1 / 17

Quality assurance considerations in work- based learning provision

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

kirby
Download Presentation

Quality assurance considerations in work- based learning provision

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality assurance considerations in work- based learning provision Wendy Stubbs Assistant Director Development and enhancement Group w.stubbs@qaa.ac.uk

  2. 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

  3. WBL as major part Work-based learning programmes in HE 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, 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

  4. 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 Shared characteristicsfor current prescribed and employer responsive provision

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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 ? Quality assurance considerations (ii)

  8. What approaches can an institution adopt? Frameworks for WBL

  9. Distinctive characteristics of fit- for- purpose WBL frameworks ( Willis 2008 )

  10. How are institutions working with others on setting up frameworks? Types of partnership

  11. employer employee FEC or private training provider FEC + private training provider Consortium of HEIs/FECs/ private training providers Types of partnership HEI + Employer’s site of learning/ assessment

  12. SHELL Framework in a consortium of providers : private FEC Private HEI FEC LEAD HEI (awards the full qualification HEI HEI

  13. 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)

  14. 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

More Related