An institutional understanding of triple bottom line evaluations and the use of social and environmental metrics

Measuring social and environmental metrics of property is necessary for meaningful triple bottom line (TBL) assessments. This paper demonstrates how relevant indicators derived from environmental rating systems provide for reasonably straightforward collations of performance scores that support adjustments based on a sliding scale. It also highlights the absence of a corresponding consensus of important social metrics representing the third leg of the TBL tripod. Assessing TBL may be unavoidably imprecise, but if valuers and managers continue to ignore TBL concerns, their assessments may soon be less relevant given the emerging institutional milieu informing and reflecting business practices and society expectations.

Evaluation of the quality of diverse teaching practice in higher education research methods

The purpose of this paper is to report on a methods research project investigating the evaluation of diverse teaching practice in Higher Education. The research method is a single site case study of an Australian university with data collected through published documents, surveys, interviews and focus groups. This project provides evidence of the wide variety of evaluation practice and diverse teaching practice across the university. This breadth identifies the need for greater flexibility of evaluation processes, tools and support to assist teaching staff to evaluate their diverse teaching practice. The employment opportunities for academics benchmark the university nationally and position the case study in the field. Finally this reaffirms the institutional responsibility for services to support teaching staff in an ongoing manner.

Empowering the school community for change : an evaluation of participation in the Ashgrove Healthy School Environment Project

The purpose of this study was to evaluate aspects of participation in a participatory action research project, the Ashgrove Healthy School Environment Project. Participatory action research is a form of research that creates change as an explicit part of the research process and requires the active participation of those by and for whom the research is being conducted. This study arose from concems by this researcher, who is also a co-facilitator of the project, that levels of participation were not as extensive as one might have hoped and that this seemingly low level would have a negative impact on the continuing participation of those already involved. Specifically. this evaluation sought to uncover the reasons that prompted participation, to identify structural barriers to initial involvement and to uncover participants' perceptions of the process, including barriers and opportunities. It also sought to record evidence of any shift in decision making and to draw implications about the findings that could assist the project, the school, other schools and the wider community. This evaluation involved focus group discussions and interviews with participants actively involved in the school project. The purpose was to uncover their views, feelings and perceptions about their participation and the participatory processes in use generally. It also included some examination of school documents and newsletters and as also drawn on the reflections of this 'insider' researcher, based on two years of involvement in facilitating the project. The findings that emerge from this study are heartening. Rather than feeling anxious about the long-term sustainability of the project, this researcher now feels more confident about its achievements, both in terms of the changes that have occurred in the school and about the participatory processes and levels of participation. Whilst the evaluation has identified a number of barriers, both institutional, personal and project related, it has also identified several key factors that serve to promote participation.

Kaleidoscope : Reframing learning and teaching evaluation through a shared stakeholder lens

Sector wide interest in Reframe: QUT’s Evaluation Framework continues with a number of institutions requesting finer details as QUT embeds the new approach to evaluation across the university in 2013. This interest, both nationally and internationally has warranted QUT’s collegial response to draw upon its experiences from developing Reframe into distilling and offering Kaleidoscope back to the sector. The word Reframe is a relevant reference for QUT’s specific re-evaluation, reframing and adoption of a new approach to evaluation; whereas Kaleidoscope reflects the unique lens through which any other institution will need to view their own cultural specificity and local context through an extensive user-led stakeholder engagement approach when introducing new approaches to learning and teaching evaluation. Kaleidoscope’s objectives are for QUT to develop its research-based stakeholder approach to distil the successful experience exhibited in the Reframe Project into a transferable set of guidelines for use by other tertiary institutions across the sector. These guidelines will assist others to design, develop, and deploy, their own culturally specific widespread organisational change informed by stakeholder engagement and organisational buy-in. It is intended that these guidelines will promote, support and enable other tertiary institutions to embark on their own evaluation projects and maximise impact. Kaleidoscope offers an institutional case study of widespread organisational change underpinned by Reframe’s (i) evidence-based methodology; (ii) research including published environmental scan, literature review (Alderman, et al., 2012), development of a conceptual model (Alderman, et al., in press 2013), project management principles (Alderman & Melanie, 2012) and national conference peer reviews; and (iii) year-long strategic project with national outreach to collaboratively engage the development of a draft set of National Guidelines. Kaleidoscope’s aims are to inform Higher Education evaluation policy development through national stakeholder engagement, the finalisation of proposed National Guidelines. In correlation with the conference paper, the authors will present a Draft Guidelines and Framework ready for external peer review by evaluation practitioners from the Higher Education sector, as part of Kaleidoscope’s dissemination strategy (Hinton & Gannaway, 2011) applying illuminative evaluation theory (Parlett & Hamilton, 1976), through conference workshops and ongoing discussions (Shapiro, et al., 1983; Jacobs, 2000). The initial National Guidelines will be distilled from the Reframe: QUT’s Evaluation Framework’s Policy, Protocols, and incorporated Business Rules. It is intended that the outcomes of Kaleidoscope are owned by and reflect sectoral engagement, including iterative evaluation through multiple avenues of dissemination and collaboration including the Higher Education sector. The dissemination strategy with the inclusion of Illuminative Evaluation methodology provides an inclusive opportunity for other institutions and stakeholders across the Higher Education sector to give voice through the information-gathering component of evaluating the draft Guidelines, providing a comprehensive understanding of the complex realities experienced across the Higher Education sector, and thereby ‘illuminating’ both the shared and unique lenses and contexts. This process will enable any final guidelines developed to have broader applicability, greater acceptance, enhanced sustainability and additional relevance benefiting the Higher Education sector, and the adoption and adaption by any single institution for their local contexts.

Reframe QUT's evaluation framework : a case study of planning, policy and positioning leading to educational best practice

Every university in Australia has a set of policies that guide the institution in its educational practices, however, the policies are often developed in isolation to each other. Now imagine a space where policies are evidence-based, refined annually, cohesively interrelated, and meet stakeholders’ needs. Is this happenstance or the result of good planning? Culturally, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is a risk-averse institution that takes pride in its financial solvency and is always keen to know “how are we going?” With a twenty-year history of annual reporting that assures the quality of course performance through multiple lines of evidence, QUT’s Learning and Teaching Unit went one step further and strategically aligned a suite of policies that take into consideration the needs of their stakeholders, collaborate with other areas across the institution and use multiple lines of evidence to inform curriculum decision-making. In QUT’s experience, strategic planning can lead to policy that is designed to meet stakeholders’ needs, not manage them; where decision-making is supported by evidence, not rhetoric; where all feedback is incorporated, not ignored; and where policies are cohesively interrelated, not isolated. While many may call this ‘policy nirvana’, QUT has positioned itself to demonstrate good educational practice through Reframe, its evaluation framework. In this case, best practice was achieved through the application of a theory of change and a design-led logic model that allows for transition to other institutions with different cultural specificity. The evaluation approach follows Seldin’s (2003) notion to offer depth and breadth to the evaluation framework along with Berk’s (2005) concept of multiple lines of evidence. In summary, this paper offers university executives, academics, planning and quality staff an opportunity to understand the critical steps that lead to strategic planning and design of evidence-based educational policy that positions a university for best practice in learning and teaching.