1. Developing Digital Literacies
programme
Interim report guidelines
Helen Beetham & Jay Dempster
October 2012

2. Some general philosophies/goals
• Synthesis and evaluation is in itself part of the
change process
• Accountability is a growing area of need for funded
programmes
• Clarity, relevance of key lessons/messages with links
to your outputs, rather than needless complexity
• Illustrate & animate your findings to inspire/inform
• Offer useful, meaningful, actionable evaluation.

3. Gathering, analysing, reporting
outcomes
collating & evidencing making sense of & verifying
quantitative ‘deliverables’ qualitative ‘lessons’
(accountability >> (knowledge transfer >>
institutions/partners/funders) programme/funders, the HE sector)
gathering feedback on project processes, practices and outcomes
across the Programme
(developmental >> programme team/funders)

5. Writing the report narrative
• 1. Be interesting – this is not just a day job, unexpected, exciting or aggravating things
happen, communicate the ‘human’ element, use examples, avoid waffle/needless detail, convey the
excitement of change rather than just writing to sub-headings.
• 2. Be research-like – investigative as well as pragmatic, micro-theories based on observations, hunches
and conversations as well as on findings and solid evidence. Record them. This is what makes projects
interesting.
• 3. Be communicative – the first audience for reports is the rest of the programme, use them as critical
friends, feedback from them is evidence of what is interesting & useful.
• 4. Be meaningful – think about what project activities, outcomes and lessons might mean for people
beyond your organisation, the wider sector (graphic above might help).
• 5. Be opportunistic – look for ways of recording what you need to record that don't take up too much
time (iterative reporting, blogging, capturing conversations/outputs, routine monitoring/usage, turning
the best bits into an 'update')
• 6. Be pragmatic – in terms of rigour (reliable, valid data/methods determine the quality of the
evidence produced)
• 7. Be ‘big picture’ esq – related to baseline evidence, seek overarching relevance/value

6. Checklist questions - 1
• Is your evidence facilitating discussion or
decision making/ action taking?
– What kinds of discussion & feedback is your project
generating and how are you recording/capturing this?
– How useful is it? (to the work of your project, institutional
change, partners/associations
engagement/contribution, to students, to the wider
sector)
– Is your synthesis of findings and evaluation evidence
delivering relevant, meaningful, ‘actionable’ insights to
your institution, to the programme?

7. Checklist questions - 2
• What kind of outputs are you producing?
– What ways are you providing ‘snapshots’ & ‘sense
making’ on processes & outcomes synthesised
across your project?
– Are you tagging topics and key audiences of findings
for later synthesis/dissemination?
– How are you critiquing the data/evidence you are
gathering?

8. Checklist questions - 3
• Does the evidence add up to something?
– Is it fit-for-purpose and supporting claims you are making
about change and impact?
– Are you communicating outcomes/benefits or defending a
situation or finding in the project?
– How are you filtering/tagging what is valuable and relevant
to your project/strategic objectives and stakeholders as you
go along?
– Are you generating an overall picture of the (emerging)
impact of the work?