Education for Citizenship Electronic Consultation Study: Evaluation Report
Download the full report
PDF file: Electronic Consultation Study: Evaluation Report (399 KB)
Read the full report completed in May 2001.
Read the report summary
Getting responses via the internet
E-consultant is a web-based application that allows Internet users to make responses to a consultation, read related consultation documents, see who else has contributed and the nature of their response, and return to read feedback on the outcomes of the process.
The website's contents, appearance, structure and functions are tailored by ITC to meet the needs of the particular consulting body, in this case LT Scotland for their Education for Citizenship draft paper. During the e-consultation ITC monitor the site using Conditions of Use also agreed beforehand. After the e-consultation the outcomes are summarised and reported, and that is the focus of this report.
E-consultant addressed the need to collect responses from the wider community and informal responses generally. It also served as a pilot for future LT Scotland consultations on aspects of curriculum review. E-consultant collected responses for the period 15th December to 16th March 2001.
The questions we were looking to answer
Our analysis addresses the following evaluation questions, firstly concerning the responses:-
- How effective was e-consultant in facilitating discussion and highlighting areas of agreement and disagreement?
- What were the main issues and the areas of agreement and disagreement?
Secondly concerning the participants:-
- Who used e-consultant, in terms of their self-identification with the target groups and their interest in education for citizenship?
- Which parts of e-consultant were most and least frequently accessed?
- What were e-consultant users views about the e-consultation itself, and where did they have specific difficulties?
Overview of the responses we received
In our view the e-consultation did make a worthwhile contribution to the consultation process, complementing the 3 other response routes made available by LT Scotland. The number of responses was lower than expected, especially from those not directly engaged in providing education, but offset by their topicality and some constructive criticisms.
Responses to the paper's main argument, that schools and pre-5 centres have key roles in fostering active citizenship, were broadly very supportive but qualified by some common concerns about the capacity of schools to deliver.
The "key characteristics of effective responsible citizenship" were unanimously but not strongly supported. The general concern was that the statements are too 'aspirational' and should be more clearly related to processes of citizenship, including the role of parents and carers. The responses here elaborated on the concerns about the relation of aims to delivery.
The comments generally endorsed the view that education for citizenship is an entitlement, and that this entitlement should be manifest in the 'whole educational experience' as well as the formally taught curriculum. The ability of schools to manage and deliver the new learning opportunities required was a serious concern. The New Community Schools, and initiatives like Community Learning Plans were thought to offer useful partnership models for interaction between schools and their local communities.
Participants called for existing practices to be mapped, and benchmarks to be considered. Nevertheless there was a strong consensus that education for citizenship should be evaluated but not formally assessed or accredited. Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and in-service training were thought to be the appropriate focus for disseminating good practice.
Who participated and how did they respond to this method of participation
The 34 participants in the e-consultation were, for the most part, people directly involved in education provision as teachers or education managers. There was little participation by parents or other interest groups as far as we can discern from the responses to our online evaluation questionnaire. Most comments were made in the first and last week of the consultation. Half of those who registered for the site did not go on to respond. This and some comments we received from would-be contributors suggest that some were put off by the prospect of their comments being publicised before their institutions response had been made on paper.
Our comments reflecting on the process are based on the outcomes and records of how the site was used, observations on the experience of managing the site and of the consultation conference events. On that basis we conclude that:-
- There were evidently some off-putting aspects to the site, particularly the registration process, and some features were not easy enough to use.
- The e-consultation process may benefit from more effective targeting of the various communities of practice it was addressed to. That is, rather than a 'one size fits all' approach:-
- Education providers and managers might respond more readily to a process integrating online and face-to-face conferencing.
- Other members of the public might respond more readily to a site with a simpler structure, fewer more general questions and a simplified version of the consultation document.
Given the range of alternative routes to take part in the consultation, there was probably a need for a stronger 'carrot' to stimulate participation in the e-consultation. Marketing and publicity need to be highlighted as key areas for further consideration. There needs to be a range of different ways of promoting future e-consultations to highlight their existence and gather public participation.
Looking to the future, we are interested in exploring with LT Scotland the possibilities of online consultation conferencing, perhaps in the context of CPD, to identify how an e-consultation process might best be aligned with incentives to share practice experiences.