Friday, 16 August 2013

NATA Evaluation Conversation - Friday 9th August, 2013

Discussion Participants: Mike Keppell (Project Leader), Gordon Suddaby (Project Leader), Tom Prebble (Project Evaluator) & Natasha Hard (Project Manager)

Threads from the evaluation discussion:

  • A view that the project is moving from a process to product stage
  • It is important to recognise that the context in which the NATA project proposal was initially developed has and continues to change – Changes to partner association roles/foci, changes in partner association representatives and leaders, as well as the expectations of those involved.  It took a long time to get the project partners on the same page due to the complexity of context and lack of unified vision etc. Thus, this has influenced the way that the project has developed.
  • When the funded project comes to a close, it is important to reflect upon what would be the key motivations for partners to continue to engage with each other as the project requirements will no longer direct the reasons for collaboration. Subsequently, a revised purpose for engagement would call for a review of whether those involved are still relevant and interested in being engaged in some form into the future. Moreover, are there other possible partners out there who would be interested in being involved in future collaborations?
  • It is important to think about the audience rather than getting too focused on the medium or the message. Is the sector interested in actually hearing what is being disseminated? For example, are educators actually interested in engaging in other OLT project reports or Good Practice Reports? Are these reports developed in a way that engages the sector when they are actually designed for reporting purposes rather than supporting the practical application of their findings (reporting for OLT/reporting for sector)? If dissemination or application of findings from other OLT projects is a key objective, then perhaps it would be beneficial to develop a range of different dissemination resources that target different audiences eg. The AKO Aotearoa Taking the Lead Project which developed a 2-pager, full report, bibliography and executive summary. Does the difficulty in disseminating the GPRs reflect a need to question the format in which they were developed?
  • The project leaders should take advantage of their vantage point to reflect upon not only the project but the possible synergies and differences between project partners.
  • There will need to be a consideration of project legacy issues. What will be maintained, where and by whom? What will happen to the eResources and/or the project website/Twitter?
  • The project is really about a test of concept? Does this structure work and is it sustainable in some form?
If you have any thoughts to add to the evaluation discussion we would be interested to read your comments.

No comments:

Post a Comment