WBL covers many different educational practices from sandwich courses at undergraduate level, independent and negotiated study
(undergraduate/postgraduate level) to accreditation of prior experience and learning (undergraduate/postgraduate level). It challenges the concept of a pre- determined curriculum but instead focuses on the individual and how they can develop their knowledge through employer and university engagement. This can cause problems though, if the curriculum is not set within a controlled framework of activity. As stated in Chapter 3, the UK Quality Code for Higher Education outlines the formal expectations that HE providers in the UK are required to meet (QAA, 2012a, p.1). The code also identifies what the general public can expect from an approved course. As a HE provider, universities need to maintain academic standards, so once a student reaches the minimum acceptable level (threshold standard), they will be eligible for an award. This ensures minimum standards across the UK are uniform (QAA, 2012c, pp.1-5). If no standards were in place, students would be unsure of the boundaries of their study, as they may perceive there is little structure to the qualification. Boundaries need to be set to maintain academic rigor and ensure the validity of assessment tasks. The curriculum should still be driven by the
employer/educator relationship but within a pre-set framework.
Courses at universities have traditionally been set up on a credit system of points, which are related to module/unit size. At Anglia Ruskin University, courses consist of modules of 15 and 30 credits in value. Each module has a set of learning outcomes that a student must cover through the duration of the module. On traditional courses in the Department of Engineering and the Built Environment, the assessment tasks are pre-determined with all students
knowledge WBL programmes have mostly found it necessary to adopt an apparently similar structure (Boud and Solomon, 2001, p.44).
The workplace is the starting point for curriculum design. According to Boud and Solomon (2001, p.45) there are four factors, which must be considered. Firstly, the role the employees find themselves in will dictate the degree to which learning takes place as in many organisations, work pressures influence outside activity. Secondly and linked to the first factor, there are a range of students of different ages and backgrounds undertaking the course of study. Each has their own cultural background, knowledge and aspirations. The students’ work environment places different demands, opportunities for learning and expectations on students.
Thirdly, it is important that courses are flexible, not only in the delivery method but also in way the curriculum responds to the different needs of the learners and their workplace. No two learners are the same and organisations and the work carried out by the workforce changes with time. Having a flexible course, with differing start dates and timing of modules goes against the traditional way university courses are structured. It becomes challenging and not cost effective to resource for small numbers of students.
Finally, workplace knowledge is constantly changing and the conventional curricular does not always reflect this change. Full time academics are by the nature of their position involved in academia and are not engaged in a full time capacity in industry. They are not exposed on a daily basis to the application of the knowledge they generate which can be questioned resulting in conflict between an academic’s thoughts and those in the workplace. Work by Perera et al. (2013) found that there was a discrepancy between what academia sees as being relevant in quantity surveying education and what industry sees a graduate quantity surveyor needing for employment. The art of learning is about exposing students to different points of view but that process needs to be managed. A WBL course has the potential to provide a learner centred
approach to the curriculum and in doing so ensuring it recognises the value of learning and knowledge in both a university and the workplace (Boud and
Solomon, 2001, pp.45-46). Perhaps the ‘education versus training’ debate highlighted by Perera et al. (2013, p.144) can be resolved to the mutual benefit of academia and industry.
In today’s rapidly changing world, pressure is being applied on the traditional educational curricula containing abstract and theoretical knowledge (Peach, 2012). The joining together of theoretical and practical knowledge offers a new paradigm of knowledge that is ‘centred upon use-value and application’ (Peach, 2012, p.87). Symes and McIntyre (2000, p.1) refer to this as ‘working
knowledge’. It is knowledge that has a practical yet theoretical basis. The influx of this new type of knowledge has seen a change in the higher education
landscape with more vocational and professional courses (Peach, 2012). This has resulted in an expansion of work related provision with the expectation that higher education recognise this paradigm shift and provide a curriculum that is not solely based on academic knowledge. WBL provides an opportunity for these ‘non-traditional’ students to engage with higher education but this could challenge the role of the traditional academic.
A true WBL curriculum differs from a traditional one. As Boud and Solomon (2001, p.48) state ‘The work-based curriculum cannot be established in advance, for it will not be the same for all students, and it cannot be created exclusively by the education institution.’ The central feature is engagement with the workplace and how the curriculum facilitates this process. The Centre for Outcomes-Based Education (COBE) has designed a generic course
framework, which can be contextualized for WBL at first year undergraduate level. The research used to develop the framework was based on ‘examining the different aspects of the working environment and by selecting the essential areas of relevance for all employees’ (COBE, 2006). Appendix 4.2 presents the COBE framework and it covers health and safety, access to resources,
legislation policy, and areas for workplace improvement and developing own learning (COBE, 2006). These are deemed vital components that students need to be aware of as part of a WBL curriculum. The themes identified in Appendix 4.2 will be considered later in the chapter, in relation to the specific
competencies produced by the CIOB for the Professional Development Programme and the Professional Review.