Individual Activity
Adaptive Learning Session
Select your proficiency level. The activity adapts to your responses — one concept at a time.
Emerging
New to CEA/CUA. Building foundational understanding of when and why these methods exist.
Recognition
Core concepts
Growing
Familiar with the concepts. Ready to calculate, distinguish methods, and identify weak evidence.
Application
Discrimination
Confident
Experienced with the methods. Examining edge cases, evidence quality, and methodological critique.
Critique
Expert judgment
4 questions · 1 interactive teach-back · tied to learning objectives
Group Simulation · 22–25 min · Groups of 4
The Funding Panel
Your group is the executive funding panel for a university. Three programs have applied for funding — but you can recommend only one for immediate investment. Your goal is not to find the smallest number. It is to agree on the right evaluative method, determine what can actually be calculated, and build a recommendation you could defend in a real institutional setting.
Your roles — assign one per person
Finance Lead
Push the group to be precise about costs and efficiency. Ask: are we comparing like with like? Is the denominator the same across proposals? Challenge any ratio that looks convenient but is not defensible.
Research Lead
Scrutinise the evidence for each proposal. Ask: how was this effect measured? Is there a comparison group? Is the outcome measure valid for what the program claims to do? Flag where evidence is too weak to support a calculation.
Stakeholder Lead
Keep the group honest about whose values and priorities are embedded in the analysis. Ask: whose preferences shaped the utility weights? Are the outcomes measured what students actually care about? What voice is missing from this evaluation?
Provost / CEO Lead
Synthesise the group's analysis and make the final call. Ask: which recommendation can I defend to a sceptical board? What is the strongest methodological caveat I need to attach? Does this align with our institutional strategy?
Read all three proposals carefully before opening the group analysis. Each role should prepare one question they want to raise about the evidence or method before the group discussion begins.
Proposal A
Writing Lift
Cost per student$1,000
Outcome+0.25 effect size in academic writing
EvidenceRandomised controlled trial (RCT)
GoalImprove writing performance
Proposal B
Student Success Hub
Cost per student$1,400
Writing utility30 · stakeholder weight 0.40
Belonging utility35 · stakeholder weight 0.40
Attendance utility25 · stakeholder weight 0.20
GoalFirst-year success & persistence
Proposal C
Momentum Mentoring
Cost per student$900
Outcome reported"22% improvement in student success"
GoalImprove overall student momentum
EvidenceStudent testimonials
1 Choose the evaluative method for each proposal
As a group, agree on which method is appropriate for each proposal. Use the dropdowns to record your group's decision — the selection will prompt your discussion, not replace it.
2 Work through the calculations together
Select methods above and your group's calculations will appear here for discussion.
3 Group discussion — evidence and assumptions
Each role should lead on the question most relevant to their perspective. Discuss each before moving on.
Finance Lead asks: Even if we can calculate ratios for both A and B, can we actually compare them to decide which is better value? What would make that comparison valid or invalid?
Research Lead asks: What does the evidence for each proposal actually allow us to claim? For Proposal C specifically — what is missing, and what would need to be true before any evaluation could proceed?
Stakeholder Lead asks: The utility weights in Proposal B were assigned by administrators. What difference would it make if students had assigned them instead? Whose values should count — and how would you find out?
Provost / CEO Lead asks: Proposal A has the strongest evidence and a clean ratio. Proposal B captures more of what we care about institutionally. How do you weigh methodological rigour against strategic fit when making a funding recommendation?
4 Note your group's position before the twist
Which proposal is your group leaning toward recommending, and why?
What is the one methodological caveat you would attach to that recommendation?
Is there anything about the evidence or context that makes you uncomfortable with any of the ratios?
⚡ Leadership priority shift — revisit your recommendation (3 min)
The provost has just sent a message to the panel: "Retention matters more than writing performance alone. We need to see that we're investing in the whole student — not just one skill."
Take 3 minutes to revisit your recommendation in light of this. Does this change which proposal you would fund? Does it change which method is most appropriate? Does it expose a tension between what the evidence can support and what leadership now wants?
Discuss as a group
Does Proposal A's single writing outcome still satisfy this institutional priority — or does it now look too narrow?
Does Proposal B's multi-outcome utility score become more strategically defensible under this new framing?
If you switch your recommendation, what does that tell you about the relationship between methodological rigour and institutional values?
Could a decision-maker legitimately reject a methodologically sound proposal because it doesn't align with strategic priorities? What are the implications of that?
Alternative scenarios — your group may receive one of these instead
Scenario B: "The board questions whether the utility weights in Proposal B reflect student perspectives — or only what administrators assume students value."
Scenario C: "A major donor has offered additional funding, but only for a program with visible wellbeing outcomes — not academic performance metrics alone."
1 Build your group's 90-second funding pitch
Use the selectors below to assemble your pitch. The Provost / CEO Lead will deliver it. Every other role should be ready to defend the methodological choices if challenged.
We recommend Proposal ___.
The most appropriate evaluative method is ___ because ___.
The strongest evidence point supporting this recommendation is ___.
Our methodological caveat is ___.
2 Prepare for challenges from other groups
After your pitch, another group will have 30 seconds to challenge your recommendation. Consider how you would respond to each of these:
Are the denominators across your shortlisted proposals actually comparable? If not, how can you justify ranking them?
Whose values are embedded in the utility score for Proposal B — and how would you defend that to a student representative on the board?
Your ratio shows efficiency. But does it show that this program is actually worth the investment? What additional evidence would you need?
Why did you reject Proposal C? What specifically would need to change for it to become evaluable?