1 / 18

University of Staffordshire July 1-3 rd 2009

FACE CONFERENCE. University of Staffordshire July 1-3 rd 2009. Work based learning in the voluntary sector - some case studies & dilemmas. Prof Danny Saunders Kathryn Addicott & Dr Rob Payne Centre for Lifelong Learning University of Glamorgan.

kiril
Download Presentation

University of Staffordshire July 1-3 rd 2009

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. FACE CONFERENCE University of Staffordshire July 1-3rd 2009

  2. Work based learning in the voluntary sector - some case studies& dilemmas Prof Danny Saunders Kathryn Addicott & Dr Rob Payne Centre for Lifelong Learning University of Glamorgan

  3. Part of an all-Wales HEFCW study coordinated by UWIC, as well as drawing on research into the Learning Coaches of Wales initiative Scoping case studies investigating work-based learning within a sample of voluntary & public sector workforces based in South Wales The potential for recognising prior learning The potential of accrediting on-going training and workforce development Perceived barriers and solutions The Research

  4. Desk research Interviews Groupwork Case studies Generation of dilemmas Methodology

  5. Wales Council for Voluntary Action Voluntary Action Cardiff Black Voluntary Sector Network Wales British Red Cross Llamau + public sector organisations and private training providers Third Sector in Particular

  6. Diversity of training provision re: type & duration of delivery, informal & accredited, for staff, volunteers, the public, & service users Face to face, non-accredited learning still predominant in majority of voluntary organisations Informal learning AND informal training linked to mentoring Majority of training provided ‘in house’, one organisation only used external consultants Overall Findings 1

  7. Questions re: Credibility of HE Limited capacity and resources to embark on accreditation Limited experience of APEL, but the systems and frameworks are there, and there is capability and willingness with training Key curriculum themes dominate, but there are also niche areas The need for development of quality assurance systems for training providers Tension between accreditation and volunteering ethos Overall Findings II

  8. 1. Transparency & Jargon 2. Suspicion 3. Mixed Groups 4. Short awards and rewards 5. RPL and APEL 6. Accrediting community training 7. Consortium activity 8. Staff development 9. Tracking 9 dilemmas for your consideration!

  9. What does this mean please? “the ILOs and assessment strategy are set at L4 and L5 within the CQFW and lead to a mixed mode foundation degree award with a 2+1 progression route to the University of …” (NB “the course objective is to critically evaluate the theoretical, conceptual and methodological foundations of social scientific enquiry within post modernist discourse associated with social stereotypes”) 1. Transparency and Jargon

  10. “So the University wants to recognise our training programme for volunteers. They say it will give our volunteers credits which count towards one of their qualifications. They just want to do this so they hit their targets and get money. We are landed with a whole load of useless credits and paperwork. Our volunteers have to fill in forms and do coursework that frightens them. What’s in it for us?” 2. Suspicion

  11. “This particular course includes three people with OCN 2 and 3 qualifications, four people with NVQ3 and 4, and five graduates. We can’t split them up because they all work as a team and the numbers are not viable, so we want to train them together. Can we recognise their different backgrounds by giving them different assessments, and levels of credit?” 3. Mixed Groups

  12. “Now that the course has finished, we are cheesed off. We got 60 level 4 credits, but we have still not got a recognised qualification. Instead a bunch of transcripts have arrived for the three modules that we successfully completed. We’ve heard that it won’t be possible to get the Certificate of Higher Education until another 70 credits have been clocked up. Why on earth can’t the university give us some kind of award at this stage?” 4. Short awards and rewards

  13. “We don’t think that this level 4 course needs to actually be attended by half our people. Some of them have studied similar stuff in the past and they have got the qualifications to prove it. Some of the others have got lots of experience, and the course is just a repetition for them. You say that everything is based on learning outcomes, well in that case we would like both of these groups to get the credit but without having to attend the workshops or do the assignments”. 5. RPL and APEL

  14. “For the last few years we’ve had these consultant trainers in, and they have run a course for our social enterprise staff and some community leaders. It’s on Friday afternoons plus a few weekends over a period of about six months. We don’t know what level it is in your world, but we think that some of the content seems pretty advanced and we think it might be worth having it recognised by a university. What would be involved if we did this, and what would it cost?” 6. Accrediting Community Training

  15. “Four universities are working together as a consortium on a 40 credit level 7 training programme; each of the partners is leading a 10 credit module. At the moment the learners get transcripts from respective registries following successful completion. The consortium now wants to extend the course into a Masters award but has to decide who has overall “ownership” and quality assurance of the students and the programme. What criteria should they use?” 7. Consortium Activity

  16. “Some tutors are fed up with the repeated use of portfolios, journals and reflective logs when assessing their students. The tutors think that they need some staff development and a “toolkit” in order to develop more varied assessment techniques, as well as more imaginative ways of achieving learning outcomes.” 8. Staff development

  17. “A six year European Union project has developed community learning initiatives in the valleys, leading into an intensive higher education access course. It is now moving into its final evaluation phase and the evaluators want to track the outcomes for all of the participants, including those who joined the project but did not progress to university.” 9. Tracking

  18. How will HE cross cultural boundaries and develop new languages What is the added value of qualifications and accreditation at level 4 and above Should 3rd sector outreach be a whole university venture Final Questions

More Related