in understanding issues around transfer to practice (De Ridjt et al., 2013). The toolkit could therefore usefully provide advice about what sorts of data are appropriate to use for different audiences. Table 3.6: The intended uses of the evaluation data Use of evaluation data N Informing future CPD including development of metrics 5 Reported to senior management 3 Presented at committees 2 Reported to HR 2 Reported to QAA 1 Reported to respondents 1 Seven pilots chose to use interviews as their preferred methodology to collect evaluation data from the CPD completers, with the remaining two using open questionnaires. These approaches follow trends in evaluation practice which advocate the importance of qualitative approaches to data collection and the potential to develop greater insights into the impacts of CPD through narrative accounts (Bamber, 2013; Rust, 1998). However, the intended audiences of the evaluation data are mixed (Table 3.6), and it is likely that some, such as university committees and senior managers, who may be more interested in a headline summary of satisfaction or numerical overviews of impacts. Therefore mixed method approaches should be considered in order to be able to communicate the outcomes of evaluation work in both qualitative and quantitative formats. The CPD providers identified numerous benefits following the use of the tool to evaluate their provision. They acknowledged its flexibility and the ease at which it aligned with, but also enhanced, their current evaluation practices, particularly in terms of promoting a longitudinal approach to evaluation. This was a current gap in the evaluation provision of most of the pilot institutions. ‘One of the first challenges you often have is coming up with the evaluation questions, so actually having a readymade resource that has started to categorise things into different evaluation scenarios, and starting to give you different questions for different levels of evaluation, we found that really helpful…. you’ll end up with better evaluation tool for whatever you design because some of that thinking and working through and revision have been done already..’ (Pilot 7) In line with the concerns from the CPD completers regarding the language used in the tool the CPD providers felt that where necessary there was the potential to customise the tool to ensure it was sensitive to their own institutional context. The recognition of the need for this by CPD providers is important, as it could mediate potential accessibility and language issues raised by the CPD completers.
in understanding issues around transfer to practice (De Ridjt et al., 2013). The toolkit could therefore usefully provide advice about what sorts of data are appropriate to use for different audiences. Table 3.6: The intended uses of the evaluation data Use of evaluation data N Informing future CPD including development of metrics 5 Reported to senior management 3 Presented at committees 2 Reported to HR 2 Reported to QAA 1 Reported to respondents 1 Seven pilots chose to use interviews as their preferred methodology to collect evaluation data from the CPD completers, with the remaining two using open questionnaires. These approaches follow trends in evaluation practice which advocate the importance of qualitative approaches to data collection and the potential to develop greater insights into the impacts of CPD through narrative accounts (Bamber, 2013; Rust, 1998). However, the intended audiences of the evaluation data are mixed (Table 3.6), and it is likely that some, such as university committees and senior managers, who may be more interested in a headline summary of satisfaction or numerical overviews of impacts. Therefore mixed method approaches should be considered in order to be able to communicate the outcomes of evaluation work in both qualitative and quantitative formats. The CPD providers identified numerous benefits following the use of the tool to evaluate their provision. They acknowledged its flexibility and the ease at which it aligned with, but also enhanced, their current evaluation practices, particularly in terms of promoting a longitudinal approach to evaluation. This was a current gap in the evaluation provision of most of the pilot institutions. ‘One of the first challenges you often have is coming up with the evaluation questions, so actually having a readymade resource that has started to categorise things into different evaluation scenarios, and starting to give you different questions for different levels of evaluation, we found that really helpful…. you’ll end up with better evaluation tool for whatever you design because some of that thinking and working through and revision have been done already..’ (Pilot 7) In line with the concerns from the CPD completers regarding the language used in the tool the CPD providers felt that where necessary there was the potential to customise the tool to ensure it was sensitive to their own institutional context. The recognition of the need for this by CPD providers is important, as it could mediate potential accessibility and language issues raised by the CPD completers.
HEA__CPD_Project_Report.docx