SHEILA project LAK17 workshop slides

Supporting Higher Education to Integrate Learning Analyticshttp://sheilaproject.eu/

LAPolicy:DevelopinganIns4tu4onalPolicyforLearningAnaly4csusingtheRAPIDOutcomeMappingApproach

LAK’17Workshop13thMarch2017

Yi-ShanTsai,DraganGašević,PedroJ.Muñoz-Merino,ShaneDawson,MarenScheffel,AlexanderWhitelock-Wainwright

Workshop scheduleTime Schedule

13.00-13.05 Welcome&introduc5on

13.05-14.30 Fivepresenta5ons&discussions1.  Overview&LAinAustralia:ProfDraganGasevic(University

ofEdinburgh)2.  LAinEurope(SHEILAProject):ProfPedroJ.Muñoz-Merino

(UniversidadCarlosIIIdeMadrid)3.  SHEILA–groupconceptmapping:MarenScheffel(Open

UniversityoftheNetherlands)4.  SHEILA–ins5tu5onalinterviews&survey:DrYi-ShanTsai

(UniversityofEdinburgh)5.  SHEILA–studentsurvey:AlexanderWhitelock-Wainwright

(UniversityofLiverpool)

14.30-15.00 AêrnoonTea

15.00-16.00 Groupworkontheassessmentofins5tu5onalreadiness

16.00-17.00 LAPolicydraîng

National project to benchmark LA status, policy and practices for Australian Universities

Dragan Gasevic (thanks Shane Dawson for the slides!)

Introduction

Massiveinterestandinvestmentindataandanaly5cs

•  Academicperformance•  Studentreten5on•  Pastoralcare•  Academicliteracies•  Socialnetworks–collabora5ons

Introduction

Yetintermsofwide-scaleins5tu5onaladop5ontherearefewexamples

Why?

Aims

  understand current LA practice in Australia   unpack the challenges to institutional adoption   identify practices that can aid the implementation of LA

Approach

2 complementary but separate studies

 Study 1 – interviews with senior institutional leaders  Study 2 – concept mapping with LA expert panel

Study 1

First study Interviews with 32 Universities:

  Identification of current practice, methods and approaches   Identification of key drivers for institutions, stage of development, process for implementation, project leads

Study 1

 Much interest in LA  Stated organisational priority   LA projects were in the early phases of implementation and small scale (at time of interview July 2014)   2 distinct clusters across variables such as: implementation, conceptualisation, readiness

Cluster 1 (n=15) – Solutions focused Cluster 2 (n=17) – Process focused

Strategic capability

Strategic capability

1.  Solutions focused ›  LA to address a pressing need ›  Time sensitive

2.  Process focused ›  Networked and integrated model ›  Minimal time pressures ›  Innovation and experimentation

Study 2

What are the ideal dimensions for long term sustainable uptake of LA?

  Invite to Australian and international LA experts   28 completed the entire concept mapping phases  Prompt: ‘for LA to make a continued impact on learning and teaching it would need to…’   3 phases – brainstorming; sorting and ranking of statements

Study 2

Bringing it together

 Study 1 – 2 clusters  Study 2 – 7 clusters

Essentially – how an organisation approaches its conceptualisation of LA underpins (2 clusters) the method for deployment and adoption (7 clusters)

Systems Model

Systems Model

Systems Model

Bringing it together

Challenges to be addressed:   Leadership awareness  Teams are seldom interdisciplinary   IT driven and system focused  Scale versus understanding  Capabilities and skills deficit.  Over reliance on current research – requires further validation across different contexts to demonstrate transportability of models

Complexity

Leveraging the outcomes of short term goals for long term gain  How do we merge both models to gain both short and long term impact?

Conclusion

  LA requires alternate models for implementation and leadership ›  Enabling leadership ›  Whole of organisation ›  Models that are agile and research informed

 Working in complexity creates friction ›  Embrace the friction – generates innovation

Conclusion

 A solutions based model can drive change – but need to be mindful of responding to changing organsational needs  Process based model can drive innovation and interest – but need to be mindful of how to scale

Conclusion

 Combined model framed in the organisational context ›  Small, diffuse pockets of innovation to build

capacity and build interest ›  View to scale adoption – demonstration of

impact (technical, pedagogical) ›  Distributed enabling leadership (complexity

leadership)

Conclusion

Any “successful” adoption of LA will be dependent on an institution’s ability to rapidly recognise and respond to the organisational culture and the concerns of all stakeholders.

Thank you

SHEILAProject-Overview-

DraganGašević,Yi-ShanTsai,

MarenScheffel,ShaneDawson,

PedroJ.Muñoz-MerinoMarch,13,2017LAKSHEILAWorkshopVancouver,Canada

hgp://sheilaproject.eu/

SHEILAPartners

•  UniversityofEdinburgh(UE)(Coordinator)•  BrusselsEduca5onServices(BES)•  OpenUniversityNetherlands(OUNL)•  TallinnUniversity(TLU)•  UniversidadCarlosIIIMadrid(UC3M)•  EuropeanAssocia5onforQualityAssuranceinHigherEduca5on(ENQA)

•  ErasmusStudentNetwork(ESN)

Policydevelopmentframework

Usedbydifferenthighereduca5onins5tu5onsRecognizesins5tu5onspecificdrivers

Promoteslearninganaly5csforforma5veassessment



Projectapproach

Macfadyen,L.,Dawson,S.,Pardo,A.,Gašević,D.,(2014).Thelearninganaly5csimpera5veandthesociotechnicalchallenge:Policyforcomplexsystems.Research&Prac+ceinAssessment,9(Winter2014),17-28.

WP2

Projectapproach


WP1andWP3

Projectapproach


WP3

Projectapproach


WP3

Projectapproach


WP4

SHEILAapproach


WP4

Projectac5vi5es

Literaturereview


Tsai,Y-S.,Gašević,D.(2016).Adop+onofLearningAnaly+csinHigherEduca+on:State,Challenges,andPolicies(Execu+vesummary).SHEILAProjectReport,hgp://bit.ly/sheila_lr_es

Projectac5vi5es

LiteraturereviewInterviewswithdecisionmakers


Projectac5vi5es


Groupconceptmappingwithexperts


Projectac5vi5es


GroupconceptmappingwithexpertsSurveysandfocusgroupswithstudentsandteachingstaff


Expected5meline

Policydevelopmentframework(v1)–June2017Fourins5tu5onalpolicies(v1)–June2017


Expected5meline

Policydevelopmentframework(v1)–June2017Fourins5tu5onalpolicies(v1)–June2017

Policydevelopmentframework(v2)–March2018Fourins5tu5onalpolicies(v2)–March2018


Interestedinjoining?

Associatepartnersasearlyadoptersofthepolicydevelopmentframeworkarewelcome


Manythanks!


GroupConceptMapping

MarenScheffelOpenUniversiteitNederland

[email protected]@m_a_s_c

GroupConceptMappingPhase1:

Brainstorming

Phase2: Sor5ng

Phase3: Ra5ng

Anessen5alfeatureofahighereduca5onins5tu5on'slearninganaly5cspolicyshouldbe...

PointMap1 2

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

5253

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

7879 80

81

82

83

84

85

8687

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

9899

ClusterReplayMap

ClusterReplayMap

ClusterReplayMap

ClusterMap

1.privacy&transparency

2.roles&responsibili4es(ofallstakeholders)

3.objec4vesofLA(learnerandteachersupport)

4.risks&challenges

5.datamanagement

6.research&dataanalysis

Ra5ngMap–Importance




4.risks&challenges

5.datamanagement


ClusterLegendLayerValue15.08to5.2725.27to5.4635.46to5.6545.65to5.8455.84to6.03

Ra5ngMap–Ease




4.risks&challenges

5.datamanagement


ClusterLegendLayerValue13.79to4.1224.12to4.4534.45to4.7844.78to5.1155.11to5.44

Ra5ngLadderGraph

importance ease

privacy&transparency

privacy&transparency

risks&challenges

risks&challenges

roles&responsibili5es(ofallstakeholders)

roles&responsibili5es(ofallstakeholders)

objec5vesofLA(learnerandteachersupport)

objec5vesofLA(learnerandteachersupport)

datamanagement

datamanagement

research&dataanalysis

research&dataanalysis

3.79 3.79

6.03 6.03

r=0.66

GoZone–Privacy&Transparency

1 720 31

43862

10172445

64 65

8892

91556

6074

87

34

69

96

6.08

5.44

3.12

ease

3.83 6.03 6.59

importance

r=0.45

GoZone–Privacy&Transparency

1 720 31

43862

10172445

64 65

8892

91556

6074

87

34

69

96

6.08

5.44

3.12

ease

3.83 6.03 6.59

importance

r=0.45

2.transparency,i.e.clearlyinformingstudentsofhowtheirdataiscollected,usedandprotected88.acleardescrip5onofdataprotec5onmeasurestaken10.acleardescrip5onofdatausage17.beingclearaboutthepurposeforcollec5oncertaintypesofdata24.alignedwithdataprotec5onregula5ons(ins5tu5onal,na5onal,interna5onal)34. toassurethatthecollecteddataisusedonlyforthepurposeofimprovinglearningandinstruc5on96.anagreementbetweenlearners,teachersandpolicymakersonregula5ngaproperuseofdata

GoZone–Roles&Responsibili5es

5

38

62

11

1922

33

39 48

7091

25

28

37

40

55

61

6627

47 49

6.08

4.72

3.12

ease

3.83 5.48 6.59

importance

r=0.26

GoZone–Roles&Responsibili5es

5

38

62

11

1922

33

39 48

7091

25

28

37

40

55

61

6627

47 49

6.08

4.72

3.12

ease

3.83 5.48 6.59

importance

r=0.26

55.beingclearaboutthepurposeoflearninganaly5cs61.aclearar5cula5onofrolesandresponsibili5eswhenitcomestotheuseofins5tu5onaldata39.topromotebroadadop5onoflearninganaly5csbyspecifyingsuppor5veregula5onsandcaselaw

GoZone–Objec5vesofLA

3

80

84

99

12

7898

3550

93

4244

586376

79

94

6.08

3.79

3.12

ease

3.83 5.44 6.59

importance

r=-0.12

GoZone–Objec5vesofLA

3

80

84

99

12

7898

3550

93

4244

586376

79

94

6.08

3.79

3.12

ease

3.83 5.44 6.59

importance

r=-0.12

63.touselearninganaly5csforimprovingthequalityofteaching58.toallowforproac5vebehaviorofstudentstowardstheireduca5on,withsevngpersonalgoals44.tosupportlearnerslearningtolearnandimproveskills98.toencouragemeaningfulrela5onshipsbetweenstudents

GoZone–Risks&Challenges

18

41

8326

46

97

53

59

90

95

6.08

4.16

3.12

ease

3.83 5.52 6.59

importance

r=0.52

GoZone–Risks&Challenges

18

41

8326

46

97

53

59

90

95

6.08

4.16

3.12

ease

3.83 5.52 6.59

importance

r=0.52

90.todrawagen5ontowhatthe"bigpicture"endgoalofthedatauseis59.todemarcateclearlybetweendifferentusesofanaly5csinins5tu5onalsevngs95.toensurethebenefitstostudentsoutweightherisks53.toensureadequaterepresenta5onduringhigh-stakesdecisionprocesses18.integratedwitharewardsystemfortheuseofevidence-basedimprovementstoteachingandlearning41.todiscouragestudentsandfacultyfromgamingthesystem

GoZone–DataManagement

4

14

89

23

67

71

85

6.08

4.5

3.12

ease

3.83 5.16 6.59

importance

r=-0.54

GoZone–DataManagement

4

14

89

23

67

71

85

6.08

4.5

3.12

ease

3.83 5.16 6.59

importance

r=-0.54

23.todefineclearrulesforcollabora5onwithotherresearchers

GoZone–Research&DataAnalysis

6

30

57

6872

75

77

81

8

32

527382

1351

1621

29

36

54

6.08

4.24

3.12

ease

3.83 5.08 6.59

importance

r=0.27

GoZone–Research&DataAnalysis

6

30

57

6872

75

77

81

8

32

527382

1351

1621

29

36

54

6.08

4.24

3.12

ease

3.83 5.08 6.59

importance

r=0.27

57.toassurethatinstruc5onalinterven5onsarebasedonwell-studiedandempiricallyvalidatedanaly5calmethodsandalgorithms75.toencouragethedevelopmentofdashboardswithmeaningfulandunderstandableoutcomes68.torecognisethelimita5onsoflearninganaly5cs72.toprovideclearexamplesofhowtointerpretdata,especiallywhentheremaybeinterac5ons54.toenhancetheconnec5onbetweentheacademicandthesocietyandindustry,showingwhatisbeingdoneattheins5tu5onsisrelatedtotheeduca5onandtraining21.tomakeexplicitmathsfrominnova5vedevelopment/useofanaly5csinindividualclassroomstoscalingup

Thank [email protected]@m_a_s_c

Institutional interviews• Methodology•  Topicsoftheques5ons• Analysis• Preliminaryfindings

Researchers:Yi-ShanTsai(UniversityofEdinburgh)IoanaJivet(OpenUniversityoftheNetherlands)PedroManuelMorenoMarcos(UniversidadCarlosIIIdeMadrid)KairitTammets(TallinnUniversity)

Interviews – methodology • Purpose:tounderstandtheadop5onofLearningAnaly5csinhighereduca5onins5tu5onsthroughdirectconversa5onswithdecisionmakers.

•  Sampling:deans,vice-deans,vice-rectors,viceprincipals,headsofIToreLearning,andseniorresearchersorprojectmanagersoflearninganaly5cs.

•  Lengthofinterviews:25~60mins• Periodofdatacollec5on:August2016~January2017

Interviews – methodology •  64interviews•  51HEIs•  16countries

*Twoaddi5onalinterviewswerecarriedoutwithana5onalcollabora5veICTorganisa5oninNetherlandsandtheMinistryofEduca5onandScienceinEstonia.

Interviews – topics •  LAprojects,scope,mo5va5ons,andgoals

•  LAstrategy

•  Progressandachievedgoals

•  Challenges

•  Ethicsandprivacy

Interviews – analysis

Macfadyen, L., Dawson, S., Pardo, A., Gašević, D., (2014). The learning analytics imperative and the sociotechnical challenge: Policy for complex systems. Research & Practice in Assessment, 9(Winter 2014), 17-28.

Interviews – preliminary findings

• Currentstateofadop4on

NOPLANS

INPREPARATION

IMPLEMENTED 9 7 5

12

18

THEADOPTIONOFLEARNINGANALYTICS

Ins5tu5on-wide Par5al/Pilots Dataexplora5on/cleaning N/A


•  Step1–Mappoli4calcontext

LALearner

Teaching Ins5tu5onal

External

q Dataprotec5onregula5ons•  2018GDPR•  Thestrictnessofexis5ngDP

regula5onsàAstopperq PressuretoadoptLAq Exis5ngsolu5onsfocuson

addressingreten5onproblems.

q Noone-size-fits-allsolu5ons


•  Step2–Iden4fykeystakeholders

Managers

Students

Teachers

q  25ins5tu5onshaveestablishedformalworkinggroups.

q  Notallins5tu5onshaveplannedtoprovideanaly5csdatatostudents.

•  Concernsaboutdemo5va5on.

ProfessionalSupports


•  Step3–Iden4fydesiredbehaviourchanges

LA

Learner

Teaching

Ins5tu5onal

q  Interven5ons•  E-mailalertsandpersonal

contactswithstudents(7HEIs)

•  Teachingreports(1UKHEI)q Feedback•  3HEIsreceivedposi5ve

feedback•  Lowresponserates

Howcanins5tu5onsengagestudentswithLA?

Nodefinedstrategy


•  Step4–Developengagementstrategy

LA

Digitalisa5onstrategiesTeaching&learningstrategies

q  Consulta4onswithprimarystakeholders

•  23HEIs•  Surveys•  focusgroups•  Workshops•  Annualstaffdevelopment

conference•  Self-helptoolkitq  Visualiseddashboard•  24HEIs

Dangerofbeingdatadriven


•  Step5–Analyseinternalcapacitytoeffectchange

Managers

Students

Teachers ProfessionalSupports

Ins5tu5onalcontext

q  Technologicalresources

q  Humanresources

q  Fundingq  Ins5tu5onal

culture•  Awareness•  Buy-in•  Common

understanding•  Analy5csskills

Ø  ClearvalueandrelevanceØ  Ins5tu5onalpriori5esØ  Workload

Ø  TeachingstylesØ  MonitoringØ  Confidenceinhandlingnewtechnology&analy5csdata

Ø  PassiveengagementwithstudiesØ  Lackofinterestincertainsubjects

Ethics&Privacy

TrustinLA


•  Step6–Establishmonitoringandlearningframeworks

•  Fewwereabletotalkaboutplansforevalua5on.•  Itisdifficulttoisolateanddefinethesuccessofalearninganaly5csprojectthatisimplementedalongsideotherprojectswiththesamegoalstoenhancelearningandteaching.

•  12ins5tu5onshavedevelopedorplannedtodevelopapolicytoaccommodatetheuseoflearninganaly5cs.

Conclusion•  Successtodate:•  Scaleduptheins5tu5onalcapacity(step5)• Begerunderstandingofchallenges• Gainedexperience

Siemens,G.,Dawson,S.,&Lynch,G.(2014).ImprovingtheQualityandProduc5vityoftheHigherEduca5onSector-PolicyandStrategyforSystems-LevelDeploymentofLearningAnaly5cs.Canberra,Australia:OfficeofLearningandTeaching,AustralianGovernment.

Institutional survey•  Topicsinves4gated

ThedevelopmentofLA

•  Currentadop5on•  Ins5tu5onalinfrastructureandcapacity

•  Strategyandpolicy•  Legalandethicalconsidera5ons

•  Evalua5on

Self-evalua5onofLAmaturityandIns5tu5onalreadiness

•  LAmaturity•  LAsuccess•  Culture•  Dataandresearchcapabili5es

•  Legalandethicalconsidera5ons

•  Trainingandcommunica5on

Institutional survey• Distribu4on:sixconsor5umsinEurope–EADTU(EuropeanAssocia5onofDistanceTeachingUniversi5es),EUA(EuropeanUniversityAssocia5on),HeLF(Headsofe-LearningForumintheUK),EUNIS(EuropeanUniversityInforma5onSystems),SNOLA(SpanishNetworkofLearningAnaly5cs)andtheeMadridNetwork.

•  Survey4me:September2016~February2017• Returns:46ins5tu5ons(responserate:15%)EuropeanHEIsingeneralwerenewtoLAandhencedidnotfeelequippedwithsufficientexperienceorknowledgetoanswerthesurvey??

Institutional survey•  22countries

NOPLANS

INPREPARATION

IMPLEMENTED 2 13

15

16

Theadop4onofLAIns5tu5on-wide Smallscale N/A

Institutional survey• Mo4va4onsforadop4ngLAAmongthe11op5onsformo5va5onsspecifictolearningandteaching,thetop5driversare:§ Toimprovestudentlearningperformance(16%)§ Toimprovestudentsa5sfac5on(13%)§ Toimproveteachingexcellence(13%)§ Toimprovestudentreten5on(11%)§ Toexplorewhatlearninganaly5cscandoforourins5tu5on/staff/students(10%)

Institutional survey•  Strategyandevalua5on• Amongins5tu5onsthathaveimplementedLA:§ Thereisastrategy:20%§ Intheprocessofdevelopingastrategy:20%§ Noclearstrategy:46.7%§ Havedevelopedsuccesscriteria:27%

Conclusion•  ~HalfoftheEuropeancountriesinves5gatedhaveHEIsthatareeitherobservingthedevelopmentoflearninganaly5csorhaveengagedwithitprac5cally.

•  Theearlyadoptersarelikelytoscaleupthecultureforlearninganaly5csinEurope.

•  SHEILAwillassistwiththedevelopmentoflearninganaly5cspoliciesinfourins5tu5onsdrawingupontheoutputoftheproject.

•  SHEILAwillpushthedevelopmentofalongtermlearninganaly5cspolicyagendaandcommunityamonghighereduca5onins5tu5ons.

What next?

• BecomeanassociatepartneroftheSHEILAproject?

• Visit:hgp://sheilaproject.eu/ Yi-ShanTsaiResearchassociate

UniversityofEdinburgh@yi_shan_tsai

[email protected]

What do students want? Towards an instrument for students’ evalua6on of quality of learning analy6cs services

AlexanderWhitelock-Wainwright,DraganGašević,&

RicardoTejeiro

[email protected]

Aims

• Highlighttheimportanceofservicequalityinlearninganaly5cs.

• Developaninstrumenttoexplorestudentexpecta5onstowardslearninganaly5cs.

•  Stepstowardsamodeloflearninganaly5csuse.

What is service quality?

•  Subjec5veassessmentofthedegreetowhichaserviceuser’sneedsorexpecta5onsweremet(Parasuraman,Zeithaml,&Malhotra,2005).

Expecta5ons

ServiceUsage/Exposure

Percep5ons

Avtude

What is service quality? (Contd.)

•  Encouragesuserstouseownserviceovercompe5tors(Parasuraman,Zeithaml,&Berry,1988).

•  Servicequalityinhighereduca5on(Spooren,Brockx,&Mortelmans,2013).

•  Ideologicalgap(Ng&Forbes,2009).

Service Quality in Learning Analy6cs •  Learninganaly5csservicesdesignedtosupportlearning.

• Variousstakeholdergroupswithinlearninganaly5cs(e.g.,students,teachers,managers)(Clow,2012).

• Qualityindicatorsoflearninganaly5cstools(Scheffel,Drachsler,Stoyanov,&Specht,2014).

Ques6onnaire Development

• Measuringstudentexpecta5onsoflearninganaly5cs.

• Developmentofins5tu5onalpolicies(SHEILA).

•  Theoriesofhumanbehaviour.

Ques6onnaire Development (Contd.) •  Iden5fyingthemeswithinpastliterature(Ifenthaler&Schumacher,2016;Sclater,2016;West,Heath,&Huijser,2016):

•  EthicsandPrivacy

•  Meaningfulness

•  Agency

•  Interven5ons

Ques6onnaire Development (Contd.)

Expecta5ons

Predic5ve

Desired

Swan&Trawick(1980)

Ques6onnaire Development (Contd.)

Created79Items PeerReview PilotStudy

with37Items

ExploratoryFactorAnalysis

Redistributethe

Ques5onnaire

Pilot Study Results

•  Instrumentreducedto19items.

•  Twofactorsolu5onforbothscales:

•  Serviceexpecta5ons:o  Desiresscale–0.88alpha.

o  Predic5vescale–0.88alpha.

•  Ethicalexpecta5ons:o  Desiresscale–0.82alpha.

o  Predic5vescale–0.86alpha.

Pilot Study Results (Contd.)





Future Direc6ons

• Developthecorrespondingpercep5onsscale.

• Modelinten5onstowardsusinglearninganaly5cs.

Avtudes

SocialNorms

Inten5onstoUseLearningAnaly5cs

Perceived

Behavioural

Control

Ques6ons?

Workshop scheduleTime Schedule

13.00-13.05 Welcome&introduc5on

13.05-14.30 Fivepresenta5ons&discussions1.  Overview&LAinAustralia:ProfDraganGasevic(University

ofEdinburgh)2.  LAinEurope(SHEILAProject):ProfPedroJ.Muñoz-Merino

(UniversidadCarlosIIIdeMadrid)3.  SHEILA–groupconceptmapping:MarenScheffel(Open

UniversityoftheNetherlands)4.  SHEILA–ins5tu5onalinterviews&survey:DrYi-ShanTsai

(UniversityofEdinburgh)5.  SHEILA–studentsurvey:AlexanderWhitelock-Wainwright

(UniversityofLiverpool)

14.30-15.00 AêrnoonTea

15.00-16.00 Groupworkontheassessmentofins5tu5onalreadiness

16.00-17.00 LAPolicydraîng

• Name• Organisa5on•  YourexperiencewithLA•  Expecta5onsoftheworkshop

Tell us about you

Assessment of institutional readiness

• UsetheROMAframeworktomapyourprogresstowardsdeployinglearninganaly5cs.

Macfadyen, L., Dawson, S., Pardo, A., Gašević, D., (2014). The learning analytics imperative and the sociotechnical challenge: Policy for complex systems. Research & Practice in Assessment, 9 (Winter 2014), 17-28.

1)  Mappoli4calcontext2)  Iden4fykeystakeholders3)  Iden4fydesiredbehaviour

changes4)  Developengagement

strategy5)  Analyseinternalcapacityto

effectchanges6)  Establishmonitoringand

learningframeworks

• DiscussinyourgroupwhatLAprojectsanddevelopmentshavetaken/aretaking/willtakeplaceinyourorganisa5ons

LA projects in your organisations ~5mins

Keepyourgroupnoteshere:Group1:hgps://goo.gl/CcGlTkGroup2:hgps://goo.gl/zrMsyiGroup3:hgps://goo.gl/3WNr62Group4:hgps://goo.gl/WzLmQc

•  Istheregovernment/teacher/student/administratorpressuretodeployLAinyourorganisa5on?Orpressurenottodeployit?

1) Map political context ~5mins


• Who/whichpeopleinsideandoutsideyourorganisa5onwouldbe/arethekeystakeholdersfortheuseofLA?

• WhowillbenefitfromtheuseofLA?

2) Identify key stakeholders ~5mins


• Whatareyourreasonsforadop5ngLA?• Whatbenefitsisitexpectedtobring/havebrought?

3) Identify desired behaviour changes ~5mins


•  Howwellprepareddoyouthinkyourorganisa5onistodeployLA?

• Whatneedstobedonetoachievethedesiredchangesiden5fiedpreviously?Areastoconsiderareethical/legal,technical,pedagogical,andcultural.

4) Develop engagement strategy ~5mins


• Doesyourorganisa5onhasthecapacitytoimplementtheplannedstrategy?Doyouneedtoacquireanyskill-sets,funding,ortechnologicalsystems?

5) Analyse internal capacity to effect changes ~5mins


• Howwillyoutrackandevaluatetheprogress?Howwillthisprocessinformthenextstepofimplementa5on?Willtherebeanysuccesscriteria?

6) Establish monitoring and learning frameworks ~5mins


• Reviewthe6ROMAsteps.Canyouiden5fyanychallengesthatmaycomeupinanysteps?(Putyournotesinthesameboxes.)

Challenges ~5mins


• Chooseonecasetoworkonasagrouporworkindividuallyandshareideasinyourgroup.

Draft a LA policy

1.  Audience2.  Purpose3.  Process§  Datacollec5on§  Datamanagement§  Stakeholderengagement§  Evalua5on4.Policyevalua5on


•  1.Audience• Whoisthispolicyfor?Considerwhoseworkingac5vi5esthepolicywillshape.

•  2.Purpose• Whatareyourpolicyobjec5ves?Consideryourobjec5vesforLAandthechangesyouseektoachieve.ThepolicywillsetoutasthereasonforintroducingLA.

Audience & Purpose ~5mins


•  3.Process•  a)Datacollec5on• b)Datamanagement•  c)Stakeholderengagement• d)Evalua5on

Process ~15mins


•  4.Policymanagement

Policy management ~10mins

Finalcheck-ups•  WillthepolicyneedtostateanythingthatshouldNOTbedoneinrela5onto

LA?•  Arethereanylimita5onsorpoten5alchallengesandrisksaboutLAthat

shouldbeaddressedinthepolicy?•  Canyounarrowthepolicydowntoashortlistofprinciples?


• BecomeanassociatepartneroftheSHEILAproject?

• Visit:hgp://sheilaproject.eu/