A1256655549cYCln

1
(No Transcript)
2
Quality assurance considerations in work- based
learning provision

• Wendy Stubbs
• Assistant Director
• Development and enhancement Group
• w.stubbs_at_qaa.ac.uk

3
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

4
Work-based learning programmes in HE
WBL as major part

• Accredited in-company
• programmes
• Cohort negotiated WBL
• programmes
• Individually negotiated WBL
• programmes
• CPD short courses

• Graduate apprenticeships
• Professional qualifying
• programmes eg Teaching,
• Nursing
• Dual accreditation programmes
• Sandwich degrees
• Foundation Degrees

• Employability skills, progress files, PDP
• APEL/AEL/Recognition of Experiential learning
• Work experience taster modules
  Independent study WBL modules

Curriculum determined by workplace goals and
objectives
Curriculum determined by HEI
Curriculum defined by external standards (NOS,
Professional bodies, SSCs)
Curriculum prescribed
Curriculum negotiated
WBL as minor part
5
Shared characteristicsfor current prescribed
and employer responsive provision

• 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

• need for flexibility
• partnership
• customisation
• accreditation opportunities

6
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

7
Quality assurance considerations

• 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

• awarding credit
• external examiners
• staff development
• managing risk/ sustainability

8
Quality assurance considerations (ii)

• 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
  ?

• access to HE resources for bite sized students
  
• University committee structures
• comparability across sites
• monitoring and evaluation
• coherence of the award

9
What approaches can an institution adopt?

• Frameworks for WBL

10
Distinctive characteristics of fit- for- purpose
WBL frameworks ( Willis 2008 )
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
11
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
12
How are institutions working with others on
setting up frameworks?

• Types of partnership

13
Types of partnership

• employer
• employee
• FEC or private training provider
• FEC private training provider
• Consortium of HEIs/FECs/ private training
  providers

HEI

Employers site of learning/ assessment
14
SHELL Framework in a consortium of providers
FEC
Private
private
HEI
FEC
HEI
LEAD HEI (awards the full qualification
HEI
15
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)

16
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

17
(No Transcript)