Quality assurance considerations in work- based learning provision Wendy Stubbs Assistant Director Development and enhancement Group w.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

Work-based learning programmes in HE WBL as major part Work-based learning programmes in HE Accredited in-company programmes Cohort negotiated WBL Individually negotiated WBL 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 SO WE HAVE SEEN THE DEVELOPMENT FROM TRADIIONAL WBL AS A RELATIVELY MINOR ELEMENT OF A PROGRAMME –WHERE IT MAY NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE AWARD– IT MAY NOT EVEN BE ASSESSED BUT ONLY RECORDED IN A PDP TO PROGRAMMES WHERE WBL IS A MAJOR PART OF TH PROGRAMME – IS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC AS IN THE PROGRAMMES SHOWN HERE HOWEVEVER ALL OF THIS PROVISION IS GENERALLY SUPPLY LED BY THE INSITITUTION MORE RECENTLY WE HAVE SEEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CURRICULUM DETERMINED BY THE NEEDS OF THE WORKPLACE AND / OR THE INDIVIDULA WHICH CAN BE SEEN IN THIS TYPE OF PROVISION WHERE THERE IS MORE NEGOTIATED LEARNING – LEARNING THAT IS INDIVIDUALLY DESIGNED SUCH LEARNING AS I HAVE SAID IS NOT ALWAYS A WHOLE PROGRAMME BUT CAN BE A CPD COURSE 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

Shared characteristics for 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 BUT BOTH PRESCRIBED AND EMPLOYER RESPONSIVE PROVISION CAN SHARE MANY CHARACTERISTICS AS ALREADY STATED THE FLEXIBILITY IS A KEY CHARACTERISTIC – IN DESIGN, DELIVERY AND ASSESSMENT IN HAVING A FLEXIBLE QA SYSTEM WHICH ENABLES QUICK RESPONSE TO EMPLOYER DEMANDS FLEXIBLE PROVISION TO RECOGNISE AND FULLY UTILISE THE WORKPLACE AS A SITE OF LEARNING 2. RECOGNITION OF THE ROLE OF THE OTHER PARTNERS AND THAT EACH OF THEM HAS RESPONSIBILITIES AND ENTITLEMENTS THESE NEED TO BE CLEARLY PRESENTED,UNDERSTOOD AND SIGNED UP TO 3. THE ABILITY TO VALIDATE CUSTOMISED PROVISION THAT ARE BESPOKE TO THE LEARNER/ EMPLOYER AND NOT JUST OFFER MODULES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN VALIDATED FOR OTHER AWARDS ( HOWEVER THESE CAN STILL BE PART OF THE OFFER) 4. THE NEED TO HAVE SYSTEMS FOR THE ACCREDITIATION FOR SMALL UNITS, FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF INHOUSE PROVISION AND TO RECOGNISE THAT LEARNING DELIVERED BY A TRAINING PROVIDER CAN BE RECOGNISED BY THE HEI

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 EMPLOYER RESPONSIVE PROVISION HAS BROUGHT ABOUT A GREATER OR LESSER DEGREE OF CHANGE IN INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONS ( SOME ARE CALLING THEMSELVES BUSINESS FACING INSTITUTIONS, PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS – AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN THEIR MISSION STATEMENT SO WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISITCS GROWTH OF DEMAND LED EDUCATION LED BY BOTH THE EMPLOYER AND THE LEARNER – GREATER INVOLVEMENT BY THEM NOT ONLY IN THE CONTENT OF THE CURRICULA BUT ALSO IN HOW AND WHERE IT IS DELIVERED AND HOW THE LEARNING WILL BE ASSESSED ALSO THEY WANT THE LEARNING MORE QUICKLY THAN UNIVERSITY SYTEMS ARE USED TO THIS REQUIRES GREATER FLEXIBILTY BOTH IN TERMS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IN TERMS OF HOW THE LEARNING IS PUT TOGETHER, DELIVERED AND ASSESSED WHERE THE WORKPLACE CAN BE WHOLLY WHERE THE LEARNING TAKES PLACE AND WHERE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LEARNING OUTCOMES IS DEMONSTRATED- THE LEARNER MAY BE 100% EMPLOYED AND NOT A PAPRT TIME STUDENT ALSO SUCH LEARNING IS NOT NECESSARILY A WHOLE AWARD – MORE OFTEN IT IS SMALL UNITS OF LEARNING WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE AGGREGATED INTO A WHOLE AWARD THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GROWTH IN THE USE OF APEL FOR RECOGNISING AN EMPLOYED PERSONS PRIOR LEARNING THERE HAS ALSO BEEN A SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN EMPLYERS SEEKING ACCREDITATION FOR THEIR OWN IN HOUSE TRAINIG AND HAVING THIS CONTRIBUTE TO AN AWARD Such learning will be more flexible – with some learners not ever entering the HEI but may access the learning remotely and use their workplace as the base for their learning and assessment There is an increase in learning being offered in “ bite size” independent units – these units are stand alone, the learner can access them from more than one institution and they can be combined to make an award through such things as “ shell frameworks” More recently there has been an increase in and encouragement for the accreditation of a company’s in – house training - this could result in units of training being awarded HE credit and / or could be the accreditation into a whole award

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 WHAT ARE THE QULAITY ASSURANCE CONSIDERATIONS AWARDING CREDIT RECOGNITION THAT ANYTHING THAT IS AWARDED CREDIT IS IN THE SCOPE OF A QAA INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT THE AWARDING OF CREDIT THEREFORE INVOLVES ASSESSMENT AND THIS REQUIRES CONSIDERATION AS WHO IS INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT CAN AN EMPLOYER BE INVOVLED – CAN THE LEARNER PLAY A ROLE IN ASSESSMENT – THIS IS OFTEN DONE THROUGH REFLECTIVE LEARNING LOGS CAN A PROVATE TRAINIGN PROVIDER BE INVOLVED ALL OF THESE ARE POSSIBLE- SOME CONSIDERATIONS ARE AS LONG AS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES ARE ROBUST – THAT ALL INVOLVED ARE COMPETENT TO ASSESS AT THAT LEVEL, THAT THE HEI HAS OVERSIGHT OF ALL ASSESSMENT DECISIONS, THAT THE HEI HAS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WTH ANYONE CONDUCTING THE ASSESSMENT EXTERNAL EXAMINERS HOW CAN THE EE SYSTEM FIT PROVISION THAT IS OFF CAMPUS, IS FLEXIBLE, IS MAYBE UNITS AND NOT WHOLE AWARD, HAS A HIGH LEVEL OF SKILLS AS WELL AS KNOWLEDGE WHAT KIND OF EE SHOULD ONE HAVE/ WHAT DO THEY EXAMINE IN THIS SITUATION IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE AN WBL EE THAT LOOKS AT THE GENERAL SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES SO LEAVING ANYTHING THAT IS SUBJECT RELATED TO EES THAT ARE REPORTING ON OTHER MORE TRADITIONAL PROGRAMMES STAFF DEVELOPMENT THERE IS A NEED TO ENSURE THAT THE HEI ASSURES ITSELF THAT IT IDENTIFIES AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR ITS OWN STAFF AND SATISFIES THESE NEEDS AND ALSO ASSURES ITSELF THAT THE OTHER PARTNERS HAVE THEIR OWN STAFF DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES – RISK AND SUSTAINABILITY ARE ALSO CONSIDERATIONS THE HEI NEEDS TO ENSURE IT MAKES CLEAR ALL RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH PARTNER AND THAT ALL PARTNERS SIGN UP TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES THE HEI ALSO NEEDS TO HAVE ABACK UP IN CASE THINGS GO WRONG AND THAT THE STUDENT IS NOT ABLE TO USE THAT SITE FOR LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT

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 BITE SIZED STUDENTS NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT A BITE SIZED STUDENT IS ALLOWED TO ACCESS FROM THE UNVIERSITY – LIBRARY, ON LINE JOURNALS, PERSONAL SUPPORT QA COMMITTEE STRUCTURES THESE CAN BE MADE TO BE FLEXIBLE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS TYPE OF PROVISION INSTEAD OF TREATING IT AS DIFFERENT NEEDING NEW PROCESSES COMPARABILITY WHERE STUDENTS ON A PROGRAMME / UNIT ARE AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT SITES OF WBL IT IS NOT POSSIBLE OR NECESSARY FOR THEM TO HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME EXPERIENCE – WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE SITE IS FIT FOR PURPOSE AND ENABLES THEM TO DEMONSTRATE SUCCESSFUL ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LEARNING OUTCOMES MONITORING AND EVALUATION IT IS IMPORTANT TO COLLECT FEEDBACK FROM ALL PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYER AND ENSURE THAT THIS IS REPORTED THROUGH THE USUAL CHANNELS AND THAT IT INFORMS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROVISION FINALLY – LAST BUT NOT LEAST – COHERENCE IN A SITUATION WHERE A LEARNER MAY EB COLLECTING CREDITS TOWARDS AN AWARD FROM DIFFERENT INSITUTIONS IN A CONSORTIUM SITUALTION AND WITHIN ONE INSTITUTION - WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE STUDENT IS SUPPRTED AND RECEIVES GUIDANCE ON THEIR LEARNING AND HOW IT CAN BE AGGREGATED INTO AN AWARD

What approaches can an institution adopt? Frameworks for WBL SO WHAT APPROACHES CAN AN INSTITUTION ADOPT TO ENABLE IT TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY TO A EMPL0YER RESPONSIVE PROVISION MANY INSTITUTIONS ARE DEVELOPING FRAMEWORKS FOR WBL THESE NEXT TWO SLIDES ARE DEMONSTRATE THE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH FRAMEWORKS

Pre-validation of modules 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

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 TO END I JUST WANT TO DEMOSTRATE THE RANGE OF PARTNERSHIPS THAT ARE BEING SET UP TO PROVIDE A RANGE OPF PARTNERSHIPS

+ Types of partnership HEI 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 THE FIRST THREE ARE SINGLE REALTIOSNHIPS THAT ARE VERU COMMMON IT GETS MORE COMPLICATED WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE PARTNERSHIPS INVOLVED AND THERE COULD BE THE POSSIBILITY FO THE HE BEING MORE THAN ONE DTEP REMOVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT

SHELL Framework in a consortium of providers : private FEC Private HEI FEC LEAD HEI (awards the full qualification HEI THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF SHELL FRAMEWORKS BEING ORGANISED IN A CONSORTIUM WHERE ONE HEI IS THE LEAD INSTITUTION AND ULTIMATELY AWARDS THE FULL AWARD ( DEGREE) THERE MAY BE OTHER HEIS THAT ARE PART OF THE CONSORTIUM WHERE A LEARNER CAN STUDY AND BE AWARDED CREDIT – THE LEARNING MAY BE DIRECTLY WITH ANY OF THESE HEIS OR THROUGH A AN FEC/ PRIVATE TRAINING PROVIDER SO A STUDENT CAN RECEIVE CREDIT FROM A RANGE OF PARTNERS AND THEN GO TO THE LEAD HEI TO HAVE THE CREDITS AGGREGATED INTO A WHOLKE AWARD HEI

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) THIS BRINGS ABOUT QA CONSIDERATIONS- WHICH WE WERE AWARE NEEDED GUIDANCE QAA PUBLISHED A STATEMENT IN JULY 2008 IT SAID THAT SINGLE ARRANGEMENTS DIRECTLY BETWEEN AN HEI AND AN EMPLOYER/ OTHER PARTNER ARE COVERED BY NORMAL QA PRCEDURES WHERE AN HEI IS INVOLVED IN MULTIPLE ARRANGEMENTS INVOLVING SHELL FRAMEWORKS IT IS FOR THE INSITUTION TO CONSIDER WHAT QA IS APPROPRIATE AND WHAT LEGAL CONTRACTS ARE REQUIRED THE HEI THAT IS AWARDING THE FULL QUALIFICATION CAN DECIDE TO ACCEPT THE CREDIT/ GRADES FROM ANOTHER HEI WTHOUT THAT UNIT GOING THROUGH ITS VALIDATION- IT CAN EXERT CONFIDENCE OF THE PARTNER HEI PROVISION- HOWEVER IT MAY NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT EVIDENCE IT USES TO ACCEPT THE LEARNING FROM OTHER PARTNERS PARTICULARLY IF THEY HAVE NO QAA SCRUTINY. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO HAVE OVERSIGHT OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE OTHER HEIS BUT IT MUST HAVE DIR

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