1. Tools and Analysis – the results Lucília Santos COMMIT project MT
Final Learning Event for Networks and Stakeholders
Dublin, 01 June 2016
Dublin City University, Ireland

2. COMMIT Partners Eucen Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
University of Turku, Finland
University of Brest, France
University of Aveiro, Portugal
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Dublin City University, Ireland
University of Bogazici, Turkey
University of Genoa, Italy
University of Ioannina, Greece
University of Iasi, Romania
University Rovira i Virgili, Spain
University of Pecs, Hungary

3. COMMIT Outputs Four self-assessment Tools : The Strategy Process Tool
The Strategy Content Tool
The Benchmarking Tool
The Monitoring Attainment Tool
A “Self-Assessment Kit”, consisting in a set of documents to be used by partners when organising the peer-learning visits.
Executive Summary
Policy Reminders
Technical Report
The last three documents will reflect on the methods, process and lessons learned, the experience gained by the partners at individual and institutional level, the policy lessons, as well as the analysis and results of the project work
There will be a possibility to engage eucen or the COMMIT partners in self-assessment processes on request to
All COMMIT documents listed above are available in electronic format and can be downloaded from the project website:

4. Structure of the tools
The tools are very comprehensive and can be used in different environments and in different ways, depending on what the respondents aim to find out or achieve.
In general, a list of different actions are required or recommended, among which:
answering questionnaires
establishing key priorities
performing a SWOT- analysis
plotting and visual understanding of the results
reflecting on a set of additional questions
and others.

5. Main purposes of the tools
The purposes of the tools are twofold:
To involve people within universities and help them to start reflecting on the content of their institutions’ Lifelong Learning strategy.
To collect information on their institutions’ Lifelong Learning strategy.

6. Tool 1- Strategy Process

7. Tool 1- Strategy Process Goal
To highlight five permanent guiding principles* during the process of strategizing.
* After Wittington

8. Tool 1: Main findings Why begin?
External drivers
Positive influence: duty to support social development; European Legislation; National legislation
Negative influence: National public finance; economic problem
Internal drivers
Positive influence: previous experience in LLL; necessity/demand for LLL programs; desire to improve access to university
Negative influence: budget available; staff devoted to these tasks; university structure
Globally, even if there are negative influences related essentially to economic aspects (funding, budget, staff devoted...), all partners declare to be encouraged to implement a LLL strategy.

9. Tool 1: Main findings Who?
Internal actors
Most active doers: the responsible person of specific LLL structure; the teachers and researchers in LLL
Most active decision makers: the rector and vice rector in charge of LLL and the head of specific LLL/SD department are the most influential actors.
Highest levels of hierarchy well informed; influence of decision makers slightly superior than the doers (even if 4 times more present);
Rather weak influence and number of researchers: number of people involved: from 5 to 65 (average 20.5)

13. Tool 1: Main findings Who?
External actors
Most active influential people: specific ministry, government
Most active researchers: other universities

14. Tool 1: Main findings How? Processes
Informal processes: general tendency to support cooperation within university; interaction with society; university teaching culture
Formal processes: global learning strategy
Global low score for the research based approach
Globally, universities seem to adopt more informal processes than formal ones => status/recognition of LLL in the universities?

15. Tool 1: Main findings How? Communication
People
Most internal people informed:
deans and department heads, and then students and all university members.
Most external people informed: policy makers
Tools
Most internal tools used: meeting and the intranet
Most external tools used: university web site

16. Tool 1: Overall picture Process Extension Emerging process
Limited process extension
Emerging process
Established process
Extended process
High scores on almost all dimensions
High scores on one or two dimensions and average scores on the other dimensions
A process such as LLL/SD strategizing is profoundly unique from a university to another and many factors (start date, drivers, actors…) may intervene and influence the process.
Completing the tools every year allows to observe the evolution of the LLL/SD strategizing process.

17. Tool 1: Conclusions
Dominance of a collective approach strategic plan in the methods used by universities.
A middle-bottom-up approach is more likely than a top-down one.
Quite an intense communication activity regarding the number of internal targets (especially the highest levels of faculties and departments) and the external targets, and regarding the diversity of communication tools used.
Uniqueness of LLL/SD strategy process within each university, due to the specificity of its environment and its culture.
A very low influence of a formal ‘research based’ approach in the LLL strategizing.

18. Tool 2: Strategic Content

19. Tool 2 – Strategic Content
To identify and evaluate the institution’s current LLL-strategy
invites the user to:
review the strategy
formulate three priorities for the medium term
analyse them in more detail
An Action Plan will be produced for them.

20. Tool 2 – Strategic Content
What was adressed
Mission
Societal and individual
Implementation
Education offer and access
Organization
Quality and staff development
Region and networks
Goals of the strategic content
Education and audiences
“Its not only about education” (support services)
Capacity building
Structures and arrangements
Three priorities
SWOT analysis

21. The three piorities Consolidate new access pathways
Diversify of LLL offer
Implement research based recommendations for students’ success
Improving the social service contribution
Developing a “green” and sustainable campus
Becoming a learning institution and increasing employee satisfaction
Modularisation of all our programs to ensure accessibility
Quality in all its aspects
External visibility and participation to partnership or decisional authorities.
Expand intergenerational learning and opportunities for older adults
Opportunities for non-traditional learners
More flexible progression processes to facilitate student pathways through the degree programmes
Social dimension
Placement
Change teaching
Research programs
More Greek language courses
Entrepreneurship courses in more Departments
Support the participation in international projects that develop training of academics to design web based learning materials in their field of study
Widening the student recruitment among adult population
Increase the link between TUIASI and students in secondary education
Increase the implication of each faculty in continuing education and communicate internally on lifelong education as a priority element at UCL
Communicate more externally about ULLL
Identify more systematically the learning needs of society
Develop the skills of lifelong learners in order to achieve social mobility;
Promote quality teaching and learning;
Provide specific platforms in learning city-region model so as to collect and share of good practices of learner-centred educational programmes both in formal and in non-formal environment
Let more non-traditional students engage in academic learning
Establish a system for RPL
Help university with drop-out rates/help students to have good learning experiences
To meet the LLL needs of individuals, communities and organisations.
To encourage a more diversified student population.
To strengthen the relations between the B-M-D programmes and LLL.
Broadened study fields and competency-based curricula
Specialization studies
Recognition of prior learning

22. Tool 2 – Strategic Content - Priorities
New audiences
Wider educational offer
Quality of learning experience
Social engagement

23. Tool 2 – Strategic Content Priorities - SWOT analysis
Strengths
High-quality research and faculty
Support from leadership
Support from external sources
ULL practices and organizations
Weaknesses
Educational offer and institutional arrangements
Difficulty to change – difficulty to recruit experts
Resources and priorities

24. Tool 2 – Strategic Content Priorities - SWOT analysis
Opportunities
Offer, methods and arrangements
Audiences & demand
Regulations
Threats
University culture and practices
Audience, markets and political context
Finances and incentives

25. The Social Dimension of. University Lifelong Learning
The Social Dimension of University Lifelong Learning in its strategic context
Content, strategy and organization
Concepts and relevance
Formal and informal status
Actors
Indicators
Key activities
Student recruitment and admission
Education provision
Guidance and counselling
Research
Stakeholders
Internal and external
Customer orientation, flexibility
Staff development for new audiences and contexts
External stakeholders In decision-making

26. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool

27. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool against the EU’s Charter on LLL
Intends to provide HEIs with an insight into their performance in lifelong learning and the third mission – the Social Dimension
Designed with the intention of fostering awareness of the LLL-SD commitments, to allow ranking purposes and in-depth analysis.
HEIs are invited to reflect on their activities and to match them against the 10 Commitments of the European Charter on LLL.

28. EUA’s Charter on LLL
Embedding concepts of widening access and lifelong learning in their institutional strategies
Providing education and learning to a diversified student population.
Adapting study programmes to ensure that they are designed to widen participation and attract returning adult learners
Providing appropriate guidance and counselling services.
Recognising prior learning
Embracing Lifelong Learning in quality culture
Strengthening the relationship between research, teaching and innovation from a Lifelong Learning perspective
Consolidating reforms to promote a flexible and creative learning environment for all students
Developing partnerships at the local, regional, national and international level to provide attractive and relevant programmes
Acting as role models of lifelong learning institutions

29. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool
Diversity

30. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool Diversity
50%

31. Tool 3: Benchmarking tool
Diversity
50%

32. Importance of the 10 Commitments to the Social Dimension
Priority 1º 2º 3º 4º 5º 6º 7º 8º 9º
10º
PARTNER 2
Na* na Na 3 7 4 8 9 6 5 1 10 11 12 13

33. Tool3 - Problems in implementing your LLL-SD strategy framework
Finance
Only one partner has “not real budget problems… up to now…”. In the majority of the partners “there is lack of financing tools”, so it is “a major problem”.
Staff Attitudes / Internal communication processes
“Social engagement is seen as a task of a specialized unit.” “Communication has to be enhanced at internal level” “a new office dedicated to external partnership and networking…” was recently created

34. Tool3 - Problems in implementing your LLL-SD strategy framework
Organisational barriers
HR, as communication does not happen or is difficult. “Generational barriers and much of elitism and academic ‘ivory tower’”; Low ICT skills. Institutional leadership vs faculties autonomy.
University Priorities
“the concept of social dimension is used in the strategy as social engagement is seen as a service function”. the economic factor is present.
Strategy (vision not clear or goals not yet defined)
although strategy is very clear, putting strategy into practice would need more cooperation from different participants spread around the university.

35. Tool3 - Transversal Analysis’ overview (i)
The appropriation of the EU LLL Charter by the HEIs has an average value of 2.3 in a 5 level scale, ranging from 1.4 to 3.1.
Different levels of appropriation of Lifelong Learning can be found.
Things are moving but at different velocities.
“Social engagement is seen as a task of a specialized unit”.

36. Tool 3 - Transversal Analysis’ overview (ii)
Very interesting testimonies produced
Evidence of different perceiving of the same commitment by different profile’ respondents.
Very different degrees of appropriation of the 10C.
Very little information regarding the next move HEIs intend to take towards a future scenario.
Diversity of priorities towards LLL/SD among HEIs.
“Strengthening the relationship between research, teaching and innovation from a Lifelong Learning perspective” is the stronger priority for HEIs.

37. Tool 4: Monitoring Attainment

38. Tool 4: Monitoring Attainment Goals
To promote strategies for a more comprehensive approach to LLL/SD
To monitor not just participation but also attainment levels.
Focusing on lifelong learning and adults in HE
Identify a set of selected indicators that enable the monitoring of the achievement of learners.
Includes three sets of questions:
On the arrangements that are (or not) offered by the institution for individuals and citizens.
To try to monitor the reality of each of these arrangements, in terms of the level of activity or usefulness
To try to monitor the reality of the arrangements made at a collective level.

39. Making social interaction work in universities
Support from leadership Extending strategic processes LLL in structures and processes Into quality systems Relevance of restructuring?
Cultural change! Learning and income! Building consortia Research for and on LLL Hosting learning?
(Making use of the materials of the COMMIT project )

40. What does Social Dimension mean in your university?
The challenge
How to deal with the complexity of the concepts of social dimension
and social engagement?
What does Social Dimension mean in your university?
Thank you!