Victoria Harte

The subject of physical learning space has in recent years become increasingly complex This reflection examines what evidence exists in this area

This paper describes a small survey (attrition survey) undertaken to ascertain reasons of attrition and non-response in questionnaire responses from student participants as part of a larger longitudinal survey (longitudinal study). Due to difficulties in retaining participants within the longitudinal study, determining reasons for attrition and non-response became important; mainly. The questionnaire employed in the longitudinal study was developed by the Cambridge Management Institute (CMI) and is widely known as the HEGI instrument or the SPEED network questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to be completed three times by the participants; one pre-test and two post-tests. Following 18 months of problems of attrition, questions were raised about its value and whether it was suitable to be administered in the environment and setting within which we were using it, in traditional semesters in higher education. Therefore, the subsequent attrition survey was undertaken to look at a number of factors that the authors believed were significant in causing the high rates of attrition and non-response. This data was obtained using a very short questionnaire sent to a proportion of the sample originally part of the longitudinal study. The factors deemed to be of potential significance were plenty and are discussed at detail throughout the paper. Predominantly, issues concerning web-based and paper-based survey methods were also of significance as the former becomes more prevalent but raises the question, how do response rates compare with traditional methods? This was a further area of concern for the authors because a change to the survey mode i.e. distribution and completion method from paper to online was reluctantly introduced as a cost-saving measure. This paper will report the results of the attrition survey in relation to the participants’ responses about reasons for attrition and non-response.

This report outlines data collected from students across a broad range of subject areas across all Faculties of Leeds Met University. This data was generated in response to a questionnaire designed to obtain information on students experiences of enterprise education

This report outlines a process of evaluation for a business enterprise module. This exploratory research investigates the impact of 'contextual' based evaluation of enterprise education curricula

This paper discusses the value of providing a simulated experience of how organisations work enabling skills and knowledge from disparate subject areas to be synthesised and assimilated in solving complex business problem

This paper focuses on a discussion on the approach taken in analysing evaluation design for a specific faculty module on enterprise education

This presentation discusses the various elements that deem enterprise education spaces as fit for purpose

Purpose: Educational programmes that are concerned with the learning and teaching of enterprise education, such as enterprise focused degrees and/or modules, could be argued to be of particular interest to human resource development (HRD) research since they commonly have an overt focus on influencing and shaping the career choices of students. Furthermore, the perceptions of students about their own career choices are also of immense value, especially in a period of economic downturn and financial uncertainty. The main aim of this paper is to report problems encountered by the authors when attempting to evaluate the impact of enterprise modules in higher education, in the context of HRD research. The paper also aims to discuss the evaluation of learning by students studying enterprise modules. Design/methodology/approach: The research strategy for this project consisted of a longitudinal approach, initially over the course of three years using a pre-designed research instrument (known as the EHGI questionnaire) to evaluate the impact of enterprise modules on students' self-efficacy adopting a pre- and post-test application. A series of qualitative interviews were also planned to gain further depth to the students' learning. However, the paper reports on the struggles and problems of using such an instrument and not on the actual results from the students. Findings: Following the planned use of this pre-designed instrument the authors encountered many problems with student take-up, participation and follow-up. This posed many problems to the project, which were detrimental to the research findings, potentially because of the pre- and post-test applications. In the exploration to understand the detriments to this research, the findings illustrate that there are contrasts with current literature in the components that make survey research successful and that attrition is a common problem in research conducted in higher education. Research limitations/implications: The paper proposes that the instrument is not suitable for use in traditional semesters in higher education. The instrument had been successfully applied in controlled group settings. However, there were a number of other potential factors that contributed to the detriments of the research. Practical implications: Individuals should consider the use of this instrument in traditional higher education settings where controlled group settings cannot be guaranteed. Successful survey research in higher education settings requiring the participation of students requires structured planning and will only yield results following the full consideration of applicability of the EHGI questionnaire. Originality/value: Individuals interested in evaluating enterprise education modules using the EHGI questionnaire will find value in this paper in relation to obstacles and problems that need to be considered and avoided before employing this instrument. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Educational programmes that are concerned with the learning and teaching of enterprise education, such as enterprise focused degrees and/or modules, could be argued to be of particular interest to human resource development (HRD) research since they commonly have an overt focus on influencing and shaping the career choices of students. Furthermore, the perceptions of students about their own career choices are also of immense value, especially in a period of economic downturn and financial uncertainty. The main aim of this paper is to report problems encountered by the authors when attempting to evaluate the impact of enterprise modules in higher education, in the context of HRD research. The paper also aims to discuss the evaluation of learning by students studying enterprise modules. The research strategy for this project consisted of a longitudinal approach, initially over the course of three years using a pre‐designed research instrument (known as the EHGI questionnaire) to evaluate the impact of enterprise modules on students' self‐efficacy adopting a pre‐ and post‐test application. A series of qualitative interviews were also planned to gain further depth to the students' learning. However, the paper reports on the struggles and problems of using such an instrument and not on the actual results from the students. Following the planned use of this pre‐designed instrument the authors encountered many problems with student take‐up, participation and follow‐up. This posed many problems to the project, which were detrimental to the research findings, potentially because of the pre‐ and post‐test applications. In the exploration to understand the detriments to this research, the findings illustrate that there are contrasts with current literature in the components that make survey research successful and that attrition is a common problem in research conducted in higher education. The paper proposes that the instrument is not suitable for use in traditional semesters in higher education. The instrument had been successfully applied in controlled group settings. However, there were a number of other potential factors that contributed to the detriments of the research. Individuals should consider the use of this instrument in traditional higher education settings where controlled group settings cannot be guaranteed. Successful survey research in higher education settings requiring the participation of students requires structured planning and will only yield results following the full consideration of applicability of the EHGI questionnaire. Individuals interested in evaluating enterprise education modules using the EHGI questionnaire will find value in this paper in relation to obstacles and problems that need to be considered and avoided before employing this instrument.

This paper describes a programme of innovative changes in enterprise education and a subsequent evaluation, brought about by the introduction in 2005 of the Centre of Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CETL): Institute for Enterprise at Leeds Metropolitan University. This paper discusses that programme, namely: the Innovation North Foundation and Progression Project, which was one of the first significant developments following its inception. The project was designed to embed enterprise skills into the core curriculum in level one of Computing and Information Management studies, based on the belief that these skills will form not only a part of students’ whole University education, but also play an important role in the support for, and performance in, students’ subsequent careers. The paper, which expands on the practical paper presented at the ISBE 2006 conference in Cardiff in November, includes evaluation data collected from students and staff from two consecutive years that the module has been delivered. This paper suggests that the project, now in its second year, is going some way to being embedded within the curriculum, is subtly introducing students to enterprise and enabling them to reflect on how they apply their skills in a project based scenario. Results from the evaluation show a positive acceptance of the innovative changes from both students and lecturers with only minimal improvements suggested to design and delivery.