Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMarlene Townsend Modified over 6 years ago
1
The monitoring and evaluation of community engagement activities at universities: The case of the North-West University Prof Hendri Coetzee (presenter) and Prof Werner Nell North-West University
2
Outline Background / problem statement NWU's communities
NWU's CE activities NWU's approach to monitoring and evaluating CE Proposed database Demonstration of database Examples of outputs (x2) NWU's impact (2016 results) Conclusion and recommendations
3
Background / problem statement
Integration of Community Engagement (CE) in research, teaching-learning and outreach (perceptions, challenges and implications) Required by DOE Support risk management Can also inform the strategic direction of universities The case of North-West University (NWU)
4
NWU's communities
5
Community Impact Model
NWU's CE activities Community Impact Model
6
NWU's approach to monitoring and evaluating CE
Theory of practice (what it is that they want to change) Theory of change (how they plan to change it) Logic-frame model Data on all aspects are needed Community needs/assets Inputs Outputs Outcome Impact
7
Category linked to logic frame Rational for inclusion
Proposed database Category linked to logic frame Activity detail Rational for inclusion Community needs/Assets Baseline To identify theory of practice Feasibility/Sustainability Funding To determine the potential feasibility/sustainability of the activity General information Engagement nr To keep tract of the number of activities Campus To develop and institutional profile of all CE activities Faculty, school, department or entity Name of engagement leader (EL) To identify a relevant contact person Contact details of EL To improve communication Engagement name To document activities Activity description To provide additional information (if needed) Geographical location of activity To monitor/manage risk Type of engaged research activity Type of engaged teaching-learning activity Type of outreach activity Status To monitor activities Ethical clearance General information (inputs) Names and contact details of main external collaborators Inputs Nr of staff involved To report on Nr of students involved Frequency of engagement Time spend What else are you investing in the project? Outputs Who do you reach (nr of and contact details of partners/beneficiaries) Outcome/impact What are the short-term results? What are the medium-term results? What are the long-term results (ultimate impact)? What are the benefits for the NWU? (provide your internal impact) How often do you report on the project? Legal-matters – do you have any agreement in place? To manage risk Additional documentation (upload here) To add value to reports/access additional information Photographs or visual materials or links (upload here)
8
Demonstration of database
9
Example of output
10
Example of output
11
NWU's impact (2016 results) Item Do not know (%) Negative impact (%)
Answers were recorded on an ordinal scale ranging from a ‘negative impact’, to ‘no impact’, and a ‘positive impact’, with another option allowing participants to indicate that they ‘do not know’. Item Do not know (%) Negative impact (%) No impact (%) Positive impact (%) Behaviour of contractors linked to the NWU (as service providers) Total 47.5 14.8 24.1 13.6 Tlokwe 43.8 11.4 29.5 15.2 Emfuleni 60.7 8.8 21.1 9.4 Mahikeng 30.6 25.8 24.8 18.7 Professional (discipline based) advice 42.6 16.4 19.5 21.5 33.6 16.6 22.3 27.5 56.9 11 15.4 16.7 27.7 24.2 23.5 24.5 Professional (discipline based) support 38.1 16.3 20.6 25 30.3 12.8 29.4 53.8 9.3 15.3 21.7 29 28.1 Broad-based black economic empowerment strategy 37.3 12.5 19.9 35.1 31.7 20.7 51.3 10.4 20 18.2 18.4 15.5 44.2 21.9 Community projects 34.5 7.4 18.8 39.4 24.9 4.7 22.1 48.4 45.9 7.5 14.9 31.6 9 44.5 Community services 29.9 8.3 24.0 37.8 13.7 6.6 52.1 47.8 8.4 15.6 28.2 14.7 33.9 42
12
Law clinics for the public Total 34.3 10.3 21.9 33.5
Item Do not know (%) Negative impact (%) No impact (%) Positive impact (%) Law clinics for the public Total 34.3 10.3 21.9 33.5 Tlokwe 25.4 7 22.1 45.5 Emfuleni Mahikeng 18.2 14.6 26.8 40.4 Non-discipline based volunteerism by staff 37.1 12.6 26.4 23.9 30 12.2 32.4 48.3 10.7 23.6 17.4 25.6 15.6 31.2 27.6 The social behaviour of NWU students (after hours) 33.6 13.8 31.5 21.1 32.7 10.9 33.2 23.2 44.1 14.3 26.1 18.8 15.3 38.3 The general behaviour of NWU students 36.4 11.2 29.1 23.3 32.1 7.5 26.9 43.9 13 23.8 19.2 28.2 11 33.8 The general behaviour of NWU staff 37 8.4 27.9 26.6 32.2 7.1 29.4 31.3 45.7 8.8 24.3 21.2 The availability of the NWU’s infrastructure/facilities for use by the public. 41.4 8.7 26.7 34 8.5 25 32.5 49.8 6.8 18.1 25.3 34.1 11.7 29.5 24.7
13
Results: Further impact/ contributions
5-point scale ranging from 1 (don’t agree at all) to 5 (fully agree) Results: Further impact/ contributions
14
Conclusion and recommendations
The NWU's current database includes a number of very relevant (reportable) aspects. This is in line with what is required by the DOE and institutional management. Additional aspects will however have to be included to increase the impact of its engaged activities. In order to do so: Theories of practice and change will have to be clarified. Measurable (specific) indicators of change will have to be added. Standardised categories for inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact will have to be created.
15
Contact details Prof Hendri Coetzee
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.