A PowerPoint presentation made to the UHI Camel meeting of the JISC Maturity toolkit working group by GGAP

1. JISC - EMBEDDING BENEFITS: Taking WBL forward in
Scotland using the WBL Maturity toolkit
GCU LEAD– Learning Enhancement and Academic Development
GGAP – Greater Glasgow Articulation Partnership

2. GGAP’s pilot planned to focus on the application of the toolkit within the context
of a recent Health WBL project which explored how/why clinical placement
requirements formed a barrier to articulation in Nursing
The toolkit would provide an opportunity to assess and inform Institutional and
School readiness for managing work-based learning recognition
.

3. (1) Group of Nursing staff and RPL coordinator
Objective: to review current strategies and plans for the recognition of work-
based learning within the context of an active HE/FE collaboration
Activities:
-- Selection of appropriate criteria
-- Review of criteria
Findings:
-- Locus for change located elsewhere within School

4. Area of Focus Criteria
(2) Faculty/school/department readiness 2.1 WBL strategy and implementation plan
2.2 Partnership working
2.3 Business and commercial approaches
2.4 Training and Support for External Staff and Employers
2.5 Evaluation and Review of programme and pedagogic research
Selected Toolkit criteria:

5. (2) SCWBL (Scottish Centre for WBL) and Strategic Business Development
Objective: to review the usefulness of the Toolkit criteria in developing WBL
policy
Activities:
-- Selection of appropriate criteria
-- Review of criteria
Findings:
-- The Toolkit could be useful in developing new GCU WBL Strategy

6. Area of Focus Criteria
1 Institutional readiness 1-0 Overview
1-1 WBL strategy and plans
1-2 Organisation, resourcing and support for WBL
1-3 Innovation management
1-4 WBL Customer Focus
1-5 External marketing and communications
1-6 Processes and procedures for staffing WBL programmes
1-7 Staff development, recognition and reward
1-8 WBL procedures and processes for programme validation
1-9 QA for WBL
1-10 Systems to support WBL
1-11 Systems and processes to support registration and enrolment
1-12 Business, commercial and financial approaches
1-13 Cross institutional communication and collaboration
Selected Toolkit criteria:

7. • Repetition in criteria statements (particularly in relation to 2-2 and 5-1)
• Consider adding "Responsiveness to changing local landscape" to 2-3
• Evidence of Diagnostics could be added to 1-1
• The Area of Focus, 'Institutional Readiness' could usefully be renamed, ‘Institutional
Diagnostic Health Check’
• Clear and agreed definitions for the term WBL remain an issue
• The Toolkit presents an implicit model i.e. that WBL should be managed centrally in an
organisation and with a focus on WBL programmes designed for individuals ( rather
than for organisations/cohorts)
• Concern that the Toolkit presents an academic view of WBL rather than one which is
market led
• Toolkit would benefit from an Employers section
Preliminary concerns and feedback re. Toolkit

8. • Toolkit occasionally presumes that things are done in a certain way e.g. 'Marketing and
Communications'
• Broader parameters to capture issues surrounding curriculum design and the tension
between the individual and cohort experience. For example the use of individual PDPs
does not seem sensible if a group approach has been agreed. It makes perfect sense
in an individual learning contract.
Preliminary concerns and feedback re. Toolkit cont’d

9. Establishing an employer/provider partnership
• guidance is generally useful for an institution starting from the very beginning.
• Is a business plan is really necessary given costing systems
• Underpinning assumption of whole organisation involvement rather than more likely
one department.
Designing and delivering WBL programmes
• Much of what is listed will be addressed naturally, for example meeting employers
strategic needs etc.
• Re. individual learning programmes. This may be possible in some programmes but
generally it will not deliver sufficient numbers and therefore not generate sufficient
income to make WBL sustainable. This is exemplified in the ‘empty module’ that is
contextualised by the workplace. What would the role of subject disciplines be in this?
For example if an engineer wanted to do both software design and management
would the provider be able to support?
Feedback re. Revised Toolkit

10. Designing and delivering WBL programmes continued
• Can HE providers offer bite sized chunks of learning? If accredited by QA systems
could take the learners some time to build up enough for an award.
• Some examples of forms of assessment would be useful. For example work based
artefacts e.g. management report or pieces of software?
Reviewing and quality assuring WBL programmes
• An agreed meaning for the term ‘Flexible’ is required. Does it mean for example that
WBL programme do need programme boards or assessment boards ( not likely) or
just that such boards might not need student reps because they are distance based?
Guiding and supporting work-based learners
• The emphasis on work based mentors is admirable but we have found that in practice
many mentors do not take the job seriously, or they are just too busy to do it justice.
Feedback re. Revised Toolkit

11. .
Key Outcomes for GCU
• Focussed discussions on strategic and operational dimensions of
WBL at central and School level
• Consideration of range of potential WBL developments /
opportunities at School level
• Development of draft GCU WBL strategy, informed by reflection
on current practice, planned activities and toolkit.