From engagement to outcomes: measuring the impact of researcher training using the rugby team impact framework

This study addresses our approach to the difficult task of measuring the impact of an eLearning service, the Graduate Virtual Research Environment (GVRE), provided to doctoral students at a UK University since October 2009. The GVRE provides research students with access to a training needs analysis tool which is linked to a repository of video learning resources created by academics and experienced research students. This paper explores the use of the Rugby Team Impact Framework as a guide to measuring impact and our use of a number of techniques to gather evidence about the changes resulting from use of the GVRE. The framework gives four levels of evidence, starting with simple measures of provision, through attendance, interest and to outcomes. As with other research, we found the former easy to assess but the outcomes harder to define. We conclude with a critical evaluation of our research process and outcomes.

Sensory imagery in individuals who are blind and sighted: examining unimodal and multimodal forms

Introduction: Previous research has suggested that visual images are more easily generated, more vivid and more memorable than other sensory modalities. This research examined whether or not imagery is experienced in similar ways by people with and without sight. Specifically, the imabeability of visual, auditory and tactile cue words was compared. The degree to which images were multimodal or unimodal was also examined. Method: Twelve participants totally blind from early infancy and 12 sighted participants generated images in response to 53 sensory and non sensory words, rating imageability and the sensory modality, and describing images. From these 53 items, 4 subgroups of words, which stimulated images that were predominantly visual, tactile, auditory and low-imagery, respectively, were created. Results: T-tests comparing imageability ratings from blind and sighted participants found no differences for auditory and tactile words (both p>.1). Nevertheless, whilst participants without sight found auditory and tactile images equally imageable, sighted participants found images in response to tactile cue words harder to generate than visual cue words (mean difference: -0.51, p=.025). Participants with sight were also more likely to develop multisensory images than were participants without sight (both U≥15.0, N1=12, N2=12, p≤.008). Discussion: For both the blind and sighted, auditory and tactile images were rich and varied and similar language was used. Sighted participants were more likely to generate multimodal images. This was particularly the case for tactile words. Nevertheless, cue words that resulted in multisensory images were not necessarily rated as more imageable. The discussion considers whether or not multimodal imagery represent a method of compensating for impoverished unimodal imagery. Implications for Practitioners: Imagery is important not only as a mnemonic in memory rehabilitation, but also everyday uses for things such as autobiographical memory. This research emphasises both the importance of not only auditory and tactile sensory imagery, but also spatial imagery for people without sight.