The Work-based Learning Maturity Toolkit http://tinyurl.com/wbl-toolkit

1. The purpose of the toolkit • Why it is needed • What the toolkit contains • How it canbe used • Outcomes of using the toolkit • Pilots • Discussions The Work-based Learning Maturity Toolkit http://tinyurl.com/wbl-toolkit

2. The toolkit helps users/institutions to: • Assess current performance in work-based learning. • Identify a vision for WBL and the “enablers” and “barriers” for reaching it. • Recommend future actions • Plan their change management.

3. Why is it needed? • Increasing numbers of students are opting to learn in the work-place - WBL is therefore becoming more strategically important. • Good practice is slowly emerging but not widespread in e.g. • pedagogic models • progression • use of ICT • partnership working • how best for institutions to “prepare for work-based learning” • Institutions need to assess their performance against what the sector perceives as “mature” - in order to inform policies/plans.

4. Has this approach been used successfully before? The Higher Education Academy/JISC national e-learning benchmarking programme (2006-2008) “Maturity” toolkits: • Pick&Mix • eMM • ELTI • MIT90s

5. What does the toolkit contain? • Criteria and statements of “mature” performance • Self-assessment guidelines • to support assessing performance against what the sector currently judges as “mature” • Guide to evidence to look for. • Exemplars of good practice. • A recommended process for using it.

6. The recommended process Two key options: • Use within an institution • (option for an internal CAMEL group) • Collaboration with other institutions • using a CAMEL group

7. Decide upon focus (e.g. whole institution or faculty or programme) • Identify and co-opt stakeholders • Identify initiatives to align with (e.g. development of a WBL strategy) • Agree the timescale and project plan, including defined roles (e.g. PM) Planning CAMEL Meeting • Meeting/workshop with all stakeholders to explain process and build commitment • Select relevant criteria from the toolkit & customise as appropriate Commitment & Customisation CAMEL Meeting • Identify evidence needed to decide on “level of maturity” for each criterion • Identify methods for gathering evidence • Collect evidence • Synthesis evidence and produce a concise/usable report Evidence Collection & synthesis • Review evidence report in “levelling” workshop with all stakeholders • Assess your current performance against criteria/level statements • Ensure that all stakeholders agree on: • Vision & “enablers” / “barriers” for reaching this vision • Recommendations for change Levelling Workshop CAMEL Meeting • Convene workshop with group who are identified to take forward the changes • Develop action plan – and define measures of success • Identify institutional structures, systems & champions which can take forward the changes Actions Workshop

8. “Levelling” workshop For each criterion: • Collectively, undertake “levelling” – assessing performance against criteria/level statements • Not developed: • No developed plans and little or no consistent practice • Some development: • Plans in development and little or no consistent practice • Emerging practice: • Plans in development (or developed) and emerging consistent practice • Consistent Practice: • Developed plans and consistent practice

9. What are the areas of focus? • Institutional readiness • Faculty/school/department readiness • Programme design • Programme delivery and assessment • Partnership engagement • The learner experience • Effective, usable, accessible technologies

10. What are the criteria? 1. Institutional readiness • WBL strategy & plans • Organisation, resourcing and support for WBL • Innovation management • WBL Customer focus • External marketing and communications • Processes and procedures for staffing WBL programmes • Staff development, recognition and reward • WBL procedures and processes for programme validation • QA for WBL • Systems to support WBL • Systems and processes to support registration and enrolment • Business, commercial and financial approaches • Cross institutional communication and collaboration

11. What are the criteria? 2. Faculty/school/department readiness • WBL strategy & implementation plan • Partnership working • Business and commercial approaches • Training and support for external staff and employers • Evaluation and review of programme and pedagogic research

12. What are the criteria? 3. Programme design • Alignment with employer and employee needs • Qualifications, pathways and credit • Development & planning for validation • Alignment with professional standards • Curriculum design (structure) • Curriculum design (implications) • Integration of ICT/e-learning into curriculum design • Learning outcomes and progression • Commercial/business case • Learning materials and resources

13. What are the criteria? 4. Programme delivery and assessment • Transition and induction • Delivery • Assessment and progressive achievement • Student training and support • Pedagogic research

14. What are the criteria? 5. Partnership engagement • Long-term sustainable and strategic partnerships • Strategic sector initiatives • Business-oriented ways of working • Understanding employer and employee needs and readiness • Appropriate resourcing for forming partnerships • Co-ordinated approach to marketing and communications

15. What are the criteria? 6. The Learner experience • Pre-Entry • Programme Induction • Programme Design, Review and Quality Enhancement • Programme Delivery and Support • Assessment and Progressive Achievement • Transition and Progression

16. What are the criteria? 7. Effective, usable, accessible technologies • Systems to support employer engagement • Tools to allow evidence collection, learner reflection and related dialogue • Assessment and feedback tools • Tools to support communication and knowledge-sharing • Management and monitoring of work-based learner data • Finance systems • Exchange of data between systems • Access to information, support, training and guidance

17. Example:

18. Example:

19. Example:

20. Outcomes of using the toolkit • An assessment of current performance in work-based learning. • A vision for WBL - and barriers and enablers for reaching it. • An action plan for change - aligned with institutional structures and systems.

21. Using the toolkit • Pilots 1 (April – June): • Univ Westminster (focus: School of Computing) • Univ Bradford (focus: School of Engineering) • UWIC (focus: Dentistry programme, then institution) • ELRAH (focus: Youth Worker upskllingprogramme, then Edinburgh Napier University) • Recent activity: • Some institutions have applied for JISC funding to adopt the toolkit • Westminster embedding into curriculum review process & using with a Change Academy initiative • Currently aligning with student study for Chartered Engineering status (Engineering Council/RAEng) via a STEM PTP. • LSIS intend to integrate the toolkit with Generator • A sustainable approach: • e.g. peer support • continuous improvement • alignment with other initiatives

22. ELRAH Pilot (1) • ELRAH is a 5 year project funded by Scottish Funding Council to promote progression with advanced standing (articulation) to degree study using qualifications gained in college. • One strand has been to explore progression to degree level study using work-based qualifications and the development of work-based degrees programmes • A WBL model has been developed and used to inform the development of a new degree in Youth Working. • The BA Youth Work has been developed in partnership involving Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh’s Telford College and Edinburgh City Council (Community Learning Development Partnership).

23. ELRAH Pilot (2) Reasons for Using the ToolKit: • Inform the design, development and delivery of the BA Youth Work (Formative Evaluation). • Assess Faculty/School Readiness for WBL • Promote the Youth Work Model to others in Edinburgh Napier University and to other ELRAH Partners and other Universities in Scotland through the Articulation Hub Network (5 Articulation Hubs in Scotland) and Scotland’s Work-Based Learning Forum (QAA).

24. ELRAH Pilot (3) Key Outcomes/ Actions: FACULTY/SCHOOL READINESS Outcomes: • Partnership roles and responsibilities are clearly defined in Validation Documentation and Collaborative Agreement • All partners are involved in programme delivery throughout at all levels. Actions: • (Work-based) Mentor and Assessor training is now being put in place for WBL Mentors and Assessors • WB/ College staff delivering the programme will be eligible to enrol on the University’s PGCERT in Learning and Teaching in HE (recommendation from validation). • Programme leader will co-ordinate monthly communications with WBL Mentors/Assessors and College delivery team to continuously evaluate programme delivery. • Procedures to be reviewed to assess time to bring WB products to Market. • Assess impact on employer. • Assess business model.

25. ELRAH Pilot (4) Key Outcomes/ Actions: PROGRAMME DESIGN Outcomes: • Blended delivery model with only 8 hours of “attendance” required per module (not mandatory). • RPL is an integral part of the programme design. Applicants will be assessed using RPL criteria and placed on the programme. • Advanced Entry to Stages 2 and 3 will be offered from the outset. • Programme offers different exit qualifications all levelled to SCQF. • Programme takes 5 years to complete Hons Degree (no loss of time). • Validation event was held at partner college. Validation team included representation from across the partnership. • Qualification LOs have been mapped to the Occupational Standards for Youth Workers and to relevant subject benchmarks. • Framework has generic modules: “ Learner Centred Development in the Work Place / “Active learning in the workplace”. • Study Skills are embedded: “Personal Development Planning for Academic Success”.

26. ELRAH Pilot (5) Key Outcomes/ Actions: THE LEARNER EXPERIENCE Outcomes: • Series of leaflets and information events have been developed to promote programme (run in Employer venues). • Entry allows for WB qualifications and RPL for people with expertise but not qualifications. Actions: • Tailored Induction is in development. PDP will be part of this. • More work is needed to assess digital literacy levels of recruits. • RPL guidelines are being prepared for applicants.

27. ELRAH Pilot (6) Key Outcomes/ Actions: USEABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGIES Outcomes: • Technology has been integrated into programme design (e-Portfolios, Blogs etc). Actions: • Need for access diagnostics of work-place venues. • Induction onwards needs to build digital literacy skills (staff and students). • Work is underway to develop technologies for ensuring strong communication between programme team members including work-based mentors. • Explore virtual classroom tools ( e.g. Elluminate, Big Blue Button) for sessions that are delivered on campus to accommodate people who can’t attend. • Investigate use of audio feedback. • Explore e-assessment techniques. • Explore e-Apel to increase efficiency.

28. Westminster Diagnostics (WBL toolkit integrated with MAC self-reflection tool) Curriculum Review Workshop

29. UWIC • Pilot findings: • WBL at UWIC is currently fragmented • We need to formalise WBL activities • A single WBL policy with high level objectives, but with enough scope for localised planning and implementation, is needed. • Staff need to feel ownership • The Toolkit was found to be unsuitable for use with large groups of stakeholders • There was consensus that the toolkit was an accurate, comprehensive representation of WBL maturity • Resulting actions: • Development of an institutional strategy • Work with Schools to create localised plans and activities, structured around the strategy • Generate procedures for WBL to inform staff about how to develop and deliver high-quality WBL

30. Discussions • Clarifications. • Could Welsh institutions benefit from using it? • How could it be taken forward? • Next steps?

31. http://tinyurl.com/wbl-toolkit