The concepts of work-based programmes
Karen Evans spoke to Vanessa Macdonald about the concepts behind work-based programmes.
The usual "train the trainer" pyramid is aimed at an efficient dissemination of knowledge. Surely Work Based Learning (WBL) requires a more one-on-one approach that is far less efficient?
WBL cannot be costed on the same basis as conventional courses, or the standard in-company training pyramid. It deploys staff time and resources in completely different ways. The employees do not meet their teachers for scheduled classes for extensive inputs and the amount of contact time varies greatly according to the individual programme that has been negotiated. Much of the learning develops through work-based projects (co-supervised by company supervisor and academic tutor) rather then generalised "knowledge transmission", and increasingly access to online teaching resources can be provided in the workplace.
You are right, though, in suggesting that the highest cost element is the one-to-one, and limits have to be placed on this as part of the partnership agreement between the organisation and the university provider. It is not an open-ended commitment to personal supervision day in, day out.
WBL is certainly not a low-cost option for either provider or the University. Its efficiencies come from the fact that the negotiated learning programme is more closely tailored both to organisational and employee needs than is the case in either conventional part-time university courses (that are constantly criticised by employers for lack of relevance) or unaccredited in-company training (which is so often criticised by employees for superficiality).
Example: one large company that sponsors work-based learning told us that they prefer to "grow their own" graduates from their experienced personnel with intermediate qualifications, with the help of the college. They had calculated that it costs £20,000 per head to "grow their own", as compared to £30,000 per head for selection and induction of conventional graduates - so their decisions were based on a business case as well as a commitment to work-based learning principles.
WBL programmes are aimed at full-time employees. However, what percentage of their time is spent with the academic interface for theoretical input? Does it involve time over and above their working hours?
Part of the partnership agreement between the organisation and the academic institution will include agreement of the amount of time "off the job" the employee will need in order to follow the programme successfully. There will always be an element of release from normal duties to access learning resources, to write up and present project work and portfolios etc. There will also normally be an explicit expectation that study time is put in outside normal working hours by the employee, who benefits with a qualification of wide currency in the world of work.
Are WBL programmes still exam-based? Are the exams the same that would be taken by a purely academic student? What danger is there of having a two-tier qualification?
The assessment of individualised programmes involving work-based learning is often carried out by assessment panels consisting of academic and professional examiners that inspect the written projects/portfolios and assess them against university-level generic criteria to determine the level of achievement they represent. Often oral examinations take place in which such panels interrogate the employee/work-based learner on the work that have undertaken and presented for assessment.
This is arguably more rigorous than the standard written examination paper: The latter at best samples knowledge and its legitimacy as an assessment method in conventional courses is largely to ensure that the student's performance in coursework assignments is indeed their own and not something bought off the internet (or done by a family member!)
In work-based learning programmes, the ownership and authenticity of the written work presented for assessment by the employee is far easier to establish. Oral examination (as in postgraduate research degrees) is often the most appropriate way to test depth of learning in this context.
Dangers? As with distance learning, it is not the level that is different (since generic university level criteria are adopted), only the mode differs. But, as was the case when distance learning was first introduced through, for example, the Open University, full acceptance of different modes comes only slowly. Evidence has to be amassed that demonstrates quality and the equivalence of standards over extended periods of time.
It is also the case that in publicly-funded universities the approval procedures for WBL programmes are often far in excess of those applied to conventional programmes, as they are so innovative and are still contested. The providers and work organisations are both "under the spotlight" and have to demonstrate publicly the robustness of their quality assurance systems.
WBL cannot be costed on the same basis as conventional courses, or the standard in-company training pyramid. It deploys staff time and resources in completely different ways. The employees do not meet their teachers for scheduled classes for extensive inputs and the amount of contact time varies greatly according to the individual programme that has been negotiated. Much of the learning develops through work-based projects (co-supervised by company supervisor and academic tutor) rather then generalised "knowledge transmission", and increasingly access to online teaching resources can be provided in the workplace.
You are right, though, in suggesting that the highest cost element is the one-to-one, and limits have to be placed on this as part of the partnership agreement between the organisation and the university provider. It is not an open-ended commitment to personal supervision day in, day out.
WBL is certainly not a low-cost option for either provider or the University. Its efficiencies come from the fact that the negotiated learning programme is more closely tailored both to organisational and employee needs than is the case in either conventional part-time university courses (that are constantly criticised by employers for lack of relevance) or unaccredited in-company training (which is so often criticised by employees for superficiality).
Example: one large company that sponsors work-based learning told us that they prefer to "grow their own" graduates from their experienced personnel with intermediate qualifications, with the help of the college. They had calculated that it costs £20,000 per head to "grow their own", as compared to £30,000 per head for selection and induction of conventional graduates - so their decisions were based on a business case as well as a commitment to work-based learning principles.
WBL programmes are aimed at full-time employees. However, what percentage of their time is spent with the academic interface for theoretical input? Does it involve time over and above their working hours?
Part of the partnership agreement between the organisation and the academic institution will include agreement of the amount of time "off the job" the employee will need in order to follow the programme successfully. There will always be an element of release from normal duties to access learning resources, to write up and present project work and portfolios etc. There will also normally be an explicit expectation that study time is put in outside normal working hours by the employee, who benefits with a qualification of wide currency in the world of work.
Are WBL programmes still exam-based? Are the exams the same that would be taken by a purely academic student? What danger is there of having a two-tier qualification?
The assessment of individualised programmes involving work-based learning is often carried out by assessment panels consisting of academic and professional examiners that inspect the written projects/portfolios and assess them against university-level generic criteria to determine the level of achievement they represent. Often oral examinations take place in which such panels interrogate the employee/work-based learner on the work that have undertaken and presented for assessment.
This is arguably more rigorous than the standard written examination paper: The latter at best samples knowledge and its legitimacy as an assessment method in conventional courses is largely to ensure that the student's performance in coursework assignments is indeed their own and not something bought off the internet (or done by a family member!)
In work-based learning programmes, the ownership and authenticity of the written work presented for assessment by the employee is far easier to establish. Oral examination (as in postgraduate research degrees) is often the most appropriate way to test depth of learning in this context.
Dangers? As with distance learning, it is not the level that is different (since generic university level criteria are adopted), only the mode differs. But, as was the case when distance learning was first introduced through, for example, the Open University, full acceptance of different modes comes only slowly. Evidence has to be amassed that demonstrates quality and the equivalence of standards over extended periods of time.
It is also the case that in publicly-funded universities the approval procedures for WBL programmes are often far in excess of those applied to conventional programmes, as they are so innovative and are still contested. The providers and work organisations are both "under the spotlight" and have to demonstrate publicly the robustness of their quality assurance systems.