Discussion of qualitative data 19 9. Conclusions 21 10. 22 11. 23 Recommendations Limitations to the research List of charts, figures, tables and appendices Charts Chart A Chart B IQ 6 Age (n=38) IQ 7 Gender 07=38) 5 If gurus Figure A Figure B IQ 6 Breakdown of ages in raw numbers (n=38) IQ 7 Breakdown of gender in raw numbers (n=38) Tables Table 1. 0 List of questions from SQL – IQ k with combined responses for ‘moderately met’ and ‘fully met’.
List of questions from Qua – QPS with combined responses for List of questions from Saba -? IQ with combined responses for List of questions from Qua -? Q with combined responses for List of questions from Qua – See with combined responses for significant contribution’ and ‘high contribution’.
List of questions from Qua – See with combined responses for List of questions from Qua -? SF with combined responses for List of questions from Qua – QED with combined responses for List of questions from Qua – QED with combined responses for ‘significant contribution’ and ‘high contribution’.
Questions from Lola with combined responses for ‘significant contribution’ and ‘high contribution’. List of questions from IQ 1 a – IQ LLC with combined responses for ‘significant confidence’ and ‘high confidence’. 6 Table 2. 0 Table 3. 0 Table 4. Table 5. 0 Table 6. 0 Table 7. 0 Table 8. 0 Table 9. 0 Table 10 Table 11 Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Copy of questionnaire All charts relating to each tables per section Qualitative data 24 28 69 1.
Introduction This report outlines a process of evaluation of the business game simulation ‘Signature’, undertaken on behalf of the Institute for Enterprise. Signature is applied to a module named ‘Business Analysis and Practice? situated within the Strategy and Business Anal his subject group in the Faculty of Business and Law. It aims to provide a simulated experience of owe organizations work enabling skills and knowledge from disparate subject areas to be synthesized and assimilated in solving relatively complex business problems.
The purpose of the evaluation was twofold: 1) to assess the impact on student TTS of the Signature software used and administered by academic staff in the Faculty of Business and Law and 2) to report back on whether the financial investment of the Institute for Enterprise in purchasing the software had been value for money. A questionnaire was devised to evaluate the module, provided in Appendix A, which captured both quantitative and qualitative data.
The module is a core module delivered for all Faculty of Business and Law level 2 students on some of the University most popular business and management courses and is regularly delivered to some 500+ students. The sections that follow discuss the baseline data of the respondents in relation to age and gender, the findings from the responses are discussed in order of the flow of questions as per the questionnaire with the quantitative data first then followed with the qualitative data.
This is followed with a discussion about the results at the lower end of the scale and attention factors for that and finally a conclusion. All charts except for those in the section on baseline data are detailed in Ape NDIS B. 2. Methodology The focus of the evaluation was, as discussed above, to assess the impact of the Signature software on students and to report back on whether the financial investment of the Institute for Enterprise in purchasing the software had been value for money.
The research methodology and design underpinning the evaluation and quest inaner was applied following a separate project undertaken by the Researchers investigating a new approach to valuating enterprise education curriculum in higher education (Heart & Stew art, 2010; Stewart & Heart, 2010). Our methodology is key in this piece Of research which is open y constructionist to take account of the heavy influence from numerous contextual factors which are discussed below but not least the student voice.
The approach taken to evaluate the Signature module was designed by applying the local contextual factors that are integral to the design and delivery of the actual MO dull. These factors are contextual factors directly relating to the individual educator, the student, he university, the university community and more importantly the subject discipline. Two key factors of context here relating to the subject discipline are the actual module content itself and the use of the Signature software to apply the module content.
In relation to the subject discipline I. E. Business & management, the use of this business game to introduce students to such enterprise- related curriculum is a typical and suited approach. Drilling down into deeper contextual factors, inputs from the module such as the module descriptor, learning outcomes, learning methods ND teaching inputs such as learning materials and access to university facilities were all take into consideration when designing the questionnaire.
This design resulted in the evaluation being directly related to the module content within the subject discipline, enabling more rigorous and useful impact on the results and thus making the evaluation more meaningful, particularly for the individual educate Furthermore, results from this evaluation in terms of the students responses and their feedback will prove extremely useful in respect to any changes or improvements that are made as a ensconce to the module content and delivery.
The sample size originally selected was 50 of which 38 responded, out of a possible 500. The sample size of 50 was determined by the Module Leader due to a moratorium on surveying all students within Leeds Met at levels 1 and 2, so as to not cause ‘questionnaire fatigue’ in students prior to the distribution of the INS. This had an impact upon our desired Sam peel size of 100. However, we are of the view that the data retrieved from the sample of 38 reef sects the simulation positively and was taken up extremely well by the students, as can be seen FRR m the results.
Cite this SimVenture Evaluation Report LeedsMetUn
SimVenture Evaluation Report LeedsMetUn. (2017, Jul 21). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/simventure-evaluation-report-leedsmetun-40379/