module could you please state the module title and code:

10. And finally, can you please tell us your thoughts on the enterprising module and any highlights that you would like to share:

55

66

Module Name

Module Code

55

66

Page 5


Please read the following definition of 'Enterprise': '...enterprise is about having ideas, doing something about them and taking advantage of opportunities to bring about change. It is about making things happen.' (Enterprise Education Mission, Vision and Strategy 20122016)

11. Have you encountered this definition before?

12. Does this definition give you a clear understanding of the term enterprise?

USE'S DEFINITION OF ENTERPRISE

*

*

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Don't Know

nmlkj

Strongly agree

nmlkj

Agree

nmlkj

Neither agree nor disagree

nmlkj

Disagree

nmlkj

Strongly disagree

nmlkj

Don't know

nmlkj

Page 6


University of Sheffield Enterprise have devised the following criteria to identify enterprise embedded within modules and courses. Please read though the following criteria and rate the extent that you have experienced these individual elements during your course.

13. PROBLEM INQUIRY AND RESPONSE

14. WORKING WITH CONSTRAINTS

15. INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY

USE ENTERPRISE CRITERIA

*5 Very Often or

Always4 Often 3 Sometimes 2 Rarely

1 Very Rarely or Never

0 Don’t know

Investigation of a problem or issue that enables you to respond and identify potential opportunities

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Experience of different approaches in which a relevant problemsolution might be put into action


Development of strategic thinking in response to problem solving and management


*5 Very Often or



0 Don’t know

Experience of working with constraints


Application of your academic learning to resolve real problems/issues and deliver a solution


*5 Very Often or



0 Don’t know

Creative and critical thinking to generate and develop innovative ideas


Adoption of new creative approaches to enable imaginative thinking when facing challenges


Page 7

Survey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise within16. CALCULATED RISK TAKING

17. TAKING ACTION

18. COLLABORATIVE WORK AND COMMUNICATION

*5 Very Often or



0 Don’t know

Predicting the outcome of your actions before acting to encourage measured risk taking


Making decisions in the absence of complete information, enabling you to learn from uncertainty


*5 Very Often or



0 Don’t know

Taking the initiative to act upon and respond to challenges, exhibiting an adaptable, dynamic response


Encouragement to experiment with and adopt new approaches by accessing additional resources


An understanding and development of leadership skills


*5 Very Often or



0 Don’t know

Understanding of professional behaviour within team working and contribution to a group goal


Experience and use various methods of communication


Worked with and/or connected with external bodies, groups or other stakeholders


Page 8


Having now seen the University’s criteria and definition of enterprise (for reference see Qs 11 to 18) please answer the following questions:

19. Do you think enterprise is an important skill set to aid your future career path?

20. Do you think your current course includes enough enterprising skills to aid your future career path?

21. Do you think it is now important to include enterprise skills within your course curriculum?

ENTERPRISE AND YOUR FUTURE

*

*

*

Strongly agree

nmlkj

Agree

nmlkj


nmlkj

Disagree

nmlkj

Strongly disagree

nmlkj

I don’t see enterprising skills as particularly important to my future career path

nmlkj

Strongly agree

nmlkj

Agree

nmlkj


nmlkj

Disagree

nmlkj

Strongly disagree

nmlkj

Don’t know

nmlkj

Strongly agree

nmlkj

Agree

nmlkj


nmlkj

Disagree

nmlkj

Strongly disagree

nmlkj

Page 9

Survey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise withinSurvey questionnaire for student opinion of embedded enterprise within22. How probable would it be that you would take a course that you knew had

embedded enterprise?*

Very Probable

nmlkj

Probable

nmlkj

Neither probable nor improbable

nmlkj

Improbable

nmlkj

Very Improbable

nmlkj

It wouldn’t be a deciding factor for me

nmlkj

Don’t know

nmlkj

Page 10


23. As mentioned in the email, to show our appreciation for completing the questionnaire, we will enter the first 300 respondents into a prize draw for the chance to win one of 3 Amazon vouchers: 1st place £100 2nd place £75 3rd place £50 If you wish to enter the draw please enter your full email address into the box below. We will only use this email to let you know if you are a lucky winner and to invite you to a future, optional focus group.

24. If you have any comments or queries about this survey, please comment in the box below:

PRIZE DRAW

Page 11


Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this questionnaire, we really appreciate your participation in this research. The responses you have provided are important and will contribute towards an enriched university experience. Good luck with the prize draw!

THANK YOU!

Appendix B

INFORMED CONSENT All information to comply with informed consent will be enclosed at the beginning of the questionnaire.

Participants will be asked to indicate they have given their consent to take part in the research process. For the focus groups, informed consent will be acquired by signing a consent form prior to the focus group taking place, which again will contain all information as below. The informed consent will cover the following areas:

RESEARCH METHODS TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE PROJECT

We are using a multi-‐method approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. Qualitative methods will provide a better description and explanation of the quantitative data obtained. Students’ perceptions and awareness of the enterprise skills obtained through the curriculum will be gathered using:

QUESTIONNAIRE -‐ QUANTITATIVE and QUALITATIVE 1. Survey: We will use a random sample of students from a range of courses and levels to answer a

questionnaire with open and closed questions. Thematic blocks will include: a. Background information on the student (age, level, course...) b. Students’ perceptions on importance of enterprise

c. Students’ perceptions on whether they are learning enterprise skills through the curriculum. d. Space for comments with ideas not covered in other sections.

Respondents are asked to complete the online questionnaire without the aid of a researcher/facilitator. FOCUS GROUPS -‐ QUALITATIVE

2. Focus groups of 5/6 people, using a structured script, will be carried out by level and study programme. The aim of the groups is to back up the data collected from questionnaires. The group interviews will be carried out to obtain qualitative information and provide a more complete picture of the perceptions of enterprise.

Interviews will be recorded (granted interviewees’ permission) for a posterior in depth analysis.

PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH WILL REQUIRE IN PRACTICE • Completion of the questionnaire – 5 to 10 mins. • Further participation within a focus group -‐ 1 hour.

CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE PROJECT WILL BE CONDUCTED

• The questionnaire will be carried out online via SurveyMonkey, which will be defined by the participant and the location they choose to complete the survey. The questionnaire is standardised, hence all participants who complete a survey will be asked the same questions.

• The focus groups will be carried out in the same room/environment where possible. The same script will be used for each group; however the difficulty is appreciated to exactly repeat a focus group

interview. In order to prompt discussion respondents may be asked slightly different questions (non-‐standardised).

• Ground rules of mutual respect and tolerance will be set before discussions begin.

• Accept that there may be multiple perspectives and encourage the discussion of alternate views.

WHO IS UNDERTAKING AND WHO IS SPONSORING THE PROJECT? • Project Funded by: Enterprise Education UK and Research Project Fund • Undertaken by: University of Sheffield Enterprise, USE.

• Primary Project contact & key investigator: Chrissie Elliott, Enterprise Mapping Assistant • Project leader & key investigator: Maria Barluenga, Enterprise Learning Development Officer • Key investigator: Ali Riley, Enterprise Learning Development Officer

POTENTIAL RISKS AND INCONVENIENCES

• The focus of the research does not intentionally engage with physical or psychological aspects of participants.

• Inconvenience may be deemed as ‘harm’ in terms of the time taken to complete the questionnaire, and

that taken to attend the focus group. This is deemed to be justified by the aim of the research, which is to benefit University of Sheffield students by gauging their current opinions of enterprise and using this

research to feed into future curriculum strategies. • The focus groups may have the potential to make participants feel uncomfortable (due to shyness,

nerves, or a pressure to provide ‘correct’ answer etc). The introduction, by the group facilitator and

clear explanation of the group protocol, will aim to alleviate any worries or concerns about participation. It will also be made clear participants can leave the group at any point if they feel uncomfortable. Again the benefit as mentioned previously is intended to justify the method of

research. • Participants may become concerned that their personal opinions about a course or university

experience may be fed back to their course leaders, which may affect them in an adverse manner. The

informed consent and protection of personal data will be clearly explained to participants, reassuring them their personally-‐identifiable responses are confidential and will not be shared beyond the research group. Again, the aim of the research will be for student benefit and not to prejudice them in any way.

• During focus groups participants may be wary of disclosing their opinions in front of other participants. In this case participants will all be made aware that the discussion and information shared within the group is not to be discussed beyond the group, which will be covered in the informed consent element.

If any participant does not wish to share information they will be reassured this is fine and their choice. If they wish to discuss anything in private away from the group this will be accounted for, but they are in no way obliged to disclose any information they are uncomfortable with in a group or individual

interview context without their consent.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS THAT MAY RESULT The methods of research are deemed to be justified by the aims of the research, which is to benefit University of Sheffield students by gauging their current opinions of enterprise and using this research to feed into future

curriculum strategies. Specifically the benefits proposed are:

• To gather student’s priorities and perceptions of enterprise skills within their curriculum.

• To define a plan of action to incorporate the student feedback into study programmes. Set strategies and specific interventions at the faculty level to incorporate students’ feedback analysed in the research.

• To improve the quality of the student learning experience and increase their participation in shaping enterprise provision at The University of Sheffield.

• To analyse any changes in students’ perceptions of enterprise skills throughout their higher education experience.

• Identification of barriers to gaining enterprise skills through the curriculum.

• Students are able to articulate their engagement with enterprise skills.

CONSEQUENCES OF NON-‐PARTICIPATION There will be no direct consequences to individuals who do not wish to participate with the research. However, in order to further understand and develop the student enterprise learning experience at TUoS, it is of benefit

for students to participate in the research. Should non-‐participation occur it limits the range of student perceptions and opinions of enterprise, which in turn restricts the level of input to their enterprise curriculum and learning development.

SAFEGUARDING PARTICIPANT CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA STORAGE

• The survey can be filled in anonymously. The only request for personal information will be if the participant wishes to be entered into the prize draw. This information will be held only for this purpose

and will not or need to be shared outside of the research project. • Participants involved in the focus groups will need to disclose their name and email address in order for

the facilitator to contact them to attend the group. However, any transcripts or citations of participant

responses during the focus groups will be given pseudonyms or participant numbers, so individuals will be not identifiable beyond the research group.

• The main research project leader and key investigators will act as custodians for the data generated by

the project. Analysis of the data will take place within the department and be analysed by one of the research team. The research team will have access to the data, the analysis and findings will be used to inform university wide strategy, which will be disseminated via report/presentations across all faculties.

ETHICAL STATEMENT

This study has been approved by the University of Sheffield Enterprise Department Ethics Committee in line with University policy. All information received is anonymous, confidential, and will be used for research purposes only. Volunteers have the right to withdraw their consent at any time during the study and if they wish

for their data to be erased please contact the researcher. For any questions, concerns, or feedback, please feel free to contact Chrissie Elliott on

[email protected] Information related to this message is available at

https://www.surveymonkey.com/http://www.surveymonkey.net/MySurvey_EditorFull.aspx?sm=hkBLowelFZiHwaJ0Ic%2buKTP%2btn74fXAPZ2Qwbwyztu4%3d

Appendix C

26/09/2013 University of Sheffield Mail - STUDENTS of Electronic and Electrical Engineering - YOU could Win £100 in 10mins via Enterprise research project! !

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d910f1b365&view=pt&search=sent&msg=13b51f6feecd7bc8 1/2

Christina Elliott <[email protected]>

STUDENTS of Electronic and Electrical Engineering - YOU could Win £100in 10mins via Enterprise research project!!

Christina Elliott <[email protected]> 30 November 2012 15:37To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

To all students of Electronic and Electrical Engineering

USE would love to know more about YOU & ENTERPRISE. We’re askingstudents to have a say about their experience of enterprise, and potentially winprizes at the same time. It’s a win, win situation!!

All you have to do is fill out a simple 5 to 10 minute survey, for the chance towin 1 of 3 prizes. The first 300 entrants will be entered into the prize draw, soit pays to be ‘enterprising’ and do it today!

PRIZE DRAW

1st - £100 Amazon voucher

2nd - £75 Amazon voucher

3rd - £50 Amazon voucher

Complete the survey NOW by clicking on the following link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VBL9KPF

And there’s more….. a further chance to have your say by coming along to afocus group. We want to hear your voice and opinions, as well as giving youentry into another prize draw. Yes, we are that good at USE!

On a serious note: The info you provide is key to us gaining student views of enterprise, and creating waysto include enterprise within your uni experience. USE want to enrich your time here, give you the best we canand send you out well equipped into the world of work!

This study has been approved by the University of Sheffield Enterprise Department Ethics Committee in linewith University policy. All information received is anonymous, confidential, and will be used for researchpurposes only. Volunteers have the right to withdraw their consent at any time during the study and if theywish for their data to be erased please contact the researcher.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VBL9KPF

26/09/2013 University of Sheffield Mail - STUDENTS of Electronic and Electrical Engineering - YOU could Win £100 in 10mins via Enterprise research project! !

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d910f1b365&view=pt&search=sent&msg=13b51f6feecd7bc8 2/2

Thanks for taking part!

University of Sheffield Enterprise, USE

Chrissie ElliottEnterprise Mapping AssistantUniversity of Sheffield Enterprise

Enterprise Zone (opposite Regent Court) | Portobello | Sheffield S1 4DPT +44 (0) 114 222 4041 (Ext: 24041) | F +44 (0) 114 222 4042 | E [email protected]

Times Higher Education University of the Year______________________________________________________

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity towhich it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not theintended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intendedrecipient, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and then delete this message from yoursystem. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution and/or reproduction of this messageand/or any attachments by unintended recipients is unauthorised and may be unlawful. Furthermore, althoughwe have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, we advise you to perform yourown virus checks on any attachment to this message. We do not accept liability for any loss or damagecaused by software viruses.

mailto:[email protected]

http://enterprise.shef.ac.uk/


http://twitter.com/ushefenterprise

http://facebook.com/ushefenterprise

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/chrissie-elliott/20/754/967

http://youtube.com/user/ushefenterprise

Appendix D

University Research Ethics Application Form for Staff

in Student Services

This form has been approved by the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC)

Date: 20.11.12 Name of applicant: Christina Elliott Research project title: Enhancement of curricular enterprise education incorporating students’

perceptions and feedback at the University of Sheffield. This form should be completed by any member of Student Services staff who intends to undertake a project that involves human participants, personal data or human tissue. The form consists of 4 parts: PART A: Basic details form: requests key identifying information about you and the project. PART B: Pre-‐ethics review form: it is recommended that this part is completed to assist you in deciding whether your project constitutes research and needs to be ethically reviewed. PART C: Ethics review form: this part MUST be completed if your project constitutes research and requires ethical review. PART D: Risk assessment checklist: it is recommended that this part is completed to assist you in identifying whether your research project needs to be ethically reviewed via the LOW RISK or HIGH RISK ethics review procedure.

How do I arrange for my project to be ethically reviewed? If your project DOES constitute research and needs to be submitted for ethical review, arrange for the project to be ethically reviewed according to either the LOW RISK or HIGH RISK procedures outlined below. The form should be accompanied by any information sheets/covering letters/written scripts which you propose to use to inform the prospective participants about the proposed research, and/or by a consent form where you need to use one; for guidance on the informed consent process, refer to Research Ethics Policy Note No.2: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-‐ethics/ethicspolicy/policy-‐notes/consent.

If your project is classed as ‘LOW RISK’ it will be reviewed by the nominated person within your Section: • Email the completed form, together with other documents where applicable, to the nominated

person within your Section; and • Sign and date Annex 1 of this form and provide a paper copy to the nominated person.

Important note for the nominated person:

2

Following the ethics review the nominated person who has reviewed the application must provide the Student Services’ Ethics Administrator with a copy of the this research ethics application that s/he reviewed, a copy of the ethics reviewers comments form which s/he completed in relation to it and confirmation of the final ethics decision. The Ethics Administrator reserves the right to consult the Chair of the Student Services Ethics Review Panel (or equivalent) if s/he has concerns that projects classed as low risk should in fact have been classed as potentially high risk.

If your project is classed as potentially ‘HIGH RISK’ it will be reviewed by three reviewers from the Students Services Ethics Review Panel: • Email the completed form, together with any supporting documents where applicable to the

Student Services Ethics Administrator; and • Sign and date Annex 1 of this form and provide a paper copy of it to the Student Services’ Ethics

Administrator. ADDITIONAL NOTE FOR PROJECTS THAT WILL BE REPEATED ON A REGULAR BASIS: If you intend to run the same project on a regular basis (e.g. annually), then a single ethics approval will be necessary; please tick the box on the right-‐hand side of this page to indicate if this is the case. However, please note that if significant changes are made to the project in future, then re-‐approval may be required. Applicants should refer to section 3.1.8 of the ‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue’ for further guidance: www.shef.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-‐ethics/ethicspolicy/approval-‐procedure/review-‐procedure/changes-‐made-‐after-‐approval

3

Part A -‐ Basic Details Form

A1. Title of Research Project: Enhancement of curricular enterprise education incorporating students’ perceptions and feedback at the University of Sheffield. A2. Project leader: Title: Mrs Post: Enterprise Learning Development Officer

Email: [email protected]

Name: Maria C. Barluenga Department: Enterprise Telephone: 0114 222 4033

A2.1. Other key investigators/co-‐applicants (within/outside University), where applicable. Please

list all (add more if necessary): Title: Miss Post: Enterprise Mapping Assistant Email: [email protected]

Name: Christina Elliott Department: Enterprise Telephone: 0114 222 4041

A3. Proposed Project Duration:

Start date: 21.11.12 End date: 31.07.12

A4. Briefly summarise:

i. The project’s aims and objectives: (this must be in language comprehensible to a lay person)

• To identify the gaps between embedded enterprise in the curriculum as stated by academics in a previous enterprise mapping exercise and the perception expressed by the students.

• To detect student’s priorities and perceptions of enterprise skills within their curriculum. • To define a plan of action to incorporate the student feedback into study programmes. • The overall objective of this project is to improve the quality of the student learning

experience and increase their participation in shaping enterprise provision at The University of Sheffield.

The specific aims of the project are to: 1. Review prior data on student perceptions of enterprise skills (from spring 2012 mapping exercise) 2. Explore current student perceptions of what is considered as enterprise skills and how this may vary within and across disciplines 3. Analyse any changes in students’ perceptions of enterprise skills throughout their higher education experience. 4. Identify barriers to gaining enterprise skills through the curriculum 5. Carry out a reflective analysis of perceptions and barriers, trying to answer the following questions:

• Is there a disparity between the amount of ‘enterprise’ embedded in the curriculum as stated by academic staff and the amount of ‘enterprise’ embedded in the curriculum as perceived by students?

• Are students able to articulate their learning of enterprise skills?

4

• If so, in what terms do they articulate it? • Do any particular types of embedded enterprise activity lead to a clearer articulation of the

learning of these skills by students? • Are students aware of the value of being able to articulate their learning of enterprise skills,

for example to aid their employability? 6. Set strategies and specific interventions at the faculty level to incorporate students’ feedback analysed in the research.

ii. The project’s methodology: (this must be in language comprehensible to a lay person)

We are using a multi-‐method approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. Qualitative methods will provide a better description and explanation of the quantitative data obtained. Students’ perceptions and awareness of the enterprise skills obtained through the curriculum will be gathered using: QUANTITATIVE and QUALITATIVE 1. Survey: We will use a random sample of students from a range of courses and levels to answer a questionnaire with open and closed questions. Thematic blocks will include: a. Background information on the student (age, level, course...) b. Students’ perceptions on importance of enterprise c. Students’ perceptions on whether they are learning enterprise skills through the curriculum. d. Space for comments with ideas not covered in other sections. QUALITATIVE 2. Focus groups of 5/6 people, using a structured script, will be carried out by level and study programme. The aim of the groups is to back up the data collected from questionnaires. The group interviews will be carried out to obtain qualitative information and provide a more complete picture of the perceptions of enterprise. Interviews will be recorded (granted interviewees’ permission) for a posterior in depth analysis.

5

Part B -‐ Pre-‐Ethics Review Form

This part of the form, whilst not part of the University Ethics Review Procedure itself, has been recommended by Student Services and the UREC in order to assist staff in identifying whether their project constitutes research and therefore requires ethical approval. B5. Project classification Please read each of the following definitions and select the relevant definition for your project. [Definition of research taken from the University of Sheffield ‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue’. Definitions of audit and service evaluation from King’s College London.]

Type of project

Definition

Tick if applies to

your project

Research

‘Research’ includes all investigation undertaken in order to acquire knowledge and understanding, across the full range of academic disciplines, from the arts and humanities to the natural sciences (whether funded or not), and also encompassing administrative research undertaken within, or on behalf of, professional services departments. Research which involves human participants, personal data or human tissue requires ethical approval.

Audit

Audit is defined as assessing the level of service being provided against a set of predetermined standards. This generally involves analysing existing data with results usually being used/distributed locally in order to effect change to improve/change the level of service currently being provided. Audit does not require ethical approval.

Service evaluation

Service evaluation is undertaken to benefit those who use a particular service and is designed and conducted solely to define or judge current service. Your participants will normally be those who use the service or deliver it. It involves an intervention where there is no change to the standard service being delivered (e.g. no randomisation of service users into different groups). Service evaluation does not require ethical approval.

Note regarding projects classed as audit or service evaluation: Such projects do not require ethical approval. However, these projects may still present ethical issues which should be considered. Particular attention should be paid to projects which will involve particularly vulnerable participants – whether directly, or in terms of personal data about them – and/or which address highly sensitive topics (for further guidance refer to section 3.1.4 of the Ethics Policy:www.shef.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-‐ethics/ethicspolicy/approval-‐procedure/review-‐procedure/assessing-‐risk Note regarding projects that cannot clearly be classed as research: Some projects may fall into a grey area which cannot be classed as service evaluation or audit, but for which it is not clear whether they should be classed as research either – for

6

such projects, the default position is that they should be treated as research for the purposes of ethical review, UNLESS you can provide a clear justification for why the project should not be classed as research. If you are providing a justification for why this project should not be classed as research, please do so in the space below:

What should I do now? If the project is classed as research – Ethical review is required; please complete Parts C and D of this form, and the declaration at Annex 1. Submit the form for ethical review according to the LOW RISK ethics review procedure (within the Section) or the HIGH RISK ethics review procedure (by Panel) (see guidance on the cover page of this application form). If the project is classed as service evaluation or audit, or if you have provided a justification for why the project should not be classed as research – Ethical review is not required. Please complete the declaration at Annex 1 (you are not required to complete Parts C and D of this form). Email the form and provide a signed, hard copy of ‘Annex 1’ to the Student Services Ethics Administrator. You should also keep a record of this form.

7

Part C -‐ Ethics Review Form

Please complete this part of the form if your project is classed as research and requires ethical review.

It is recommended that you familiarise yourself with the University’s Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue before completing the following questions. Please note that if you provide sufficient information about the research (what you intend to do, how it will be carried out and how you intend to minimise any risks), this will help the ethics reviewers to make an informed judgement quickly without having to ask for further details.

I confirm that I have read the current version of the University of Sheffield ‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue’, as shown on the University’s research ethics website at: www.shef.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-‐ethics/ethicspolicy

C6. What is the potential for physical and/or psychological harm/distress to participants?

The focus of the research does not intentionally engage with physical or psychological aspects of participants. Inconvenience may be deemed as ‘harm’ in terms of the time taken to complete the questionnaire, and that taken to attend the focus group. This is deemed to be justified by the aim of the research, which is to benefit University of Sheffield students by gauging their current opinions of enterprise and using this research to feed into future curriculum strategies. Students will be made aware of the time needed at the beginning of the survey and on the invite to the focus group. The focus groups may have the potential to make participants feel uncomfortable (due to shyness, nerves, or a pressure to provide ‘correct’ answer etc). The introduction, by the group facilitator and clear explanation of the group protocol, will aim to alleviate any worries or concerns about participation. It will also be made clear participants can leave the group at any point if they feel uncomfortable. Again the benefit as mentioned previously is intended to justify the method of research. Participants may become concerned that their personal opinions about a course or university experience may be fed back to their course leaders, which may affect them in an adverse manner. The informed consent and protection of personal data will be clearly explained to participants, reassuring them their personally-‐identifiable responses are confidential and will not be shared beyond the research group. Again, the aim of the research will be for student benefit and not to prejudice them in any way. During focus groups participants may be wary of disclosing their opinions in front of other participants. In this case participants will all be made aware that the discussion and information shared within the group is not to be discussed beyond the group, which will be covered in the informed consent element. If any participant does not wish to share information they will be reassured this is fine and their choice. If they wish to discuss anything in private away from the group this will be accounted for, but they are in no way obliged to disclose any information they are uncomfortable with in a group or individual interview context without their consent.

8

C7. Does your research raise any issues of personal safety for you or other researchers involved in the project? (especially if taking place outside working hours or off University premises)

Focus groups and out of hours working.

If yes, explain how these issues will be managed.

Focus groups will be led by a moderator/facilitator and a co-‐assistant to record data; ensuring 2 people are always present. The groups will be held within University premises and senior personnel will be notified of any out of hours working. Provide these factors are managed; the focus groups present a low risk component to the research project. C8. How will the potential participants in the project be:

i. Identified?

The questionnaire and focus groups are targeted towards the whole of the university; therefore the identified participants are University of Sheffield students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. ii. Approached?

The questionnaire and notification of the focus group will be issued through the student My Announcement section of Muse, and will be emailed with specific reference to each student’s department via the central email system. Within the email will be a link to SurveyMonkey, participants will be forwarded to the website to complete a questionnaire. Incentives will be used with the intention to improve the number and speed of returns, with the option to add name and a contact email address in order to receive prizes. iii. Recruited?

Through the questionnaire students will have the option to attend a focus group. Participants will be arranged in focus groups according to subject of study and level of study. Should the number of participants for focus groups exceed the anticipated response, selection will be made through further random sample. C9. Will informed consent be obtained from the participants?

Yes No

If informed consent or consent is NOT to be obtained please explain why. Further guidance is at: www.shef.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-‐ethics/ethicspolicy/policy-‐notes/consent

N/A C9.1. This question is only applicable if you are planning to obtain informed consent:

How do you plan to obtain informed consent? (i.e. the proposed process?):

All information to comply with informed consent will be covered at the beginning of the questionnaire. Participants will be asked to indicate they have given their consent to take part in the research process. For the focus group, informed consent will be acquired by signing a consent form

9

prior to the focus group taking place, which again will contain all information. The informed consent will cover the following areas;

• the research methods to be employed by the project; • full explanation of any technical terms used; • the conditions under which the project will be conducted; • who is undertaking and who is sponsoring the project; • the potential risks and inconveniences that may arise; • the potential benefits that may result; • what participation in the research will require in practice; • how participant confidentiality will be safeguarded; • what will happen to the data and how it will be stored; • how to raise concerns, or to complain, about the research, and to whom; and • the consequences of non-‐participation

Remember to attach your consent form and information sheet (where appropriate) C10. What measures will be put in place to ensure confidentiality of personal data, where

appropriate?

The survey can be filled in anonymously. The only request for personal information will be if the participant wishes to be entered into the prize draw. This information will be held only for this purpose and will not or need to be shared outside of the research project. Participants involved in the focus groups will need to disclose their name and email address in order for the facilitator to contact them to attend the group. However, any transcripts or citations of participant responses during the focus groups will be given pseudonyms or participant numbers, so individuals will be not identifiable beyond the research group. The main research project leader and key investigators will act as custodians for the data generated by the project. Analysis of the data will take place within the department and be analysed by one of the research team. The research team will have access to the data, the analysis and findings will be used to inform university wide strategy, which will be disseminated via report/presentations across all faculties. C11. Will financial/in kind payments (other than reasonable expenses and compensation for

time) be offered to participants? (Indicate how much and on what basis this has been decided)

Entrance into a prize draw, using voucher incentives (Amazon), will be offered for completion of the questionnaire, and then a second prize draw for those attending the focus groups. These will be offered in the following format: The first 300 students to reply will be entered into a Prize Draw with the following prizes: 1st £100 2nd £75 3rd £50

10

The students that enter the focus groups will be entered into a Prize Draw for their corresponding year group. There will be 3 year groups – 2nd years, 3rd /4th years, Postgraduate students. 1st £50 x 3 2nd £35 x 3 3rd £25 x 3 Additionally, tea, coffee and biscuits will be available for participants attending the focus groups. C12. Will the research involve the production of recorded media such as audio and/or video

recordings?

YES NO C12.1. This question is only applicable if you are planning to produce recorded media:

How will you ensure that there is a clear agreement with participants as to how these recorded media may be stored, used and (if appropriate) destroyed?

Participants at the focus groups will be made aware of the recording via the informed consent form, which will also denote the recording and use of audio recordings via the following paragraph: ‘The audio and/or video recordings of your activities made during this research will be used only for analysis and for illustration in conference presentations and lectures. No other use will be made of them without your written permission, and no one outside the project will be allowed access to the original recordings.

Guidance on a range of ethical issues, including safety and well-‐being, consent and anonymity, confidentiality and data protection are available at: www.shef.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-‐ethics/ethicspolicy/policy-‐notes

11

Part D -‐ Risk Assessment Checklist

It is recommended that you complete this part of the form to assist you in identifying whether your research project needs to be ethically reviewed via the LOW RISK ethics review procedure (within the Section) or the HIGH RISK ethics review procedure (by Panel). The risk assessment checklist should be considered as a guide to aspects of a project which may be risky, but should not be considered a complete list. If you are in any doubt about the level of risk posed by the project, you should consult the nominated person within your Section to agree an appropriate level of risk. Mark ‘X’ in one or more of the following boxes if your research involves:

People whose competence to exercise informed consent is in doubt, such as: • infants and children under 18 years of age; • people who lack mental capacity; • people who suffer from psychiatric or personality disorders, including those conditions in which

capacity to consent may fluctuate; and • people who may have only a basic or elementary knowledge of the language in which the research

is conducted.

People who may socially not be in a position to exercise unfettered informed consent, such as: • people who depend on the protection of, or are controlled and influenced by, research

gatekeepers (e.g. school pupils, children and young people in care, members of the armed forces, young offenders, prisoners, asylum seekers, organisational employees);

• family members of the researcher(s); and • in general, people who appear to feel they have no real choice on whether or not to participate.

People whose circumstances may unduly influence their decisions to consent, such as: • people with disabilities; • people who are frail or in poor health; • relatives and friends of participants considered to be vulnerable; • people who feel that participation will result in access to better treatment and/or support for

them or others; • people who anticipate any other perceived benefits of participation; and • people who, by participating in research, can obtain perceived and/or real benefits to which they

otherwise would not have access.

Potentially highly sensitive topics; these may include: • 'race' or ethnicity; • political opinion; • religious, spiritual or other beliefs; • physical or mental health conditions; • sexuality; • abuse (child, adult); • nudity and the body; • criminal activities; • political asylum; • conflict situations; and • personal violence.

If a box has been ticked against any of the above statements, or if you feel that the project should be classed as potentially high risk for any other reason, you should now follow the ethical review procedure for HIGH RISK research. The project will be reviewed by three ethics reviewers from the Student Services Ethics Review Panel (see guidance on the cover page of this application form). If no boxes have been ticked against any of the above statements then the project can be classed as low risk and should now follow the ethical review procedure for LOW RISK research. The project will be reviewed by the nominated person within your Section (see guidance on the cover page of this application form).

12

Annex 1 -‐ The Signed Declaration

Title of Research Project:

Enhancement of curricular enterprise education incorporating students’ perceptions and feedback at the University of Sheffield.

I confirm my responsibility to deliver the research project in accordance with the University of Sheffield’s policies and procedures, which include the University’s ‘Financial Regulations’, ‘Good Research Practice Standards’ and the ‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue’ (Ethics Policy) and, where externally funded, with the terms and conditions of the research funder.

In signing this research ethics application form I am also confirming that: • The form is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

• The project will abide by the University’s Ethics Policy, where necessary.

• There is no potential material interest that may, or may appear to, impair the independence and objectivity of researchers conducting this project.

• Subject to the research being approved where required, I undertake to adhere to the project protocol without unagreed deviation and to comply with any conditions set out in the letter from the University ethics reviewers notifying me of this.

• I undertake to inform the ethics reviewers of significant changes to the protocol, should ethics approval be required (by contacting the Student Services Ethics Administrator in the first instance).

• I am aware of my responsibility to be up to date and comply with the requirements of the law and relevant guidelines relating to security and confidentiality of personal data, including the need to register when necessary with the appropriate Data Protection Officer (within the University the Data Protection Officer is based in CiCS).

• I understand that the project, including research records and data, may be subject to inspection for audit purposes, if required in future.

• I understand that personal data about me as a researcher in this form will be held by those involved in the University Ethics Review Procedure (e.g. the Ethics Administrator and/or ethics reviewers) and that this will be managed according to Data Protection Act principles.

Name of the project leader:

Maria C. Barluenga Signature of the project leader:

Date:21.11.2012

What should I do now? Submit the application form for ethical review according to the LOW RISK ethics review procedure (within the Section) or the HIGH RISK ethics review procedure (by Panel) (see guidance on the cover page of this application form).

Appendix E

STUDENT SERVICES ETHICS REVIEWER’S COMMENTS FORM

This form is for use when ethically reviewing a research ethics application form, by either Student Services’ Ethics Reviewers (if high risk), or Nominated Persons within Sections (if low risk). 1. Name of Ethics Reviewer/Nominated Person:

Alison Riley (was Bestwick)

2. Research Project Title: Enhancement of curricular enterprise

education incorporating students’ perceptions and feedback at the University of Sheffield.

3. Project Leader: Maria Barluenga 4. Section: University of Sheffield Enterprise

5. I confirm that I do not have a conflict of interest with the project application

6. I confirm that, in my judgment, the application should:

Be approved:

Be approved with suggested

amendments in ‘7’ below:

Be approved providing requirements

specified in ‘8’ below are met:

NOT be approved for the reason(s)

given in ‘9’ below:

YES 7. Approved with the following suggested, optional amendments (i.e. it is left to the discretion of the applicant whether or not to accept the amendments and, if accepted, the ethics reviewers do not need to see the amendments): 8. Approved providing the following, compulsory requirements are met (i.e. the ethics reviewers need to see the required changes): 9. Not approved for the following reason(s): 10. Date of Ethics Review: 27 November 2012

and/or

Appendix F

04/09/2013 University of Sheffield Mail - Research & Ethics form and Informed Consent

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d910f1b365&view=pt&as_from=a.h.riley%40sheffield.ac.uk%2C&as_has=ethics review&as_subset=all&as_within… 2/2

Alison H Riley <[email protected]> 27 November 2012 15:42To: Christina Elliott <[email protected]>

Dear Chrissie

Please find my athics review form attached. As you can see your project has been approved by the Universityof Sheffield Enterprise's ethics review committee. I will be notifying the Ethics Review Administrator of mydecision shortly.

Ali[Quoted text hidden]

SSD-Reviewer-Comments-Form.doc34K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d910f1b365&view=att&th=13b428841241936a&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_ha171lzf2&safe=1&zw

Appendix G

Appendix H

FOCUS GROUP SCRIPT AND NOTES

RECOGNITION 1. What words do you associate with ‘enterprise’? Post-‐its

2. Do you recognise any of these themes within your course? Someone to scribe on flip chart – creates themes.

3. What significance, if any, does enterprise play in your course? Write answers on another flip chart sheet.

4. Can you describe any other activities within University which you consider to be enterprising? Will makes notes, with particular reference to the participants’ course.

DESCRIPTION & CRITERIA 5. What are your initial thoughts on this definition of enterprise? Participant scribes on flip chart.

6. How does this definition compare with your initial descriptions of enterprise? Will makes notes, to capture any particular differences in descriptions/interpretations.

SKILL ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT 7. What enterprising skills are important to you and does your course satisfactorily give you experience of

them?

Will makes notes, any particular points Chrissie writes on flip chart. 8. What could we do to make your course more enterprising?

Post-‐its and past on the wall. 9. How can we help students to reflect more upon their course content to identify enterprising skill sets and

how should this be done? Chrissie scribes on flip chart.

10. Do you have any ideas about how enterprise should be incorporated and assessed within your course? Participant writes on flip chart.

FUTURE APPLICATIONS 11. What effect do you think including enterprise into your course will have on your future career path?

Will to make notes – flip chart if necessary. 12. If you were to re-‐write your CV/Resume to include references to the enterprising skills you have

experienced in your course what skills would these be and what example would you use to back them up? Each participant has an A5 piece of paper (orange), and is given 1 or 2 minutes to come up with ideas.

Appendix J

26/09/2013 University of Sheffield Mail - STUDENTS of Psychology - Focus Group opportunity for Enterprise research project

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d910f1b365&view=pt&search=sent&msg=13c80f5fb6b00bb4 1/3

Christina Elliott <[email protected]>

STUDENTS of Psychology - Focus Group opportunity for Enterpriseresearch project

Christina Elliott <[email protected]> 28 January 2013 11:41To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Students of Psychology

Following on from our recent student survey regarding your experience ofenterprise, USE (University of Sheffield Enterprise) will be running focusgroups during February to gain further qualitative information about YOURexperience of Embedded Enterprise.

We are currently looking for students from Psychology to have a say abouttheir experience of enterprise, by taking part in a focus group coordinated by USE.

This is a university-wide research project, supported by EEUK (EnterpriseEducation and Research Project Fund), which will provide beneficialenterprise research for all University of Sheffield students. Additionally, takingpart in a focus group provides valuable participatory experience of a researchstudy.

PLUSParticipants who take part in a focus group will also be entered into 1 of 3 prize

draws, dependent on year group - 2nd Year UG students, 3rd Year UG +students and Taught Postgraduate students.

An opportunity to perhaps ease the cost of those new term books, eachof the 3 draws will have the following prizes:

1st - £50 Amazon voucher

2nd - £35 Amazon voucher

3rd - £25 Amazon voucher

Given the project numbers needed from year groups and departments, those taking part in a focus group willhave a 1 in 66 (approx) chance of winning a prize.

The focus group will last a maximum of 1 hour and free refreshments will



be provided. We are hoping to work with 6 students from this department

comprised of 2nd year, 3rd year + and taught postgraduate study.

Please drop a reply to [email protected] if you wish to take part,and simply state the most convenient day(s) & time(s) (options below), with your

department name, course, year of study and whether you responded to the

previously issued survey. Note: it does not matter if you didn't respond to the survey

before, this can still be completed, no worries.

Day: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu and/or Fri

Times: 9am-12pm, 12-2pm, 2-5pm, and/or 5-7pm.

We are trying to arrange the focus groups during February when the academic timetable is quieter and at atime most mutually agreeable for students within your department.

On a serious note: The info you provide is key to us gaining student views of enterprise,and creating ways to include enterprise within your uni experience. USE wants to enrichyour time here, give you the best we can and send you out well equipped into the world ofwork!

This study has been approved by the University of Sheffield Enterprise Department EthicsCommittee in line with University policy. All information received is anonymous, confidential,and will be used for research purposes only. Volunteers have the right to withdraw theirconsent at any time during the study and if they wish for their data to be erased pleasecontact the researcher.

Thanks for taking part!


-- Chrissie ElliottEnterprise Mapping AssistantUniversity of Sheffield Enterprise

Enterprise Zone (opposite Regent Court) | Portobello | Sheffield S1 4DPT +44 (0) 114 222 4041 (Ext: 24041) | F +44 (0) 114 222 4042 | E [email protected]

Times Higher Education University of the Year





http://twitter.com/ushefenterprise

http://facebook.com/ushefenterprise

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/chrissie-elliott/20/754/967

http://youtube.com/user/ushefenterprise



______________________________________________________

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity towhich it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not theintended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the communication to the intendedrecipient, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and then delete this message from yoursystem. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution and/or reproduction of this messageand/or any attachments by unintended recipients is unauthorised and may be unlawful. Furthermore, althoughwe have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, we advise you to perform yourown virus checks on any attachment to this message. We do not accept liability for any loss or damagecaused by software viruses.

Appendix K

TO ALL 2ND YEAR, 3RD YEAR + AND TAUGHT POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS,

Following on from our recent student survey regarding your experience of

enterprise, USE (University of Sheffield Enterprise) will be running

to gain further qualitative

information about YOUR experience of Embedded Enterprise. We are currently looking for students to take part in focus groups coordinated by USE. You DO NOT have to be an 'expert' in enterprise, the groups are to discuss how or even if you feel you have encountered enterprise within your studies at Sheffield. Taking part in a focus group also provides valuable participatory experience of a research study and enterprise research to benefit all University of Sheffield students.

PRIZE DRAW

Participants who take part in a focus group will also be entered into 1 of 3 prize draws, dependent on year group - 2nd Year UG students, 3rd Year UG + students and Taught Postgraduate students. An opportunity to perhaps ease the cost of those new term books, each of the 3 draws will have the following prizes: 1st - £50, 2nd - £35, 3rd - £25 - Amazon vouchers The focus group will last a maximum of 1 hour and free refreshments will be provided. We are hoping to work with 6 students from each department. Please drop a reply to [email protected] if you wish to take part, and simply state the most convenient day(s) & time(s) (options below), with your department name, course, year of study and whether you responded to the previously issued survey. Note: it does not matter if you didn't respond to the survey, this can still be completed no problem. Day: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu and/or Fri Times: 9am-12pm, 12-2pm, 2-5pm, and/or 5-7pm. On a serious note: This study has been approved by the University of Sheffield Enterprise Department Ethics Committee in line with University policy. All information received is anonymous, confidential, and will be used for research purposes only. Volunteers have the right to withdraw their consent at any time during the study and if they wish for their data to be erased please contact the researcher.

Thanks for taking part! University of Sheffield Enterprise, USE


Appendix L

TWITTER

Have you signed up to take part in one of our focus groups? If not, sign up to have your say about your enterprise education experience. Have you signed up to take part in one of our focus groups? Sign up now www.(link to enterprise blog)… Send out: Every other day for 2 weeks

BLOG

ENTERPRISE EDUCATION FOCUS GROUP INFO

Following on from our recent student survey regarding your experience of enterprise, USE (University of Sheffield Enterprise) will be running focus groups during February and early March to gain further qualitative information of students’ experiences of ‘Embedded Enterprise’.

By ‘Embedded Enterprise’ we mean the presence of enterprising characteristics within your course or specific module curriculum. (For further info see Enterprising Criteria.) Embedded Enterprise aims to provide opportunities for students to become creative problem-solvers, apply their specific academic knowledge into real life situations and develop skills managing limited resources under uncertainty. We believe this creates a richer learning experience for students, aids conditions to develop confidence and enhances employability.

To attend a focus group you do not have to be an 'expert' in enterprise by any means, our aim is for students from all departments and courses to express their opinions and discuss how, or even if, they have encountered enterprise during their studies at Sheffield.

This is a university-wide research project, supported by EEUK (Enterprise Education and Research Project Fund), which will provide beneficial enterprise research, ultimately benefitting all University of Sheffield students. We appreciate you are all busy but, taking part in a focus group also provides valuable participatory experience of a research study.

PLUS

Participants who take part in a focus group will also be entered into 1 of 3 prize draws, dependent on year group - 2nd Year UG students, 3rd Year UG + students and Taught Postgraduate students.

An opportunity to perhaps ease the cost of those new term books, each of the 3 draws will have the following prizes:

1st - £50 Amazon voucher 2nd - £35 Amazon voucher 3rd - £25 Amazon voucher

The focus group will last a maximum of 1 hour and free refreshments will be provided. We are hoping to work with 6 students from this department comprised of 2nd year, 3rd year + and taught postgraduate study.

Please drop a reply to [email protected] if you wish to take part, and simply state the most convenient day(s) & time(s) (options below), with your department name, course, year of study and whether you responded to the previously issued survey. Note: it does not matter if you didn't respond to the survey before, this can still be completed, no worries.

Day: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu and/or Fri Times: 9am-12pm, 12-2pm, 2-5pm, and/or 5-7pm.

We are trying to arrange the focus groups during February and early March when the academic timetable is quieter and at mutually agreeable times for students within each specific department.

On a serious note: The info you provide is key to us gaining student views of enterprise, and creating ways to include enterprise within your uni experience. USE wants to enrich your time here, give you the best we can and send you out well equipped into the world of work! This study has been approved by the University of Sheffield Enterprise Department Ethics Committee in line with University policy. All information received is anonymous, confidential, and will be used for research purposes only. Volunteers have the right to withdraw their consent at any time during the study and if they wish for their data to be erased please contact the researcher.

Thank you and we hope to hear from you soon!


Appendix M

Appendix N

Template for reporting on student perceptions of enterprise education within

the curriculum at The University of Sheffield (Outcomes of a research project funded by

Enterprise Educators UK)

Faculty/Department: Faculty of Arts and Humanities/ Department 1

Breakdown of respondents

First year UG: 0%


Third Year or above UG:

26.3%

PG: 44.7%


Level of understanding of enterprise

The most common terms in this department associated with ‘enterprise’ were business/commerce (31% of respondents), and entrepreneurship/self-employment/startups (23.7%) before being given USE’s definition. It should be noted that in answering this question, the terms provided by respondents were not mutually exclusive.


Very Important 0%

Important 36.8%

Neutral 26.3%

Not very important 15.8%

Unimportant 7.9%

Don’t know 13.2%


Strongly agree 5.3%

Agree 18.4%

Neither agree nor disagree 23.7%

Disagree 39.5%

Strongly disagree 7.9%

Don’t know 5.3%


The majority of students that did recognise enterprise in their courses recognised it through learning outcomes or general understanding of the term.


“Perseverance” “Time management and working ahead” “Ability to relate to diverse groups of people and to convey information”

AFTER DEFINITION IS GIVEN: '...enterprise is about having ideas, doing something about them and taking advantage of opportunities to bring about change. It is about making things

happen.' (Enterprise Education Mission, Vision and Strategy 2012-2016)

Value of having a After being given USE’s definition, 68.9% of students said they

definition had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’.


Problem Inquiry and Response was a skill that students chose to highlight as one that they had experienced throughout their course.

Employability The majority (76.3%) of students in this department stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path.


The majority (7.1%) of students believed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum. Likelihood of signing up to a course with enterprise embedded within it was less overwhelming, with 34.2% seeing this as neither probably nor improbable.


Understanding of enterprise prior to provision of USE’s definition was broad, although there still seemed to be some emphasis on business commerce, as referred to above. This suggests some work required on awareness-raising and the dispelling of myths around the term ‘enterprise’.

Students who had taken modules identified as ‘enterprising’ saw them as very useful and inspiring, but also hard work.




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Arts and Humanities/ Department 2


First year UG: 8.3%



50%

PG: 25%



Just under one-third of students in this department associate ‘enterprise’ with business/commerce before being given USE’s definition, closely followed by money/profit and words associated with entrepreneurship and new ventures/start-ups. It should be noted that in answering this question, the terms provided by respondents were not mutually exclusive.


Very Important 0%

Important 25%

Neutral 25%


Unimportant 33.3%

Don’t know 1%


Strongly agree 0%

Agree 0%


Disagree 50%


Don’t know 8.3%




After being given USE’s definition, 58.4% of students said they had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’.


Problem Inquiry and Response was a skill that students chose to highlight as one that they had experienced a lot throughout their course.

Employability The majority (58.4%) of students in this department stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path. However, 41.7% disagreed that their current course included enough enterprise skills.


There were very mixed feelings amongst of students from the department about the importance of enterprise skills being included in the curriculum, with one-third agreeing, but 58.4% on the neutral-to-negative side. 50% of students also stated that enterprise embedded within their course would not be a deciding factor in course choice.


There were a large number of very emotive and highly politicised responses to the free-text questions in this survey from a significant number of students in the department. Perception of enterprise appears to be rather more negative within this discipline than elsewhere even within the Faculty.

Whilst over half of respondents recognised the connection between enterprise skills and employability, it appears there is work to be done in the department to dispel myths, raise awareness of the broader definition of enterprise and its associated values, address any serious concerns from students, and also to recognise where the embedding of enterprise is or is not appropriate.




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Engineering/ Department 1


First year UG: 2.6%



23.1%

PGT: 48.7%



The most common terms employed by students in this department to define Enterprise were: ‘a company or business’, ‘project undertaking’, ‘risk taking’ and ‘creativity and innovation’.


Very Important 28.2% Important 41.0% Neutral 25.6% Not very important 2.6% Unimportant 0% Don’t know 2.6% (69.2% of respondents believe enterprise in the curriculum is important or very important)


Strongly agree 5.1% Agree 17.9% Neither agree nor disagree 33.3% Disagree 33.3% Strongly disagree 7.7% Don’t know 2.6% (41% of respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed, and only 23% strongly agreed/agreed.)


20% of total respondents answered this question (e.g. only 20% of respondents believed that they recognised embedded enterprise in their course), and of these students, the majority (62.5%) felt that they had recognised this because they had an understanding of enterprise and could recognise the presence of enterprise skills development without it being made explicit.


Efficient selling of ideas, optimisation, independence and self-motivation. (Most respondents did not provide an example of particular enterprising skills recognised in their courses.)

AFTER DEFINITION IS GIVEN: '...enterprise is about having ideas, doing something about them and taking

advantage of opportunities to bring about change. It is about making things happen.'





The enterprising skills that most respondents from this department indicate as “having experienced” are Collaborative work and communication and Problem inquiry and response. Calculated risk taking appears to be the least experienced skill among students in this department of Engineering in their courses.

Employability The immense majority students in this department (97.5%) responded that enterprise is an important skill set to aid their future career path. Almost the same percentage of them agreed (28.2%) or disagreed (30.8%) with having enough enterprising skills to aid their employability included in their current course. Almost a third of them are uncertain about this point.


The majority (87.2%) of students agreed or strongly agreed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in their course curriculum, and none of the respondents disagreed. 74.3% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it.


The importance that students in this department placed on enterprise is significant and recurrent throughout their responses to the survey. However, before a definition of enterprise is given, very few students provided examples of particular skills recognised in their courses. After the definition, Problem inquiry and response and Collaborative work and communication are the skills most commonly identified by respondents. Practically all students believed enterprise to be very relevant for their employability and the large majority considered important to have opportunities to develop enterprising skills as part of their study programmes. Existing opportunities to do so, according to the students, seem not be enough at this time. Consequently, around 75% of them would be likely to take a course with embedded enterprise.

Annexe – Criteria and Strategy – to be attached later




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Engineering/ Department 2


First year UG: 0.0%



36.8%

PGT: 34.2%



The most common terms employed by students in this department to define Enterprise were: ‘a company or business’, ‘creativity and innovation’, ‘taking the initiative to achieve an outcome’, ‘working on a project’ and ‘generating profit’.


Very Important 26.3% Important 50.0% Neutral 13.2% Not very important 2.6% Unimportant 2.6% Don’t know 5.3% (76.3% of respondents believe enterprise in the curriculum is important or very important)


Strongly agree 7.9% Agree 31.6% Neither agree nor disagree 26.3% Disagree 34.2% Strongly disagree 0% Don’t know 0%


29% of total respondents answered this question (e.g. 29% of respondents believed that they recognised embedded enterprise in their course), and of these students, just over half of them (54.5%) felt that they had recognised this because they had an understanding of enterprise and could recognise the presence of enterprise skills development without it being made explicit.


Team work, creativity and innovation, cost analysis, problem solving, management, networking/liaising with externals.






The enterprising skill most commonly identified by students from this department in Engineering in their courses were Working with constrains and Collaborative work and communication. However, when asked about collaborative work with, specifically, external bodies and stakeholders, only one third of the students indicated having experience such skill. The area of skill development identified as weaker was Calculated risk taking, particularly Predicting the outcome of actions to encourage measured risk taking.

Employability Most of the students in this department (92.1%) indicated that they believe enterprise is important to enhance their employability. While 7.9% neither agreed nor disagreed, none of the respondents disagreed with the importance of enterprise for their career path. When asked about the content of their current course, 39.5% of students neither agreed nor disagreed that their course include enough enterprise skills development to aid their future career path, and 36.9% disagreed/strongly disagreed with this statement.


The majority (78.9%) of students agreed or strongly agreed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, and 60.5% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it.


Students from this department placed a high value in having enterprise in the curriculum, with more than ¾ of the respondents believing that is important or very important. This increases a few points after USE’s definition of enterprise is provided. In fact, providing a definition seems to be very useful for the large majority of the students to better understand the concept. They massively consider enterprising skills as a key component for their future career path, and most of them are either neutral or negative regarding the sufficiency of enterprising aspects in their current courses. Given these results, it is a bit surprising that when they are questioned about the impact it would make in their decisions the fact that a course has or not enterprise embedded, the score is not as high as in other questions, with 60.5% of respondents being likely to take a course with those characteristics.




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health / Department 1


First year UG: 0%

Second year UG: 28%


40%

PG: 32%



The most common terms associated with ‘enterprise’ by students in this department were business/commerce and/or creativity, innovation or new ideas (32% each), before being given USE’s definition. It should be noted that in answering this question, the terms provided by respondents were not mutually exclusive.


Very Important 0%

Important 36%

Neutral 40%

Not very important 8%

Unimportant 8%

Don’t know 8%


Strongly agree 0%

Agree 16%

Neither agree nor disagree 28%

Disagree 28%

Strongly disagree 20%

Don’t know 8%


Those students that did recognise enterprise in their courses recognised it through module title or general understanding of enterprise.


Independent research; information seeking and evaluation; application of readings on the impacts of research on clinical practice into assignments




After being given USE’s definition, 88% of students said they had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’

Criteria – key points Problem Enquiry and Response and Working with

– which particular skills experienced

Constraints were skills that students chose to highlight as ones that they had experienced a lot throughout their course

Employability The majority (88%) of students in this department stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path.


68% of students believed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, 32% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 36% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it. 24%, however, stated that this would not be a deciding factor.


Students in this Department, unsurprisingly perhaps given the discipline, and in common with many of their peers from other disciplines in the Faculty, had had substantial experience of working with constraints and problem-solving. Although enterprise was evidently perceived as valuable by a large majority of respondents, it was less clear cut whether students would consider it a deciding factor in choosing a course, suggesting there are many motivations for students studying this particular discipline.




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health / Department 2





38.1%

PG: 15.5%



Students in this department most commonly associate ‘enterprise’ with business/commerce (36%) and creativity/innovation/new ideas (29%) before being given USE’s definition. Entrepreneurship was also strongly recognised (18% of respondents). It should be noted that in answering this question, the terms provided by respondents were not mutually exclusive.


Very Important 6.5%

Important 16.8%

Neutral 27.7%


Unimportant 14.2%

Don’t know 6.5%


Strongly agree 1.9%

Agree 11%


Disagree 39.4%


Don’t know 13.5%


The majority of students that did recognise enterprise in their courses recognised it through: learning outcomes or general understanding (42.9% each, for respondents who answered this question).


Lateral thinking

Independent research

Team-work

Placements

Achieving targets

Learning about entrepreneurs , health costs, funding etc

Evaluating own skills


happen.'





Working with Constraints and Collaborative Work and Communication were skills that students chose to highlight as ones that they had experienced a lot throughout their course.

Employability The majority (66.4%) of students in this department stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path.


Although a majority (54.8%) of students agreed or strongly agreed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, enterprise did not appear to be a deciding factor in course choice.


Prior to USE’s definition of the term being provided, respondents’ own definitions and terms associated with the word ‘enterprise’ were very diverse.

Enterprise skills appear to have been valued highly by respondents as a potential component of their course. Whilst many students would not have considered the embedding of these activities as having significant impact on course choice, there was seen to be clear value to students’ general employability.




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Science/ Department 1


First year UG: 0%



46.3%

PGT: 22%



When asked to define enterprise, responses most frequently included terms such as business, entrepreneurship, and money/profit.


Very Important 9.8% Important 29.3% Neutral 34.1% Not very important 22% Unimportant 0% Don’t know 4.9% 39.1% of students thought enterprise in the curriculum was ‘very important’ or ‘important’. 22% of students believed enterprise to be not very important or unimportant.


Strongly agree 0% Agree 22% Neither agree nor disagree 34.1% Disagree 29.3% Strongly disagree 9.8% Don’t know 4.9%


22% of students chose to answer this question (i.e. 22% of students in this department believe that they have recognised embedded enterprise in their course at some point). Of these, most recognised the presence of enterprise skills through it being referred to specifically in the learning outcomes.


Business skills, management






Problem enquiry and response, calculated risk taking, experimenting with new approaches, and collaborative work and communications were all enterprising skills ‘often’ encountered by students. However, innovation and creativity were only experienced ‘sometimes’

Employability The majority (63.4%) of students in this department stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path. 29.2% of students agreed that their course contained enough enterprise skills development to aid their future career path, but 34.1% disagreed


The majority (63.4%) of students believed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, and 41.5% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it


Students in this department were overall fairly neutral about the value of embedded enterprise before USE’s definition was given. Post-definition a number of enterprise skills were identified as being encountered ‘often’, but innovation and creativity stood out as skills/opportunities that students did not feel they encountered often in their courses. Though two thirds of students felt enterprise was an important skill to aid their future career paths, less students would sign up to a module that contained embedded enterprise – perhaps this shows that some students would prefer to develop these skills outside of the curriculum.




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Science/ Department 2


First year UG: 0%



50%

PGT: 13.6%



When asked to define enterprise, students from this department often used terms such as business, entrepreneurship, and initiative.


Very Important 4.5% Important 18.2% Neutral 45.5% Not very important 18.2% Unimportant 9.1% Don’t know 4.5% Most (50%) of respondents from this survey responded as ‘neutral’ or ‘don’t know’ when asked how important they felt enterprise in the curriculum was to them. 22.7% of respondents felt it was important or very important, while 27.3% of respondents believed it was unimportant or not very important.


Strongly agree 0% Agree 13.6% Neither agree nor disagree 9.1% Disagree 31.8% Strongly disagree 40.9% Don’t know 4.5% 72.7% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were given the opportunity to experience enterprise skills development in their courses. Only 13.6% of students believed they had the opportunity to experience these skills.


9% of respondents chose to answer this question (i.e. 10% of students believed they had recognised the presence of enterprise skills development at some point in their course) Of these respondents, half recognised this through the learning outcomes, and half recognised it through their own understanding of enterprise.


Resourcefulness, strategic thinking.






Problem enquiry and response was an enterprising skill which students chose to highlight as being encountered ‘often’ within their courses, as well as working with constraints, taking initiative, and experimenting with new approaches. Risk taking was an enterprising skill that students chose to highlight as one that they very rarely or never had the opportunity to develop, as well as working with external bodies.

Employability The majority (77.2%) of students in this department stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path, but 50% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that their current courses provided enough enterprise skills development to aid their future career paths.


50% of students believed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, and 40.9% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it


Before being given USE’s definition of enterprise, most students in this department seemed to be fairly neutral when asked whether they thought enterprise was important. They did not believe they had experienced enterprise in their courses. When given USE’s definition of enterprise, students were able to highlight some enterprise skills such as problem enquiry and response as ones they were given the opportunity to encounter often, but other enterprise skills such as working with externals and risk taking were not ones that students believe they are given the opportunity to encounter. Around half of students believed that their course at present does not allow them to develop enterprise skills, and half of students believed that this was important to their careers. However, less than half of students would sign up to a course with embedded enterprise content, perhaps indicating a greater desire for academic and scientific content in the curriculum among these students.




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Social Sciences/ Department 1


First year UG: 3.6%



7.1%

PGT: 78.6%



The majority of students in this department associate the term ‘enterprise’ with business, creativity and innovation, and/or ‘a business or company’


Very Important 10.7% Important 42.9% Neutral 32.1% Not very important 3.6 % Unimportant 0% Don’t know 10.7% 53.6% of students in this department believed that enterprise skills development in the curriculum was important or very important. Only 3.6% of students believed that enterprise skills development in the curriculum was not very important or unimportant.


Strongly agree 0% Agree 28.6% Neither agree nor disagree 46.4% Disagree 14.3% Strongly disagree 0% Don’t know 10.7% 28.6% of students believed they had experienced enterprise skills development within their course. 14.3% of students believed that they had not experienced enterprise in their courses. 57.1% of students responded neutrally, or did not know.


18% of respondents answered this question (i.e. 18% of students in this department believed they had recognised enterprise content in their courses). An equal majority (40% each) of students that responded believed that they had recognised it through either the module titles within their course, or because they had an understanding of enterprise and had recognised the presence of enterprise skills development on this basis.


Commercial awareness, management, strategic thinking, customer service




After being given USE’s definition, 75% of students said they had a clear understanding of the term ‘enterprise’


The only USE enterprise skill that students believed they encountered more frequently than ‘sometimes’ was ‘investigation of a problem or issue that enables you to respond and identify potential opportunities’. All other skills defined in this questionnaire were only encountered ‘sometimes’.

Employability The majority (75%) of students in this department either agreed or strongly agreed that enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path. 28.6% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their current course included enough engagement with enterprise to aid their future career paths, 25% disagreed.


The majority (71,4%) of students believed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, and 50% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it


The majority of respondents from this department were postgraduates, reflecting the relatively high proportion of PGs in this department. Students responded that the majority of enterprise skills outlined in the course of the questionnaire were only encountered ‘sometimes’.




Faculty/Department: Faculty of Social Sciences/ Department 2


First year UG: 2.6%



30.8%

PGT: 28.2%



When asked to define ‘enterprise’, most respondents used terms such as ‘business’, creativity and innovation’, ‘money/profit’ or ‘entrepreneurship’.


Very Important 5.1% Important 46.2% Neutral 30.8% Not very important 10.3% Unimportant 2.6% Don’t know 5.1% 51.3% of respondents believed that enterprise in the curriculum was ‘very important’ or ‘important’, 12.9% of respondents believed that enterprise in the curriculum was ‘not very important’ or ‘unimportant’, 35.9% of respondents were neutral or did not know.


Strongly agree 0% Agree 20.5% Neither agree nor disagree 20.5% Disagree 46.2% Strongly disagree 5.1% Don’t know 7.7% 51.3% of respondents either disagree or strongly disagree that they have experience enterprise skills development in their courses. 20.5% agree that they have experienced enterprise skills development in their courses. 28.2% were neutral or did not know.


20.5% of respondents answered this question (i.e. 20.5% of respondents believed they recognised the presence of embedded enterprise skills in their courses. Of these, most of the students (50% recognised this because they believed they had an understanding of enterprise and could recognise the presence of enterprise skills development without it being made explicit.

Examples of Initiative, debating, business skills.

particular skills recognised:






Problem enquiry and response was an enterprise skill that students highlighted as one that they encountered in their course ‘very often’, as well as application of academic learning to resolve real problems/issues, and making decisions in the absence of complete information.

Employability The majority (82.1%) of students in this department stated that they believed enterprise was an important skill set to aid their future career path, but only 28.2% of students believed that their current course offered enough chance to develop enterprise skills.


The majority (84.6%) of students believed that it was important for enterprise skills to be included in the curriculum, and 56.4% of students would be likely to sign up to a course with enterprise embedded within it


The majority of students from this department who responded to this survey do not believe that they have experienced enterprise in their curriculum, even when given USE’s definition of enterprise. However, problem-solving was a key enterprise skill that these students felt they did have the chance to encounter frequently in their course. Some enterprising modules were highlighted but it seems that perhaps the development of enterprise skills is not made explicit in the course information. Students from this department did however believe that enterprise skills were important to their future career path.

Documents

Enhancement of curricular enterprise education incorporating …/file/USE_EEUK_EE… · The first stage, Information Gathering and Processing, relates to how student perceptions were