Quality assurance considerations in work- based learning provision

Wendy StubbsAssistant Director

Development and enhancement Groupw.stubbs@qaa.ac.uk

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