20 April 2021

SIGLOC-online 2021 March - Pre & Post Self-Evaluation Results
COIL Promotion OfficeOsaka City University, Japan
1. Information on respondents:● Respondents are 27 participants out of 30, who attended the SIGLOC-online 2021 March program
held from 10 March to 24 March 2021.
● Respondents evaluated their abilities related to Social Innovation before and after the program witha rubric having four (4) levels (Evaluation sheet is attached as a Reference).
● Respondents’ countries in residence and universities
County in ResidenceIndonesia

Number ofRespondentsUniversity
Heriot-Watt University, Malaysia

1

Osaka City University, Japan

3

Osaka Prefecture University, Japan

1Philippines

De La Salle University, the Philippines

6Russia

St. Petersburg State University, Russia

5USAAndrews University, the USA

2Kwame Nkrumah University, Zambia

8

University of Zambia, Zambia

1JapanZambia
TotalTotal

2. Overall result● Below are the “Overall average scores of respondents by question (ability)”.

27

3. Results by Question (Ability)
Q1: Ability for basic understanding of problems
Criteria

Ability for basic understanding of problems

No. of Respondents
PrePostLevel 1
Acceptable

I understand the sustainability of society and I am able toexplain it.

40

Level 2
Satisfactory

I understand the relationships between social economic
growth and/or economic development, and sustainability,and I am able to explain them.

72

Level 3GoodI understand the relationships among social economic
growth, sustainability and policies, and I am able to explain
them.

109

Level 4
Excellent

I understand the relationships among economic growth andsustainability of society; and self-help, mutual-help andpublic-help, and I am able to explain them.

616

2.67

3.56

Average Score+0.89

Q2: Ability to discover/identify issues
Criteria

Ability to discover/identify issues

Level 1
Acceptable

No. of Respondents
PrePostI am able to explain social issues that are commonly sharedin a particular society to others.

41

Level 2
Satisfactory

I am able to explain social issues to people in othercountries, including differences in social and cultural
backgrounds (contexts) between their own country and othercountries.

91

Level 3Good

I am able to discuss social issues with people from othercountries, including differences in social and cultural
backgrounds (contexts) between my own country and othercountries; and discover/ identify issues.

1112

Level 4
Excellent

I am able to discuss social issues with people from othercountries, including differences in social and cultural
backgrounds (contexts) between my own country and othercountries; and discover universal issues.

3

13

2.48

3.37

Average Score+0.89

Q3: Ability to find creative solutions
Criteria

Ability to find creative solutions

No. of Respondents
PrePostLevel 1
Acceptable

I am able to create solutions to social issues.

61

Level 2
Satisfactory

I am able to create solutions to social issues in the country
where they occur.

64

Level 3
GoodI am able to create measures that can solve social issues insociety, and explain to people in other countries about why
those measures will lead to solving problems.

1111

Level 4
Excellent

I am able to create universal solutions to social issues, andexplain their applicability to any country.

411

2.48

3.19

Average Score+0.71

Q4: Ability to implement solutions (Collaboration/ Collective impact)
Criteria

Ability to implement solutions (Collaboration/ Collectiveimpact)

No. of Respondents
PrePostLevel 1
Acceptable

I am able to list what is needed to implement solutions tosocial issues.

81

Level 2
Satisfactory

I am able to make a plan to implement solutions to socialissues.

92

Level 3GoodI am able to find relevant organizations and collaborators toadvance a plan to implement solutions to social issues.

814

Level 4
Excellent

I am able to discuss with representatives of relevantorganizations and collaborators in order to advance a planfor implementing solutions; and obtain an agreement ofcollaboration.

210

2.15

3.22

Average Score+1.07

Q5: Leadership
Criteria

No. of Respondents

Leadership

PrePostLevel 1
Acceptable

I am able to perform given tasks.

21

Level 2
Satisfactory

I am able to achieve given goals as a group member.

83

Level 3Good

I am able to achieve given goals as a group leader.

116

Level 4
Excellent

I am able to create and share goals for my team, and work
together to achieve them.

617

2.78

3.44

Average Score+0.66

4. Changes of average score by university**Universities with only one (1) participant are not shown here.
Andrews University (N=2)

De La Salle University (N=6)

Kwame Nkrumah University (N=8)

Osaka City/Prefecture Universities (N=4)

St. Petersburg State University (N=5)

5. Note:● Individual average total of 5 criteria: Pre=2.51, Post=3.36 (Difference=+0.85)

Reference: SIGLOC-online 2021 March Self-Evaluation Form