COMPAÑÍA GENERAL DE COMBUSTIBLES S.A

Aimhigher targeted learners who had the potential to enter HE but who were underachieving, undecided or lacking in confidence.ThinkSmart included this alongside its own recruitment criteria which related to the aims of the intervention. ThinkSmart was for young people in year 9 who were middle ability with low self- esteem, motivation, confidence and at risk of disengaging. The actual selection of students for ThinkSmart was however left for teacher judgment. The recruitment of learners was not dictated by Aimhigher, rather the schools were left to select.

The selection of young people from year 9 was due to this being an important school year group, where potentially life changing decisions are made which young people may need support with. This includes the decisions on what GCSEs to take which can have the potential to affect educational journeys (Strand and Wilson, 2008). In this year also motivational levels can decrease and continue to do so until the point young people prepare for their GCSEs in year 11 (Payne, 2003; Peetsma, Hascher, van der Veen and Roede, 2005; Martin, 2009). This is a concern as motivation levels can impact on academic performance (Wagner and Szamoskozi, 2012).

82 At this age also enduring learner identities that constrain or encourage educational progression are formed (Raphael-Reed et al., 2007). Therefore to increase the opportunity for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to consider HE, year 9 was a target year group. Working with this year can aim to tackle the underachievement at compulsory education which is a major underlying problem to widening access to HE (Strand and Wilson, 2008). If early aspirations are nurtured then activities can have an impact on participation at post-compulsory education (Strand and Wilson, 2008). ThinkSmart aims to transform negative self-perceptions to heed the formation of enduring negative learner identity and additionally provide the young people with the tools to be successful in their GCSEs so to continue their educational journey at 16.

5.4C

Chapter four concluded there were flaws in the design and evaluation of outreach activities thus a new generation of outreach activities in which universities are responsibile for outreach provision needed to overcome this. This chapter focused on the design of an outreach activity, ThinkSmart.ThinkSmart was unique as it was devised using theoretical knowledge and research. ThinkSmart combined attribution re-training and cognitive behavioural principles as a way to address maladaptive thinking patterns that may hinder educational progression. These principles provideda different way to address the disparities in HE.

CBT and attribution re-training were discussed as ways to transform negative self- beliefs, low self-esteem and motivation levels. Attribution re-training aims to transform maladaptive attribution styles to improve levels of self-esteem and motivation which is associated with the field of CBT that also aims to address maladaptive thinking and change behaviours. Research has demonstrated the positive application of CBT in a number of settings with young people. Fosterling (1985) noted there is however little research that has combined the two approaches, although this would be useful to tackle underachievement. This is somewhat

surprising considering the goal of outreach activities is to address

underachievement.

ThinkSmart wastherefore a unique outreach activity as it was underpinned by sound psychological theories (Upton and Upton, 2009). The young people were given the

83 tools to address their maladaptive patterns of thinking with their Ambassadors (Upton and Upton, 2009). A tailored behavioural change approach to outreach activities has the potential to be effective in shifting attitudes, changing behaviours and improving educational outcomes (Social Exclusion Task Force, 2008). The application of ThinkSmart discussed in subsequent chapters provides evidence to support whether this assumption is valid.

ThinkSmart was the focus of this research project to overcome the shortage of evidence to determine the impact and effectiveness of outreach activities as highlighted in chapter four. To understand how to widen participation a project was

needed to conduct a ‘series of controlled trials and design experiments’ based

around ‘only one intervention’ (Gorard et al., 2006; 139). Subsequent chapters discuss the robust evaluation of ThinkSmart to address the scarcity of such robust evidence, to establish the impact and effectiveness of an outreach activity, ThinkSmart (Gorard, Smith, May, Thomas, Adnett and Slack, 2006; Thomas, 2011). The next chapter is the start of this process by describing the intended evaluation framework for ThinkSmart.

84

CHAPTER 6THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR THINKSMART

6.1C

S

As discussed in chapter four, the evaluation of outreach activities endured a number of methodological flaws that hindered the ability to determine the impact and effectiveness of such activities in engaging young people with the idea of HE. The design and evaluation of outreach activities therefore needed to change. Chapter five focused on the design aspect and this chapter focuses on the evaluation framework for ThinkSmart Psychologists have knowledge of and use a range of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and analyses that are to be used to inform the evaluation of ThinkSmart (Taylor and Trapp, 2010). This chapter discusses the evaluation framework to be implemented in the proceeding chapters.

6.2E

A

To address the research aim, it would not have been sufficient to use one data collection approach due to the complexity of ThinkSmart. The approach taken for the evaluation of ThinkSmart could be compared to ethnographic research, in that the aim was to understand a new area by detailed exploration of one case, that being the evaluation of ThinkSmart devised by Aimhigher Herefordshire and Worcestershire. However, in ethnographic research, the researcher typically immerses themselves in the area of research using the approach of participant observation which involves a significant time with participants (Runswick-Cole, 2011). With this approach there is reliance on spoken and written words to produce a reflective account of the research area; as such data from this approach cannot be generalised. Furthermore the researcher is not independent of the project.

Yet the evaluation of ThinkSmart was designed deliberately to be independent in order to address the limitations noted in earlier chapters concerning previous evaluations of outreach activities. A mixed method approach is most suited to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the impact and effectiveness of ThinkSmart.The evaluation of ThinkSmart therefore differs somewhat to ethnographic approaches as there is a focus on numbers as well as spoken words to understand a new area of research but more importantly the researcher remains independent of the wider phenomena under investigation.

85 In combining qualitative and quantitative research approaches it enabled the collection of richer data, thus providing a greater understanding of the phenomena being researched (Powell et al., 2008); this is a strength of the project due to the knowledge gap in regards to the impact and effectiveness of outreach activities. Such an approach can be described as a multi methodapproach as the research project combines elements of qualitative and quantitative data collection approaches for the purpose of adding breadth and depth of understanding to a topic (Johnson et al., 2007). The evaluation approach taken provided a complete picture of the research problem (see Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003 for a review of mixed methods). This is of importance due to the increased demand to explore how outreach activities work and why there are effective, if they are.

The process evaluation explored the implementation of the intervention which informed the effectiveness of ThinkSmart and the empirical evaluation reported the impact of ThinkSmart. However due to the complex nature of ThinkSmart the process evaluation was also used to elucidate the results of the empirical evaluation; as whether the results were positive, modest or insignificant the process evaluation could interpret the findings to best describe the overall outcomes of the evaluation of ThinkSmart (Davies et al., 2000; Linnan and Steckler, 2002; Saunders, Evans and Joshi, 2005).