Educating ‘Future Professionals’ for Sustainable …
611
4 Researching and Analyzing Impact
The analysis and empirical results of the mixed method program analysis shows,
that approximately 180 “newcomer innovators” have been trained as ‘Coaches’ and
roundabout 600 have been participating as ‘Peers’ in self organized students’ first
semester groups.
The program was consistently evaluated in a multimethod and mixed method
research design (Brake 2015). At the beginning of the program in 2012 and 2013,
guideline and image based interviews (Weber 2012) had been combined with a
quantitative study following the Survey Feedback approach (Weber and Wieners
2018). Over the following years, qualitative and image based group discussions and
group workshops were combined with quantitative formative and final evaluations.
In general, program outcome was analyzed from students’ perspective via annual
surveys and data gatherings. For data analysis, a reconstructive approach based on
the documentary method was applied (Bohnsack et al. 2013).
The program wave 2016/2017 involved 12 trainers, 60 Coaches and 120 Peers.
The mixed methods approach combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation in a
midterm and final evaluation approach. As the results of the quantitative evaluation
were very good in general, we will focus here on the qualitative final evaluation
results based on 14 image based group discussions. Data Analysis was done in
a research team working with ‘Documentary Method’ (Bohnsack 2014), analyzing
program outcomes in students’ perspectives. Like the complex analysis of qualitative
data shows, students perceive the program as a completely different educational
experience. As we will see in the following, the program is regarded as ‘Different
Space’ (Foucault 2005).
In 2017, six trainings were realized in parallel trainings of 10–12 participants
each, who were trained by a tandem of student trainers. 60 student multiplicators
(‘coaches’) were trained, who each supported two or three peers in their weekly
peer-group trainings.
5 The Program as Different Space
This different and alternative space can be analyzed regarding the dimensions of
being a space for entry, transition and orientation. Secondly, it is a social space of
friendships and relations, thirdly a space of explorations and experiences, and in
total an atmospheric space. It can be discussed as a heterotopic space according to
Foucaults’ perspectives on alternative spaces (Weber et al. 2018).
A biographical space of passage, transition, entry and orientation
For many of the participants, the program becomes a relevant biographical space
of entry and orientation. Entry is being described as well as entry in studies and entry
into a space of recognition.
611
4 Researching and Analyzing Impact
The analysis and empirical results of the mixed method program analysis shows,
that approximately 180 “newcomer innovators” have been trained as ‘Coaches’ and
roundabout 600 have been participating as ‘Peers’ in self organized students’ first
semester groups.
The program was consistently evaluated in a multimethod and mixed method
research design (Brake 2015). At the beginning of the program in 2012 and 2013,
guideline and image based interviews (Weber 2012) had been combined with a
quantitative study following the Survey Feedback approach (Weber and Wieners
2018). Over the following years, qualitative and image based group discussions and
group workshops were combined with quantitative formative and final evaluations.
In general, program outcome was analyzed from students’ perspective via annual
surveys and data gatherings. For data analysis, a reconstructive approach based on
the documentary method was applied (Bohnsack et al. 2013).
The program wave 2016/2017 involved 12 trainers, 60 Coaches and 120 Peers.
The mixed methods approach combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation in a
midterm and final evaluation approach. As the results of the quantitative evaluation
were very good in general, we will focus here on the qualitative final evaluation
results based on 14 image based group discussions. Data Analysis was done in
a research team working with ‘Documentary Method’ (Bohnsack 2014), analyzing
program outcomes in students’ perspectives. Like the complex analysis of qualitative
data shows, students perceive the program as a completely different educational
experience. As we will see in the following, the program is regarded as ‘Different
Space’ (Foucault 2005).
In 2017, six trainings were realized in parallel trainings of 10–12 participants
each, who were trained by a tandem of student trainers. 60 student multiplicators
(‘coaches’) were trained, who each supported two or three peers in their weekly
peer-group trainings.
5 The Program as Different Space
This different and alternative space can be analyzed regarding the dimensions of
being a space for entry, transition and orientation. Secondly, it is a social space of
friendships and relations, thirdly a space of explorations and experiences, and in
total an atmospheric space. It can be discussed as a heterotopic space according to
Foucaults’ perspectives on alternative spaces (Weber et al. 2018).
A biographical space of passage, transition, entry and orientation
For many of the participants, the program becomes a relevant biographical space
of entry and orientation. Entry is being described as well as entry in studies and entry
into a space of recognition.