I have been seeking to understand more completely what makes work based learning [WBL] different to other forms of achieving tertiary qualifications. There are many very interesting and explanatory articles that deal specifically with this issue or at least give some insight into one or more aspects of this 'difference'. I have listed some of the ones I have been reviewing below.What this has prompted me to reflect on is - the extent to which it is important to focus on how different work based learning awards are compared to other ways of obtaining awards. I started my enquiries thinking that it was obvious that we needed to know what makes it different in order to be better equipped and prepared to respond effectively to student questions, issues and problems. And to some extent learning about anything [and coming to 'know' it] usually involves being able to differentiate it from something else. For a lecturer or supervisor involved with work based learning, it is important to know the differences [that the student will encounter] to ensure that students are well informed about their choice to use a WBL pathway to their award. These differences go to the duration, unit structure, assessment criteria, timing and so on of the program of study. I believe that developing an improved way of 'matching' students with programs is an ongoing task for all education institutions as they seek to improve performance outcomes and reduce 'drop out' or 'attrition' rates.
However, my initial assessment of the articles I have considered thus far, is that few deal with the differences from a specific, 'student's perspective' and most go to the issue of what makes WBL different at an 'educational' or 'knowledge' or 'academic' level. This is interesting because in part, it appears that those involved in delivering WBL have had to go through a period of justifying their approach. And it could be suggested that all good quality education must be based on sound principles and followed up with sound practices to ensure both efficient and effective outcomes. However, it is clear from the number of program offerings of WBL in different parts of the world that we may be arriving at a point where what is most important about future development of WBL is not what is different [academically] about a WBL pathway to a higher education award but how similar WBL pathways are to other pathways to gaining a degree.
It goes without saying that work based learning has a much longer history of achievement than discipline oriented classroom learning and it seems less important to spend time on building a comprehensive critique on the academic differences between work based learning and discipline centric classroom learning than to (1) build on the similarities of their academic foundations and (2) to focus on what the differences are from a recipient's [student's] perspective and further and most importantly (3) to focus on what is required to 'deliver' effective work based learning to students. I raise the last point because from the point of view of looking at what is required to expand the delivery of work based learning options for students, its not the actual underlying academic or conceptual issues that are most salient, it is the skills and experience of supervisors and the capacity of university administrations to develop operating systems and procedures for supporting work based learning students, that are critical.
Having stated my perspective and put forward what I regard as the areas where the differences [between WBL and other forms of tertiary award] need to be further explored, I propose to now 'build the case' for my argument. To achieve this I propose to -
LIST OF REFERENCES
However, my initial assessment of the articles I have considered thus far, is that few deal with the differences from a specific, 'student's perspective' and most go to the issue of what makes WBL different at an 'educational' or 'knowledge' or 'academic' level. This is interesting because in part, it appears that those involved in delivering WBL have had to go through a period of justifying their approach. And it could be suggested that all good quality education must be based on sound principles and followed up with sound practices to ensure both efficient and effective outcomes. However, it is clear from the number of program offerings of WBL in different parts of the world that we may be arriving at a point where what is most important about future development of WBL is not what is different [academically] about a WBL pathway to a higher education award but how similar WBL pathways are to other pathways to gaining a degree.
It goes without saying that work based learning has a much longer history of achievement than discipline oriented classroom learning and it seems less important to spend time on building a comprehensive critique on the academic differences between work based learning and discipline centric classroom learning than to (1) build on the similarities of their academic foundations and (2) to focus on what the differences are from a recipient's [student's] perspective and further and most importantly (3) to focus on what is required to 'deliver' effective work based learning to students. I raise the last point because from the point of view of looking at what is required to expand the delivery of work based learning options for students, its not the actual underlying academic or conceptual issues that are most salient, it is the skills and experience of supervisors and the capacity of university administrations to develop operating systems and procedures for supporting work based learning students, that are critical.
Having stated my perspective and put forward what I regard as the areas where the differences [between WBL and other forms of tertiary award] need to be further explored, I propose to now 'build the case' for my argument. To achieve this I propose to -
- prepare a critique of the work already done to establish the academic/conceptual differences between WBL and other tertiary pathways and seek to discern which of these differences go to better understanding (a) conceptual/ academic differences (b) the support needed for students and (c) the skills and systems needed by universities to deliver WBL
- develop a more complete picture of what is different for students and how to better 'match' students with the WBL pathway
- develop a more complete picture of what is different for staff and university systems and how to better develop these to support the expansion of WBL
LIST OF REFERENCES
Armsby, P. (2000). Methodologies of Work Based Learning. In D. Portwood
& C. Costley (Eds.), Work Based
Learning and the University New Perspectives and Practices Seda Paper 109 (pp. 35-42). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association
[SEDA].
Armsby, P., & Costley, C.
(2000). Research Driven Projects. In D. Portwood & C. Costley (Eds.), Work Based Learning and the University: New
Perspectives and Practices Seda Paper 109 (pp. 67-71). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association
[SEDA].
Garnett, J. (2000). Organisational
Culture and the Role of Learning Agreements. In D. Portwood & C. Costley
(Eds.), Work Based Learning and the
University Seda Paper 109 (pp. 58-66). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Develpment Association.
Shulz, K.-P. (2006). Learning
in Complex Organisations as practising and reflecting A model
development and application from a theory of practice perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(8),
14.
Stainsby, K., & Bannigan,
K. (2012). Reviewing work-based learning opportunities in the community for
physiotherapy students: an action research study. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(No. 4), 17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.643769
Travers, N. L. (2012). Academic
perspective on college-level learning Implications for
workplace learning. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 24(2), 13.
Workman, B. (2007).
"Casing the joint" Explorations by
the insider-researcher preparing for work-based projects. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(3), 14.
Comments
Post a Comment