The Jisc WBL Maturity Toolkit: some observations

This paper presents some brief observations about the WBL Maturity Toolkit arising from the Swansea Metropolitan contribution to the Jisc Dewi project. The paper is critical, in the sense that it comments on areas of the toolkit still needing completion and refinement, and its purpose is to assist discussions about improvement, consistency and optimisation.

The Swansea Met contribution focussed on four specific sections of the WBL Maturity Toolkit that were relevant to the proposed online distance learning delivery of courses for the armed forces overseas. The sections were: Institutional Readiness; Faculty Readiness; Programme Design; and Quality Enhancement.

1. Institutional Readiness

1-1 WBL strategy and plans

The WBL Toolkit gives the impression that WBL is viewed as something separate to other learning formats. In practice, of course, WBL is integrated with the other learning formats that combine in the overall programme. It might be questioned whether a 'specific WBL strategic plan' is desirable rather than just promoting WBL in the institutional strategy as a key component of applied, work-focussed training.

1-8 WBL processes and procedures for programme validation

The guidelines here seem to promote 'fast tracking', 'shell frameworks' and other features as being essential, rather than just options if appropriate. It may be helpful if they were presented as such and that the 'further info and examples' addition to this particular criterion (not a feature of most other criteria) included as part of an appendix of useful resources/evidence of effective practice.

1-9 QA for WBL

As noted in other comments, the QA processes and processes supporting WBL planning, development and implementation are covered more than once in the WBL Toolkit. The distinction between the contexts of each QA criterion needs to be made clear (or a separate area of the toolkit be created dealing with all aspects of QA). Also, the main statement for this particular criterion is expressed as a question rather than as a statement and this may need to be revised.

1-12 Business, commercial and financial approaches

There are no self assessment guidelines or evidence suggestions given for this aspect in the current version of the WBL Toolkit. An assessment of added value for this criterion is therefore not possible at present. Some possible toolkit guidelines and evidence are offered for consideration on the Swansea Met project wiki1.

2. Faculty/School/Departmental Readiness

2-1 WBL strategy and implementation plan

The WBL Toolkit currently has no guidelines or evidence entered for this criterion. As a result added value cannot be assessed. Some possible toolkit guidelines and evidence are offered for consideration2.

2-4 Training and support for external staff and employers

The self assessment guidelines are brief and reasonably self evident. No evidence suggestions are currently included in the toolkit and some are offered.

3. Programme Design for WBL

1 http://swanseametwbl.pbworks.com/w/page/61323796/WBL%20Institutional%20Readiness 2 http://swanseametwbl.pbworks.com/w/page/61323794/WBL%20Faculty%20Readiness

3-3 Development and planning for WBL

The statement and guidelines are very general for this criterion and it's not clear how they contribute specifically to work based learning design beyond the need for flexibility and meeting stakeholder needs

3-4 Alignment with professional standards

No particular recommendations here. The guidance is brief but to the point.

3-8 Integration of ICT/e-Learning into curriculum design

The phrase that is missing here is 'where appropriate'. The main statement and guidance imply that e-learning tools, e-portfolios, etc are suitable components for all types of WBL, which may not be the case.

3-11 Learning materials and resources

The WBL Toolkit guidance is incomplete for this criterion, so added value cannot currently be judged. Some suggestions are offered3.

6. Quality Enhancement

6-3 Programme design, review and quality enhancement

Two aspects of the WBL Toolkit design are highlighted by the detail included with this criterion. The first is the fact that both programme design and quality enhancement are covered, perhaps in a different context, elsewhere in the toolkit. If there is some level of repetition, then a rationalisation of the criteria involved is recommended. If they are each addressing different aspects of programme design and quality enhancement then this needs to be made explicit.

The second issue is the obvious contrast between the large number of guidelines and evidence recommendations for this criterion compared with the much smaller number for other areas and criteria in the toolkit. The reason for the difference, if intended, needs to be made clear to the user. On the one hand, it might indicate greater priority for the more detailed criteria. On the other hand it may be that the less detailed criteria are still in development. The general expectation would either be consistency across all criteria or some indication of the reasons for the difference.

6-4 Programme delivery and support

The same comment regarding consistency across the toolkit criteria applies here (there are over four times as many guidelines here compared with some other criteria. Some, as identified, have no guidelines at all).

There are a number of entirely appropriate references to time and cost efficiencies, flexibility, choice and control etc. However, there is an implicit assumption in the guidelines that the chosen delivery and support system actually works. This is particularly relevant for the CILT programme as online distance learning has not been used before by the University as a delivery method.

An additional self assessment guideline relating to evidence of learning effectiveness using the proposed delivery method might be appropriate.

Conclusions

The mapping of the WBL Maturity Toolkit to the needs of Swansea Metropolitan in its plans for the online distance learning delivery of courses revealed a number of opportunities for improvement of the Toolkit itself. It was concluded that these improvements needed to be implemented before the toolkit would really be useful in assisting WBL design and delivery.

3 http://swanseametwbl.pbworks.com/w/page/61323792/WBL%20Programme%20Design

It might be expected that guidance for practitioners in the form of a ‘toolkit’ should represent a synthesis of established good practice that has been tried, tested and shown to work successfully. The guidance would be clear, consistent and authoritative, backed by convincing examples of how it has assisted previous developments (and hence how new users will benefit from its use).

For the WBL Maturity Toolkit to fulfil its purpose, the following issues need to be addressed:

The toolkit needs to be complete. There are several criteria where guidelines and/or evidence suggestions are missing;

The toolkit needs to be consistent. The guidelines given for criteria (ignoring those that don’t have any) range from 3 to 13. If there is a reason for this (ie: different levels of priority/importance in the design process) then this needs to be made clear to the user;

The toolkit needs to be authoritative. Each area of focus, criterion and guideline must have a clear reason for its inclusion, convincing benefits from being addressed and backed by evidence of successful implementation.

It is obvious that the toolkit is still in a state of development and cannot currently meet these requirements. An outcome of the Dewi project will hopefully be a positive contribution to making progress in that direction.

Tony Toole

January 2013