| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Case study: Cardiff Metropolitan University

Page history last edited by Loretta Newman-Ford 10 years, 10 months ago
Project Information    
Project title  DEWI (Delivering WBL Improvements)
Start date  May2012
End date  April 2013
Project URL   
Design Studio URL     
Lead institution  
Project Lead Contact Name  
Contact e-mail address  
Programme Name Embedding Benefits Category  
Programme Manager Ruth Drysdale    

 

 

1 Summary

Provide an executive summary of your project (max 200 words).


The Welsh Government's objective of maximising the contribution to workforce development of universities in Wales, and HEFCW’s influence on achieving this goal, is reflected in the “Future Directions” initiative which has two working groups "Learning in Work" and "Learning for Work". At Cardiff Metropolitan University the toolkit was potentially relevant to each of these twin objectives since the University's student employability objectives involve increasing the proportion of students who avail themselves of the opportunity to engage in periods of work experience. The toolkit pilot reflected both these contexts. Examples of existing internal good practice were used as the basis for comparison with the key precepts, models of provision and institutional/local WBL provision profiles embedded in the toolkit. By this means a set of options for change, recommendations and potential implementation approaches were identified. It became evident that the two internal communities of interest and senior management strategic working groups, though overlapping, reflected the distinction between Learning in Work and Learning for Work which together provide a structure for the Future Directions initiative. The two sections of the internal report of the project that reflect these different constituencies have therefore been adjusted so that they can serve, where appropriate as separate standalone documents. 


2  What resource(s) did you package/collate/disseminate for use by other institutions?

This may include:

  • details of the needs of the target stakeholder group(s) and how your project addressed the needs of that group(s).
  • details of any changes/updates made to the resources before they were disseminated and any lessons that had been learnt between this embedding benefits activity and the end of the original project (i.e. prior to the commencement of this dissemination activity)

The five Welsh pilot institutions collaborated as CAMEL group funded by JISC and coordinated by Cardiff Metropolitan University. A Scottish CAMEL group was funded separately but dialogue between the two groups was maintained throughout the project time-scale to ensure cross-pollination of ideas and experiences as well as obtaining input to the enhancement of the toolkit.  The Welsh group was represented at the final meeting of the Scottish group. Peter Chatterton, as Critical Friend attended all Welsh CAMEL cohort meetings and acted as a conduit for developing ideas and identifying issues in individual projects as well as coordinating input into the enhancement of the WBL toolkit.

 

 

The principal resource from this project is the Work Based Learning Maturity Toolkit itself, which evolved as a result of the various pilot implementations. Peter Chatterton supported the evaluation and development of the Toolkit and also synthesised the results of the DEWI project with those of our Scottish sister project. Lessons-learned in relation to the Toolkit: 

The toolkit and the criteria embedded within it provide a clear profile of a market-leading University-level WBL provider that has been actively engaged in this segment of the market as a key strategic objective for some time . This, together with the apparent complexity of the toolkit can prove unnecessarily daunting , especially for universities, who for perfectly valid reasons, may not be developing similar provision with the same level of ambition. More typically perhaps WBL provision is likely to have evolved more organically through responsiveness at the institutional and local levels to the needs of the sectors served and employers and employees within the sectors. In this situation the true usefulness of the toolkit may not be realised if the checklist which the criteria provide are used in a "tick-box" manner. Rather they should serve as a focus for a reflective analysis of provision individually and collaboratively. For example, the hypothetical University pictured in the toolkit will have an explicit WBL strategy at local and institutional levels and those who have grown organically and see no need for a strategy may nevertheless find it useful to reflect on what such a strategy might contain as a basis for identifying potential options for diversification or change that may merit serious consideration in the immediate or relatively near future. Similarly, those with a continuous improvement culture are likely to find other sets of toolkit criteria serve as input to reflections on whether is scope for enhancement of existing provision or the way in which it is managed and supported. Since the toolkit aims to provide a profile of good practice, certain individual criteria or "evidence to look" for, can also provide some specific operational points to look out for. The toolkit was not designed for use in the context of the relatively small-scale work experience opportunities open to those are being prepared for the world of work compared to those currently in employment. However, some of the precepts inherent in the model of provision that the toolkit describes, particularly in relation to curriculum design, can still help shape good practice in this area. The structure of typical generic "shell" modules with clear learning outcomes that focus on reflective practice can help students whose work experience contributes to their employability to assemble systematically the evidence of its employability impact, articulate this to employers, and, should the University pursue this option, be awarded credit for their achievement.

 

 There are also some particular templates that are not fully populated.  


3  How did you go about embedding your resources / outputs / outcomes into the wider community?

Give details here of:

  • the story of what you did and how you achieved it
  • how you engaged your stakeholders
  • the project methodology – for example technical implementation, how you went about your evaluation activities etc.
  • any dissemination activities that you undertook




 Through the use of the toolkit options for change related to both Learning for Work and Learning in Work were identified, together with a rationale and some approaches to implementation. 


4  What impact has your embedding benefits project had and who are the beneficiaries? Include evidence of impact wherever possible (e.g. survey results, evaluation, cost benefit analysis etc.)

Give details here of, for example:

  • increased awareness of your resources/outputs from your previous  e-learning programme project
  • greater take-up across “non-native” institutions (non-native institutions are institutions not involved as lead or partners in the original project or any subsequent JISC funded benefits realisation activities).
  • how your resources are being used in other institutions / within project partners
  • details of any self-sustaining community of interest that has been formed etc.
  • refer to any supporting evidence documents such as evaluation reports, where appropriate.

The project team had been involved in the previous Lifelong Learning and Workforce Development project TEL-WFD. As a result we had an existing detailed knowledge of the current WBL provision baseline and key players with whom to engage for the purposes of the toolkit pilot (and beyond );  an existing community of interest.

Members of the project team, together with collaborators from other Welsh universities, will be disseminating our findings at a Wales "Future Directions" event on May 15th . The current working groups and other participants in this network constitute a wider community of interest with whom our results are relevant. The project CAMEL group proved a productive collaborative working environment and established mutual interests and benefits and good working relationships as a basis for future collaboration. JISC RSC Wales were an active contributor to the group and further dissemination activity via their networks and channels are planned.

Through the work on our previous projects we had been contributors to the original development of the toolkit and some initial pilot activity. However, since that date the context in which we are working has changed and the growing influence of Welsh Government/HEFCW.  


5  What outputs has your project produced?

Give details of any additional outputs and resources  that your project has produced that can be used by others, including a link to your code repository where this is applicable. How have they been used in your project and what benefits have been achieved? Ensure you include a link here to your Design Studio (DS) page from where all of these should be accessible, even if your DS page simply includes a link to your outputs.


 At present, the two internal reports and dissemination outputs referred to above represent the principal outputs of the project. The former, represent a resource that can be utilised for further dissemination via, for example, conference presentations which also provide an opportunity to include the response to these outputs in future dissemination.  


6  How will the embedding benefits activity be developed further/sustained?

Give details here of ways in which your resources

  • will be rolled out on a larger scale;
  • has changed practice in ways that will sustained in future developments;
  • has now become embedded within your department and/or institution;
  • has impacted on developments in other institutions
  • and what still needs to be done …

 

 

 

 


7  Summary and Reflection

Suggested topics to consider:

  • lessons learned
  • whether you believe the project met/exceeded or failed to live up to expectations;
  • whether you believe the approach could be of value to other institutions/in other contexts;
  • building on this experience, whether (and, if so, how) you will alter your practice further in the future;
  • What are your top tips for others adopting a similar approach?
  • If you were to run this project again what would you do differently?
  • key challenges that were overcome 

 

 

 

 

 


Additional Information for QAA Case Study

 

 

Discipline and occupational field 

 
 

Name of module/programme/course 

 
 

SCQF level (Scotland only) 

 
 

Model of WBL 

 

Can you describe how WBL is integrated into your curriculum? How does this impact on curricula structure and development? It would be useful to estimate the proportion of the curriculum WBL contributes to (100 words)
 

Aspects of WBL covered in case study

(see Notes at the bottom of this page)

 

Please indicate which aspects of WBL you will cover as part of your case study and why you have decided to cover them. These are listed in bold in the Notes at the bottom of this page. You may find that your practice maps against more than one, but you need not cover all of the aspects.  You may find that your provision maps onto several aspects, and we would expect you to cover more than one.  The structure of Work Based Learning Maturity Toolkit has been used to inform the type of aspects we wish to cover. The Notes below give the full list of the aspects along with some prompts against each one.  These have been cross-referenced with the appropriate section in the WBL Maturity Toolkit and are there to hopefully stimulate thinking rather than being prescriptive.    Note if you do cover particular aspects then they should be made explicit in the main case study text where the aspect is discussed.   

 

 

Practice

 

Please describe the practice you are presenting. It would be useful to focus on the ‘how to’ messages that comes from your practice.  

As mentioned above please make explicit reference to the aspects of WBL you are describing.  Include any details that would be useful to colleagues; in particular we are very interested in details about how the practice was developed and implemented. Some questions that might be useful are:

 

  • What were the drivers for the development of the practice?
  • What were the aims and objectives?
  • What did we actually do when delivering these aspects of the provision?
  • What obstacles got in the way and how were these overcome? What was learnt? What helped and how? 
  • Has this practice been evaluated and by whom?  What would we do differently next time?
  • How do you see this practice being developed in the future – what will happen next?
  
 

References

 

Please use the Harvard referencing system.  

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Aspects of Work Based Learning

  • Quality enhancement and quality assurance – including how employers and employee/students are informed of, and involved with quality enhancement mechanisms, including course feedback (6-3), employer and professional body input into programme approval, validation and programme review (6-3)
  • Staff development – acceptance of WBL by wide academic community as being a valid mode for higher education learning (1-7), development opportunities for staff engaged in WBL (1-7)
  • Working with employers – development of strategic partnerships with employers (2-2 and 5-3), supporting staff to work with employers (2-3), how programme was aligned with employer/employee needs (3-1), how learning outcomes were developed/linked to employer goals and employer input into curriculum (3-9), managing the relationship with employers (4-2), development of learning contracts (4-3), tripartite agreements (2-2 and 5-1)
  • Training and support for employers and workplace tutors/mentors – induction, training courses, involvement in quality enhancement/assurance processes (2-4)
  • Supporting students in the workplace- including access to learning materials and resources (3-10) particularly given employee commitments (4-4), the role of workplace tutors (4-2), the role of academic tutors (4-2), role of institutional support staff (4-4) development of learning contracts (4-3), supporting students with disabilities (4-4), arrangements for supporting students through transitions (4-4 and 6-6), support for study skill development (6-6), tripartite agreements (2-2 and 5-1), negotiating with  learners and employers learner developmental needs  (6-1), support outside traditional term-times (6-4)
  • Development of flexible programme design – could include incorporation of RPL and considering alternative means of accessing the programme (3-5 and 6-3), accreditation of employer provision, or adapting existing modules to better meet needs of a WBL programme/students, reducing the time taken to obtain a qualification, creating learning outcomes and programme structures appropriate for employer and employee needs (6-3)
  • Transition and induction – including issues around managing these for students who may/will be off-campus (4-1), pre-entrance guidance (6-1), induction (6-2)
  • Delivery – How does the programme integrate learning from academia and work?  If this is through reflective learning or PDP how is that integrated with the curriculum? (4-2), could also include integration of RPL (4-2), innovative uses of technology (7)
  • Assessment – means and models of assessment (4-3), use of formative feedback, use of assessment methods that reflect/use workplace outputs/activities and quality assurance implications of these (6-4 and 6-5), use of technology (6-5), how achievement of learning outcomes is evidenced (6-5).

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.