Quality assurance considerations in work- based learning provision Wendy Stubbs Assistant Director...
-
Upload
chloe-ortiz -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Quality assurance considerations in work- based learning provision Wendy Stubbs Assistant Director...
Quality assurance considerations in work- based learning provision
Wendy StubbsAssistant Director
Development and enhancement [email protected]
Presentation coverage
• some key terms:
Employer responsive provision
Flexibility
Partnership
• QA considerations
• approaches to employer responsive provision
• types of partnership and QA considerations• QAA activities in this area
Graduate apprenticeships
Professional qualifying
programmes eg Teaching,
Nursing
Dual accreditation programmes
Sandwich degrees
Foundation Degrees
Accredited in-company
programmes
Cohort negotiated WBL
programmes
Individually negotiated WBL
programmes
CPD short courses
Employability skills, progress files, PDPAPEL/AEL/Recognition of Experiential learning
Work experience ‘taster’ modules Independent study WBL modules
Curriculum determined by HEI
Curriculum defined by external standards (NOS,
Professional bodies, SSCs)
Curriculum determined by workplace goals and
objectives
Work-based learning programmes in HE
WBL as minor part
Curriculum prescribed Curriculum negotiated
WBL as major part
Shared characteristicsfor current prescribed and employer responsive
provision• need for flexibility
• partnership
• customisation
• accreditation opportunities
• in design delivery and assessment
• in internal procedures to be able to respond quickly,
• WBL as site of learning and assessment
• involvement of employers/ students/other providers
• bespoke programmes to suit the individual, the employer
• accreditation of small units/ APEL/ in-house training/provision of private training provider
Employer responsive provision:
• has brought about change of culture in HEIs• increase in
• demand-led higher education• employer involvement in curricula, delivery and
assessment • more rapid response to employers demands• flexible learning • workplace as the site of learning and assessment• “bite sized learning”• APEL/ accreditation of units into awards• accreditation of in-house training
Quality assurance considerations
• awarding credit
• external examiners
• staff development
• managing risk/ sustainability
• Unique to HEIs • provision is within the scope
of audit• involves assessment
decisions • assessment procedures • who is involved?
• what type/ what roles do they have?
• institutional responsibilities for development of own/other staff
• clarity of roles and responsibilities to all partners
• back up situation when things go wrong
Quality assurance considerations (ii)• access to HE
resources for “bite sized” students
• University committee structures
• comparability across sites
• monitoring and evaluation
• coherence of the award
• what entitlements do they have?
• flexibility to accommodate new provision within traditional structures
• exactly the same experience not possible –
• Fitness for purpose to achieve the learning outcomes
• collecting feedback from all partners
• Where is it reported?
• how is the learner supported through the process ?
What approaches can an institution adopt?
Frameworks for WBL
Characteristic
Pre-validated ‘template’ or ‘shell’ modules emphasising experiential learning
Purpose
Enable learners actively to build into their studies learning and knowledge generated through their own workplace
Pre-validation of modules Modules used as the basis for negotiating customised programmes specific to work-related needs and interest
A learning contract of agreement for individually negotiated programmes of study
Formalises the process of negotiating individual programmes and defines the outcome reflected in the agreed award title
Level descriptors that can be translated into learning outcomes and assessment criteria
Locate WBL within HE through benchmarking against FHEQ qualifications descriptors
Distinctive characteristics of fit- for- purpose WBL frameworks ( Willis 2008 )
Characteristics
The facility to include a proportion of taught modules selected from other subject disciplines within the institution, within a specified credit limit
Purpose
Learners might choose to include these in their programme of study to reflect their own interests or specialisms
Flexibility to negotiate and customise learning programmes and award titles without going through a full validation process for each one
Efficiency and responsiveness of institution to employer and individual learner demand
Flexibility over size of credit-rated modules that can be offered
Enables smaller or larger credit chunks than might otherwise be feasible in a standard institutional modular framework, to reflect employer need
Identification of proportion of accreditation of prior experiential learning [AP(E)L] available, where relevant and coherent to the negotiated route
Learners can identify areas where they can claim general or specific credit towards their awards through using clear procedures in the context of their learning
How are institutions working with others on setting up frameworks?
Types of partnership
Types of partnership
• employer
• employee
• FEC or private training provider
• FEC + private training provider
• Consortium of HEIs/FECs/ private training providers
HEI +Employer’s
site of learning/ assessment
SHELL Framework in a consortium of
providers :
FEC Private
HEI
FEC
HEI
LEAD HEI(awards the full qualification
HEI
private
Quality assurance considerations
• outlined in the QAA statement July 2008• emphasis on HEI deciding what is appropriate QA-
“fitness for purpose”• may need contracts for private providers • the HEI awarding full qualification:
• determines the confidence it has in other(s) quality assurance ( may vary depending on provider)
• no QAA limit on acceptance of the credit/ grades/ awards of another HEI/partner – no need to revalidate all components ( need to consider maximum credit of others accepted)
QAA activities • response to the 2008 HEFCE /QAA task group report
• Joint HEA/FDF Employer Engagement action plan• Autumn 2009 joint conference
• QAA activities
• Liaison Officer project• Survey of institutional approaches and identification of QA
guidance needs• July 10 conference • Case studies of approaches • Presentation of findings • Overarching principles presented and developed
• briefing for auditors and reviewers
• revision of APEL guidelines