What does maturity in work-based learning look like? Findings from a large-scale study of WBL in the UK

Seminar Topics Intro: – Background – Herts (engineering) in the 1990s – Government drivers and agency support for employer engagement Key findings from a WBL study – Discussion Development and implementation of a WBL maturity toolkit for HE – Discussion

Background – Herts (engineering) in the 1990s IGDS MSc (Design, manufacture and management) – Pre-Dearing – Partnership (Herts, Birmingham, Loughborough, Luton, OU + major companies e.g. Ford) – Part of CPD programmes in companies – Positioned between a specialist engineering degree & MBA – External contributors (industry and Government) – Integrating examination (case study scenario) – Industrial mentors – IAG – industry advisory board – Combines rigour of academic research with work-based challenges Formula Student

Steps towards more flexible delivery of programmes Why: – Ford wanted to treble the throughput of employees but couldn’t afford to take them out of the workplace to attend on campus. Technology-based options: – Video-conferencing – Interactive multimedia materials – VALE (Virtual Automotive Learning Environment) Mixed responses to adoption of technologies: – Students – Academics

Government drivers and agency support for employer engagement

WBL Study ELRAH (Edinburgh, Lothians, Fife and Borders Regional Articulation hub) ELRAH HE/College Partners: Edinburgh Napier University Heriot Watt University Queen Margaret University University of Stirling University of Edinburgh Adam Smith College Borders College Carnegie College Edinburgh Telford College Forth Valley College Jewel Esk College Oatridge College West Lothian College Stevenson College Edinburgh Edinburgh College of Art

Study methodology Phase 1 Research Employer Workshop Education provider workshop - delivery Education provider workshop - process Synthesis and Report Desk research Interviews Phase 2Phase 3 Report presentation

Key findings

Development and implementation of a WBL maturity toolkit for HE WBL: – Varies in “maturity” across the sector. – Good practice in pedagogic models, use of ICT, partnership working & how best for institutions to “prepare for WFD” is slowly emerging – Good practice specifically emerging from projects in the JISC / HEFCE programmes A need for HE & FE institutions to: – Better understand what “maturity” in WBL looks like. – Assess their maturity in WBL. – Better inform their strategy and plans for change in WBL. The HE/FE sectors have experience in developing and using maturity toolkits: – HEA/JISC National e-learning benchmarking programme. – HEA/JISC Pathfinder (change) programme.

The WBL Self Assessment Maturity Toolkit Development of a WBL self- assessment maturity toolkit (effective practice) JISC/HEFCE programme outcomes Desk research into WBL Experience of project partners Use of the Toolkit by institutions working in CAMEL groups Each institution will produce: A self-assessment of their current performance in WBL. A vision of where they would like to get to. Issues and barriers in achieving their vision. Recommendations for actions and change management. University of Bradford University of Westminster UWIC ELRAH Craven College

The Toolkit (1)

The Toolkit (2) Area of focus Institutional readiness Criterion WBL Strategy & policy Main statement A WBL strategy/business plan is in place which aligns with the institutions overall strategy/business plan and linked strategies and which provides for local customisation of faculty/school/department WBL implementation plans and is driven by a senior management team which regularly monitors and evaluates the strategy/plans at local and institutional levels. Self assessment guidelines WBL is identified in the institution’s strategic and business plans as a key priority for development. The WBL strategy is aligned with other related strategies e.g. distance learning, e-learning, ICT, teaching & learning, library and information services. The WBL strategy is regularly reviewed and updated by a senior management team. An institutional WBL business plan is in place and provides a framework within which faculty/school/department plans are developed and monitored. The strategy is coherent and allows customisation to local needs. The strategy is made public. The strategy has performance measures and is monitored at institutional and local levels. Evidence to look for Existence of a specific WBL strategic plan. The WBL strategy is embedded in the institution’s strategy. WBL embedded in other related strategy documents (e.g. e-learning, ICT, teaching and learning, library and information services) The institutional WBL strategy guides local customisations at Faculty/School and programme level. Performance monitoring and evaluation is undertaken and documented. The involvement of employers in WBL programme design is integral to the process. A Professional Practice Accreditation “shell framework” provides a basis for the award of credit for work-based projects, reflective accounts and research directly personal and organisational improvement goals. Processes for developing cohort/ individual WB learning action plans are in place and are well understood. The development of WB learning action plans is a rigorous process, worthy of academic credit, which consolidates underpinning knowledge and expertise establishing a clear baseline for further personal development. APEL policies, strategies and practices reflect the need for WB learning action plans to be grounded in existing learning and experience which may sometimes merit the award of credit. Programme approval & validation processes for assessing and accrediting learning (including learning not provided by the organisation) focus on providing a fast-track and lean process.

The Toolkit (3) Not developed Some development Minimal practice Typical practice

The Toolkit (4)

How will it be used (methodology)? Plan Identify Evidence Collect evidence “Levelling” workshops (led by senior management) Analysis and reporting “Change/Actions” workshop Identify dimensions (slices). Identify and co-opt stakeholders. Develop project plan, including defined roles & responsibilities & resources required. Hold meetings with stakeholders to gain buy-in and understanding. Adapt and amend criteria as appropriate. “Appreciate methodology” workshop Identify evidence needed. Identify techniques and methods for evidence gathering. Develop plan for evidence gathering. Review evidence. Undertake “levelling” – assessing performance against criteria and level statements. Record commentary i.e. issues, constraints, opportunities, vision. Implement evidence collection plan. Analyse evidence. Distil evidence into usable reports. Analyse workshops and evidence. Write report. Review and reflect on the report. Develop a change management/action plan. For each criteria: Level statement Issues and constraints Opportunities/vision Recommendations CAMEL Cohorts

Ambitions for the sector Within 3 years, …. most HEIs and a good proportion of FE institutions will have used the toolkit for self-assessment (in CAMEL groups) ………….and will be taking action on it.