RAPPORT
WWW.RECORDINGACHIEVEMENT.AC.UK
Issue 2 (2015)
demonstrating the impact that widening access
initiatives have on addressing inequalities in HE
participation (OFFA, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d).
However, much of the attention given to evidence
gathering has been directed at evaluating the
effect of interventions on the direct beneficiaries:
those learners, or outreach participants, who go on
university summer schools, who are the recipients
of mentoring schemes and who attend HE
experience days along with many other widening
access activities provided by universities and
colleges (OFFA, 2013, 2015d). Yet if the full
impact of outreach work at wider institutional and
societal level is to be realised, consideration
should also be given to the effect that these
interventions may have on those not directly
involved: notably, the fellow pupils of outreach
participants. If this assertion is accepted, a number
of interlinked questions arise. First, is there any
evidence to support the idea of indirect widening
access beneficiaries? Second, if the evidence
exists, is its importance recognised and what are
the arguments for acknowledging indirect
beneficiaries? Third, on the assumption that the
first two questions are answered in the affirmative,
what are the mechanisms for transmission from
direct to indirect beneficiaries and how might these
be harnessed? Finally, how could the evidence of
indirect beneficiaries be recorded?
The evidence
What is the evidence that widening access
interventions generate indirect beneficiaries? In
fact, a number of recent studies have recognised
one particular group of indirect beneficiaries: the
university students that support the delivery of
many outreach interventions. Some of these
studies have explored how these individuals
benefit, including the acquisition of transferable
skills, an enriched university experience and
improved academic capabilities (Raven, 2014;
Ylonen, 2011; Wood n.d.). However, since a key
objective of such initiatives is to enhance
participation, what of the impact of these schemes
on the classmates of participants?
transferred to other learners back in the classroom.
These claims, it can be noted, are consistent with
findings from a number of other studies that have
examined the impact of educational initiatives. In
this respect, Murphy and Adams (2005) report on
three studies that explore the direct and indirect
benefits of training schemes operating in the
health sector, including the gains for the
colleagues of those who receive instruction.
Similarly, in the field of continuing professional
development, Goodall et al. (2005, p.29) call for
evaluation ‘models to be designed’ so that they are
‘able to relate to indirect benefits’, including those
acquired by the ‘school, classroom, [and] pupil.’
In further discussing the subject the teaching
practitioners
indicated
the
transmission
mechanisms involved. One example offered was
of year 10 pupils (aged 14/15) who, on returning
from a university summer school, talked
enthusiastically to their classmates about the
event and what they had learnt. In another
example reference was made to a phone call
received from a parent. This parent had learnt
about the widening access interventions the
college was involved with from a conversation with
their child’s friend who had been on an outreach
event. The parent observed that whilst their child
might not think they were going on to university,
the intention was that they were! In further
exploring the transmission process, it was
suggested that one trigger might be that of intrigue
and even envy, with classmates wanting to
discover what participants had done and what they
had gained from the event. Reference was also
made to the idea that, in talking about their
experiences, participants could have a ‘subtle, role
model effect’ (such sharing, it can be noted, would
also help to embed the learning acquired from the
event for the direct participant).
To begin to explore this subject, the insights of two
senior teaching practitioners were sought. One is
an assistant head of a large community college
whose catchment area - comprising wards
associated with low HE progression rates - means
that the college receives a range of widening
access interventions provided by local universities.
The other was an assistant head of a similar
institution whose role now involves overseeing and
delivering specialist subject interventions to
learners from a wide range of schools and colleges.
The significance
For the two practitioners consulted, ensuring
outreach interventions had the widest impact was
considered to be important from an institutional
perspective. In this respect, one observed that the
widening access ‘offer’ represented a significant
element in their college’s broader ‘careers and
progression programme’. This programme, it was
added, is designed to encourage pupils to think
about post-16 (in terms of age) options and to
enhance progression rates into the sixth form and
on to further study. Indeed, the experience and
learning gained by those who participate in
widening access events is tapped into during
‘progression pathways evenings’, where groups of
pupils explore career and future study options.
Both considered that other students besides the
actual outreach participants could be influenced by
such interventions. Here reference was made to
the ‘knock on’ effects and of the impact being
Taking a different viewpoint - as someone who
now delivered educational events to groups of
learners - the other practitioner drew attention to
the economic rationale for maximising the indirect
17