Review of research literature focussed on … of research literature focussed on Foundation degrees 2 Contents 1. Introduction to the literature review 3 2. Foundation degree policy,

1

Review of research literature focussed on

Foundation degrees

Lee Harvey

Review of research literature focussed on Foundation degrees

2

Contents1. Introduction to the literature review 3

2. Foundation degree policy, context, aims and implementation 5

Extent and take-up of Foundation Degrees 5 Policies for vocational education 7 Scepticism 8 Optimism 10 Summary 13

3. Value of Foundation degrees 15

Value to students 16 Value to employers 17 Differentiation of Foundation degrees and HND/HNCs 18 Marketing 19 Market research 20 Early evaluations 21 Summary 22

4. Collaborative working and employer engagement 23

Some case-study examples 26 Summary 34 General issues 35 Employer involvement 35 Further and higher education institution issues 36 Issues for students 36

5. Student experience of learning 37

Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree 37 Programme studies 42 Progression 49 To Foundation degrees 49 Foundation degree completion and articulation 49 Progression and promotion at work 51 Student experience of transition to bachelor degrees 53 Summary 56

6. Work-based learning 59

Workplace mentoring and coaching 68 Assessment of students: the problem of assessing

the work-based element 71 Summary 73

7 Student support and guidance 77

Summary 80

8 Programme design, development and pedagogy 81

Pedagogy and innovation 83 Summary 84

9 Research agenda 85

Suggested research areas 85

Abbreviations 87

References 88

Part 1: items reviewed 88 Part 2: items referred to in the reviewed material 94 Author’s personal postscript 95

3

Introduction to the literature review

1

The following is an extensive review of research focused on Foundation degrees. It was undertaken on behalf of, but independently from, Foundation Degree Forward (fdf). The review provides an up-to-date compilation of a substantial amount of material on Foundation degrees. It also provides a basis for an agenda for future research work focussed on Foundation degrees.

Higher education research is characterised by a proliferation of small-scale, often practitioner-oriented studies. The research on Foundation degrees is no different. Much of the research is very localised and often reflection on practice augmented by a small survey or the collection of qualitative data. There are few examples of well-planned and resourced substantive studies.

The review has identified 317 items that refer to Foundation degrees. These include items on the fdf literature database1 plus others located through extensive searching. Of the 317 items, 108 appear in Forward, the fdf journal. Of these, 13 have been included in the review. Of the remaining 209 items, 54 were either not relevant to the review because they only made passing reference to Foundation degrees, were unobtainable in the available time, or were superseded by similar publications, such as conference papers that were subsequently published in a journal or key statistics that have been updated. This resulted in a total of 168 items that were used, to varying extents, in the review (references in green coloured font). These consisted of 80 journal articles, 58 reports, 17 conference papers, 13 books or chapters in books (Table 1). These are listed in Part 1 of the references under ‘Material reviewed’. Part 2 of the references contains other items referred to in the reviewed material (references in grey) but not themselves reviewed in this document.

The fdf literature database is available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/foundation_degree_literature


4

Table 1 Publication medium of items reviewed

Publication medium Number of items

Academic journal article 62Reports 58Professional and practitioner journal article 18Conference paper 17Book or chapter in book 13TOTAL 168

Two types of material inform this review in the main. The first are accounts that use original empirical data, which range from anecdote and reflections from course tutors, through student evaluations to fully-developed research projects. In the vast majority of cases, this empirical material relates to a single programme sometimes with a national or regional focus but more frequently with a focus on a single institution and its partners.

The second type of material that informs this review is made up of analytical and critical analyses of the Foundation degree initiative, often based on policy documents, and sometimes augmented by reanalysis of available data. The available material most naturally fell under the following headings:

• Foundationdegreepolicy,context,aimsandimplementation;• ValueofFoundationdegrees;• Collaborativeworkingandemployerengagement;• Studentexperienceoflearning;• Work-basedlearning;• Studentsupportandguidance;• Programmedesign,developmentandpedagogy.

The report is structured under these headings, each constituting a chapter of the report. Some reviewed research appears in just one chapter but others occur in more than one. Each chapter has a summary of the main points, usually identifying the key lessons learned from the implementation of Foundation degrees. There is a final chapter that outlines a potential research agenda.

Introduction to the literature review

4

5

Foundation degree policy, context, aims and implementation

2

There are several published accounts of policy behind the introduction of Foundation degrees. These policy analyses rarely involve any primary research and appear, in the main, to inform various audiences of the role that Foundation degrees will play in wider policy goals such as widening participation and reducing the ‘skills gap’. They draw on key policy documents such as: the Foundation degree consultation paper (DfEE, 2000), the White Paper The Future of Higher Education (DfES, 2003a) and a progress report from the (DfES 2003b) Foundation degrees: Meeting the need for higher level skill. In addition, commentators refer to the Foundation degree prospectus (HEFCE, 2000a), a HEFCE policy statement Diversity in Higher Education (HEFCE, 2000b), the report on funded projects (HEFCE, 2001), and the invitation to bid for additional places and development funds (HEFCE, 2003).

Extent and take-up of Foundation Degrees

In 2000, David Blunkett, then Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced the introduction of a new higher education qualification, the Foundation degree. The Foundation degree consultation paper (DfEE, 2000) was published in the same year and the first Foundation degree programmes were launched in 2001–02. In 2001–02 there were just 4,000 students enrolled on Foundation degrees (HEFCE, 2007) and by 2008–09 this had increased to over 87,000 students (Longhurst, 2009).

Numerous publications have noted the rapid growth in Foundation degrees since their inception. Nelson (2006, p. 51) noted that:

Enrolments on Foundation degree programmes are currently growing at a greater rate than any other UK higher education award. The continued growth in Foundation degree recruitment is further


6

demonstrated through the UCAS applications data for 2005. As of March 2005, over 24,000 applications for Foundation degree study for 2005–06 had been received by UCAS…The UCAS data showed a 160% increase in applications for study in 2003–04 to 2005–06. However, between 2003–04 and 2004–05 UCAS reported a 79% increase in applications and a 58% increase in acceptances…This suggests that demand appears to be growing at a faster rate than availability of places.

Although Foundation degree enrolments have grown steadily during the period 2001–2009, a decline in enrolments on other level 4 and 5 qualifications has been observed. Enrolments on Higher National Diplomas (HNDs) have, for example, fallen substantially during this period (HEFCE, 2007), although this declining trend was already clearly evident before the launch of Foundation degrees. Nelson (2006, p. 52) commented that:

The HESA data illustrate that over a comparable period (2002–03 to 2003–04), whilst there was a 62% growth in the number of entrants onto Foundation degree programmes there was a decline of 19.6% and 9.2%, respectively, in the numbers enrolled on HNDs and HNCs. The QAA Scope and Preference exercise highlighted the fact that around one-third of Foundation degree programmes on which students were enrolled in 2003–04 had been converted from a HND or HNC to a Foundation degree programme. It is useful to note that patterns emerged with regards to subject clusters of HND/HNC programmes converted to Foundation degrees. Education, the largest and one of the most rapidly growing areas of provision, was not a subject area where HND/HNCs had converted into Foundation degree programmes. Conversions appeared to be clustered among more ‘technically’ orientated programmes.

The Foundation degree student population has distinctly different characteristics to those of other types of higher education qualification. In 2006–07, 44% of Foundation degree students were studying part-time (HEFCE, 2007). In the same year, 33% of the overall undergraduate population and 23% of the HND cohort were studying part-time (HEFCE, 2007). An Edge Foundation (2008) report suggested that 20% of Foundation degrees are delivered in the workplace. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) data show that 65% of Foundation degree students are aged over 21 on enrolment (HEFCE, 2008). In comparison, 52% of the overall undergraduate population and 44% of HND students are over 21 years of age on entry (HEFCE, 2007). Nelson (2006, p. 62) and Edmond et al. (2007) quoting Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2005a, paras. 15-16) pointed to two distinct clusters of Foundation degrees students, about the same numerical size. The first is predominately male aged 25 years or under, ‘who entered the Foundation degree programme directly from education or training, possessed ‘A’ level GCE/VCE qualifications as their highest recorded qualification on entry, and were enrolled on full-time programmes’. The second cluster is predominantly female, aged over 25, ‘studying on a part-time basis who entered the Foundation degree programme from employment or other non-educational/training activities and were less likely to possess any academic or vocational qualifications’. In areas such as ‘education studies’ more than two-thirds of Foundation degree students are engaged in part-time study. In contrast, over 90% of students enrolled on creative arts and design courses are studying full-time (HEFCE, 2008).

Minority ethnic groups account for about 15% of Foundation degree students (similar to the overall undergraduate population), 13% of Higher National Certificate (HNC) students and 30% of HND students. The ethnic profile of full-time Foundation degree students is different to that of part-time entrants, with higher proportions of full-time entrants (19%) coming from minority ethnic groups. Proportions of full-time Foundation degree students are particularly high among those of Asian and Chinese ethnicity (Edge Foundation, 2008).

The proportions of Foundation degree and HND students progressing to honours degree study immediately after completing their award is broadly similar (HEFCE, 2007). However, although half of HND students list their destination six months after qualifying as ‘study only’ (HEFCE, 2007), Foundation degree students are more likely than HND


7

students to be combining further study with employment. Indeed, only 38% of Foundation degree students list their destination as ‘study only’ (HEFCE, 2008). When Foundation degree students progress to honours degree they are more likely to be credited with two or more years of honours degree study than HND students. HEFCE data show that 70% of HND students who progress to honours degree study at the same institution are credited with two or more years of honours degree study (HEFCE, 2007), for Foundation degree students this figure is 87% (HEFCE, 2008).

HEFCE data (HEFCE, 2008)suggestthatFoundationdegreesaidwideningparticipation;thestatisticsindicatethat:

The proportions of Foundation degree entrants from low participation neighbourhoods are generally higher than for undergraduates as a whole, and also higher than for HND entrants, apart from young full-time entrants at HEIs [higher education institutions]. For this group the proportion of entrants from lower participation neighbourhoods was slightly lower compared with HND entrants.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2002) identified three categories of Foundation degree: meeting a niche employment need;meetinganessential employeeneed;delivering sustainable regional collaboration.Madell (2006) explored differences between public- and private-sector focused Foundation degrees. They used data from fdf and the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) as well as questionnaires from 141 Foundation degrees in England and eight qualitative interviews with staff and students. Noting that the public-private distinction is not clear-cut in some cases, Madell acknowledged that larger numbers are recruited to public-sector Foundation degrees but that there is a growing diversification. Public-sector Foundation degrees seem to attract a higher proportion of mature students but there was no evidence of any difference in ability to recruit students from ethnic minorities or students with non-typical higher education entry qualifications. There was also no difference in retention rates between public- and non-public-sector focused Foundation degrees.

Higher-level vocational qualifications are achieved mainly through universities. However, just over 10% of all higher education qualifications (mostly vocational) are delivered through colleges: 56% of Foundation degrees, 86% of HNCs and 59% of HNDs. Not all universities are engaged with Foundation degrees to the same extent. As Nelson (2006, p. 52) pointed out, although 80 higher education institutions in England offered Foundation degree programmes in 2003–04, three institutions accounted for 14% of all enrolled Foundation degree students. By 2007–08 far larger numbers of institutions had become involved with Foundation degrees. In that academic year, 58% of pre-1992 universities, 91% of post-1992 universities and 72% of further education colleges (FECs) were involved in the provision of Foundation degree programmes (Longhurst, 2009).

Policies for vocational education

A review of vocational qualifications in the UK (Edge Foundation, 2008), timed to coincide with ‘VQ day’, 23rd July 2008, provided some context against which to assess the development of Foundation degrees. Drawing on (HEFCE, 2008), the report points out that there are vocational higher education qualifications in work-related disciplines beyond HNCs, HNDs and Foundation degrees. These, though, are widely perceived as ‘academic’ qualifications, regardless of their vocational content. In practice, then, vocational qualifications are available and achieved at all levels of the current National Qualifications Framework. For the purposes of the Edge report, vocational qualifications included:

• NationalandScottishVocationalQualifications(NVQs/SVQs),whichassesscompetenceinspecificoccupations• Moreknowledge-basedVocationally-RelatedQualifications(VRQs),suchasBTECs,City&GuildsandOCRNationals• higher education qualifications such asHNCs andHNDs, Foundation degrees andwork-related honours and higher degrees such as MBAs (Masters of Business Administration)

2


8

• Professionalqualificationsawardedbyrecognisedprofessionalbodies(withanemphasisonthosewhichcanbe achieved through vocational, rather than purely academic, routes).

The policy aims of Foundation degrees are to address shortages of intermediate-level skills in the national and regional economies and to enhance the employability of students. Foundation degrees are also designed to widen participation in higher education and to contribute to lifelong learning (HEFCE, 2000). In November 2000, HEFCE allocated £5,186,805 for development funds and 2,123 additional student numbers for Foundation degree programmes.

At the inception of Foundation degrees, the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) in its response to the Future of Higher Education consultation (LSDA, 2003), strongly supported the government development of a stronger role for further education in higher education. It welcomed the emphasis on establishing clear, distinctive missions for education providers across sectors and recognition that further education colleges (FECs) will have a key role in delivering expansion in Foundation degrees. Further, it supported the proposals to strengthen Foundation degrees by establishing them as the standard two-year higher education qualification.

Similarly, the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA) welcomed the Foundation degree initiative and proposed that Foundation degrees should be designed primarily as vocational awards providing a route to employment for school leavers, and a qualification for those already in employment (Greenwood et al., 2000). Among other things, FEDA proposed that Foundation degrees should be broad rather than designed for highly specific occupational areas, albeit that the qualification should be organised around occupational requirements rather than academic subjects. FEDA argued strongly that Foundation degrees must include work-based learning rather than just work experience. They endorsed the notion of flexible delivery and wanted Foundation degrees to be funded in the same way and at broadly the same level as comparable higher education programmes.

Australian commentators have referred to the Foundation degree development and Roantree (2003), for example, argued that in developing an Australian associate degree, there is merit in adopting similar criteria to those developed in the United Kingdom for the Foundation degree. Wheelahan (2002), in citing the then Australian Minister for Education’s enthusiasm for university-based Foundation degrees, cautioned about the absence of systemic arrangements to support students in transferring from one sector to the other. Moodie (2003) indicated that short-cycle higher education, such as Foundation degrees, was the missing link in Australian tertiary education.

Several studies explored the widening participation agenda and referred to Foundation degrees: including Wagner’s (2001) conjectureas towhetherFoundationdegreeswouldwidenparticipation;Parry’s (2003) exploration of the roleofcollegesinthedevelopmentofmasshighereducation; Bowers-Brown’s (2006) examination of the extent of widening Participation amongst students from disadvantaged socio-economic groups; and the report byCullen and Mills (undated) that aimed to gain a better understanding of what widening participation meant to the East of England region, which included an examination of Foundation degrees and work-based learning.

Scepticism

Brain et al. (2004) thought that the widening participation agenda was incompatible with addressing the skills gap and argued that the embedding of Foundation degrees will require central government to reduce and redistribute the risks of developing and delivering Foundation degrees.

Little (2005) was not so convinced about the general nature of Foundation degrees. She noted a tendency for employers to support employees who are taking fairly specialised qualifications (for example, towards professional accreditation)


9

rather than more general qualifications. She raised other questions about the Foundation degree concept. She asked why Foundation degrees were needed to meet the ‘perceived ‘skills gap’’ when ‘graduate employment data seems to indicate that those with first degrees and postgraduate degrees were already filling these jobs (in quite significant numbers)’ (Little, 2005, p. 144). She supposed that being shorter, Foundation degrees are perceived by government as a cheaper way to meet participation and skills-gap objectives. She warned that, on past experiences of intermediate vocational higher education, unless there are strong signals from the labour market (including professional bodies), Foundation degrees ‘will fail to establish their distinctiveness and status’ (Little, 2005, p. 145). The results may be that, in some discipline areas, students perceive them as a progression route towards other qualifications rather than a qualification in their own right.

Fuller (2001) had earlier expressed a fear that Foundation degrees would, in effect, be a subsidy to employers in specific sectors who would otherwise have funded workforce development. Other research has shown that employees working for larger firms and in sectors such as engineering and construction with a tradition of supporting part-time higher-level study were most likely to have the financial backing of their employers. Fuller (2001, p. 245) claimed that the Foundation degree qualification ‘is most likely to benefit the groups (male, white, in 20s, full-time, from engineering and technology sectors) who are already advantaged’. She was, therefore, sceptical of the ability of the Foundation degree to meet the widening participation agenda. Further, she noted:

it is not clear that the creation of this new type of award will generate demand from some individuals who may be unenthusiastic about a work-based qualification which connects study closely with their current employment. In my sample of mature students, those who had paid their own tuition fees had the freedom to choose their degrees while those whose fees were paid for by employers were restricted to taking courses relating to their occupations (e.g. electronic engineering). Nevertheless, the funded students perceived that their studies took them beyond the knowledge and skills they required in their current jobs and that, consequently, new and broader career possibilities (such as management) were becoming available to them. (Fuller, 2001, p. 246)

Gibbs (2002a, p. 202) goes further in his analysis of the ‘subsidy’ to employers and is sceptical about the benefit of the Foundation degree to students.

These degrees seem to be programmes that are constructed to transfer value from the university through the student to the employer. This is likely to be achieved with little respect for the individual as a person but as a unit of utility. What is worse in this application of human capital theories is that the dehumanising impact will fall disproportionately upon those who are less well able to recognise and respond to it. If this analysis is correct, the main beneficiaries of the transfer of value will be employers in the form of surplus-value generated for them by the newly qualified students.

Ainley (2003) is rather more scathing about the future of vocationalism in general. He warned, on the basis of conversations in colleges under a local Learning and Skills Council, of a new tertiary tripartism rather than the seamless web that was supposed to characterise the future shape of lifelong learning. It is unclear, though, whether Foundation degrees are seen as reinforcing the tripartism or providing a basis to break through it. He cites Seabrook (2002) and Rustin (2002) in support of the view that the industrial working class in Western Europe has, for two decades, been in a state of relative decline and marginalisation.

In its place a new ‘rough’ is divided from the ‘respectable’ working-middle of society by, among other things, lack of worthwhile certification. Even if an ‘underclass’ does not yet exist as an ‘intergenerationally immobile core’, Roberts (2001, p. 115) predicts it soon will if conditions do not change. (Ainley, 2003, p. 404)

2


10

Ainley feared that this would lead to an education underclass.

At the bottom of this certified—not ‘learning’—society, many of those without worthwhile certification drift into a black economy of irregular employment, if not criminality and drug dependence. This social fragmentation in turn affects those above making it more difficult ever to meet the targets that have been set. (Ainley, 2003, p. 404)

Ainley argued that this conflicts with the modernising agenda of New Labour for a flexible workforce able to retrain for lifelong learning and earning by combining manual and mental capabilities. Further, it ‘fuels the fears and fantasies of those in the working/studying middle clambering up the down escalator of depreciating credentials’. What is happening is a learning policy that, in contributing to dissolution of the industrial proletariat, is also leading to the ‘extension of selection’ in post-compulsory education (Ainley, 2003, pp. 404–05).

Optimism

Doyle (2003a), on the contrary, argued that the Foundation degree is an example of ‘joined up government’. The ‘New Labour’ government, he claimed, had moved the emphasis in the public sector from new public management with its focus on cost cutting and efficiency (characteristic of the last Conservative government), to a stress on service, usually in collaboration with ‘partners’, and underpinned by quality and concepts of ‘best value’. He undertook a critical analysis of the dominant discourse within which New Labour’s Foundation degree strategy is located. He examined the ideological basis of the employability and widening participation agendas and explored how these are ‘textually represented in the form of policy speeches and ‘consultation’ document’ (Doyle, 2003a, p.10). Among other things, textual representation of policy reinforces the idea that public service must change and that people must fulfil their potential.

The language of Blunkett’s speech inaugurating Foundation degrees ‘is replete with the discourse of managerialism, modernisation…and ‘competitiveness’’ and, from the outset set a ‘pattern and tone of categorical assertion’ (Doyle, 2003a, p. 24). Doyle was hesitant about what he regarded as the ‘rush to expand higher education and frame even the most vocational of courses within the honours degree template’. This has not aided diversity and he proposes the need for ‘a discussion about whether vocational subjects should be offered as Foundation Degrees with opportunities for ‘top-up’ to Honours’. This, he suggested, would ‘redress the ‘academic drift’ in the old Polytechnic sector’ and aid the ‘revitalisation of the Further Education sector delivering an alternative higher education locally, facilitating outreach and choice’ (Doyle, 2003a, p. 34).

A similar discourse analysis of policy documents by Webb et al. (2006) suggested that in spite of a discourse of inclusivity, evident in the European Union’s promotion of expansion and in the Foundation degree development, an expanded higher education system has generated new inequalities, deepening social stratification.

Parry (2006, p. 405) appeared to be optimistic about the potential, arguing that Foundation degrees were created to build demand for ‘a different style of higher education’, ‘raise the value of workfocused higher education’, ‘redress the historic ‘skills deficit’’, meet the widening participation targets and ultimately subsume many other qualifications at the intermediate level. Ryan (2005), on the other hand, argued that serious investment in higher education requires an extension of Sure Start rather than Foundation degrees, although accepting that no government can wait 16 years for its plans to come to fruition.

In an examination of the discussion about whether British higher education produces too many graduates, Bowers-Brown and Harvey (2004) inter alia contrasted ‘elitist’ and ‘democratic’ views about vocational education and the role of


11

Foundation degrees. They argued that elitists want a clear distinction between academic and vocational institutions, which is contrary to government policy. Indeed, they pointed out that vocational programmes meet an academic standard and that the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) insists on the academic rigour of Foundation degrees even though they are developing vocational skills. Elitists want young people who do not read an academic subject to be encouraged to take vocational training. They question whether Foundation degrees are wrongly being sold as a ‘university education’ when the content is different to that of a traditional course. Citing an earlier study (Harvey et al., 2002, p. 5), the authors argued that Foundation degrees are a better solution to the apparent lack of skilled artisans than ‘artificially capping the numbers of people who have experienced higher education’ (Bowers-Brown and Harvey, 2004, p. 19).

The democrats, unlike the elitists, do not place superior value on the type of education pursued, whether it is academic or vocational. Vocational courses are valued and the introduction of Foundation degrees offers students an additional opportunity to gain higher-level academic qualifications in a vocational subject.

The introduction of Foundation degrees attempts to breaks down the status-divide between knowledge-based and vocational subjects. Students are able to study a practical vocational topic within a higher education institute. (Bowers-Brown and Harvey (2004, p. 19)

The review of documentation and reflection on a programme at the University of Bradford led Wilson et al. (2005) to conclude that Foundation degrees represent a significant development in British higher education producing some innovative and successful programmes, despite the hesitant take up. They argued that the aim of producing more highly skilled technicians seems likely to be fulfilled given that, at the time of writing, there were 300 Foundation degree programmes, albeit some were re-badged HNDs. Wilson et al. (2005) suggested that it also seems that the Foundation degree attracts people who would not normally have done a conventional three-year undergraduate degree. Foundation degrees also provide flexibility in delivery, which was a policy aim. However, whether it acts as a progression route for modern apprentices or those holding vocational A-levels is a moot point.

In similar vein, Sastry and Bekhradnia (undated, pp. 21–22), referred to a 2004–05 HEFCE analysis, which shows that 51% of Foundation degrees were HND and/or HNC conversions. Of that 51%, 46% were ‘probably developed from HNDs’. They concluded that:

It is clear from these figures that a large part of the apparent success of Foundation Degrees is down to displaced demand: students who would have opted for other vocational sub-degree qualifications choosing instead to study for Foundation Degrees. This is probably a good thing—we must presume that Foundation Degrees are on the rise because they offer more to students than pre-existing qualifications. However, whilst the positive verdict on Foundation Degrees as a product is not affected by evidence of displaced demand, the grounds for believing that their success is indicative of a great untapped demand for diploma-level vocational higher education is much weakened.

O’Doherty (2006a) also emphasised the role of Foundation degrees in addressing the intermediate skill needs of theeconomybutarguedthat thiscanconflictwith itsothermainaim; to‘effectsocial justice’.Hepointedout,on the basis of examining enrolment data, that Foundation degrees are mainly in the public sector and act as a vehicle for workforce development and widening participation: Foundation degrees are, he claimed, attracting new learners to new sites of learning. The reasons, as indicated by Doyle and O’Doherty (2006), are related to the policy of modernisation and the creation of new roles and functions within the public sector. However, there is an inherent tension between skill gaps and lifelong learning, where the intention of the employer is to fill the intermediate level need and the employee wants to continue to study at a higher level. In a related paper, O’Doherty (2006b) stated

2


12

that the context of public sector modernisation does not automatically lead to educational change. The impetus for Foundation degree development and collaboration is located within the actions of individuals responding to the changing policy and workforce demands and does not just happen as a result of policy.

Edmond et al. (2007) picked up the modernisation theme, noting that, in 2002, the government made explicit its commitment to remodelling the workforce, especially in the public sector, where the need for associate professional and higher technician skills has grown.

Within the fields of health, social care and education, and public services more generally, the rising quality of the labour force is used as justification for a reappraisal of roles and responsibilities. Within health and education in particular, this is leading to a weakening of the traditional job boundaries that have previously defined the work of support staff. This redefinition of jobs is rapidly becoming the cornerstone of the modernisation and remodelling of the workforce (Butt and Lance, 2005) leading to the “professionalisation” (Brennan and Gosling, 2004, p. 3) of many roles in education and children and young people’s services, previously seen as low skilled and requiring no or low levels of qualification. This notion of “professionalisation” is key to understanding the role of Foundation degrees and HE in workforce development. (Edmond et al., 2007, p. 172)

Edmond et al. (2007) claimed that the ‘rationale’ for Foundation degrees explicitly called upon the notion of ‘graduateness’ and they cite the Foundation Degree Prospectus (HEFCE, 2000a, p. 3) ‘The Foundation degree is intended to help education providers supply the labour market with the high-quality graduates needed to address the shortage of intermediate level skills’. While this clearly indicates ‘high-quality graduates’, Edmond et al. are stretching a point in claiming that this is the same as the concept of ‘graduateness’ (HEQC, 1997). They noted that the modernising of the education and children’s workforce created demand for Foundation degrees and that the education sector has more Foundation degrees courses and more enrolled students than any other (QAA 2005a, para.23). A key factor has been government drivers such as the Early Years Sector Endorsed Programme introduced by the DfES, which, like other sector-skills-endorsed programmes, benefited from significant additional funds to contribute to fees and provide additional support to students. They argued that, as Foundation degree students in education tend to be mature females, these part-time programmes for employed students meet the widening participation and work-based learning aims of Foundation degrees.

However, Edmond et al. (2007) noted that despite policy initiatives and funding geared at increasing employer involvement, employers continue to resist engagement in education. The HEFCE prospectus (HEFCE, 2000a), they claimed, paints a simplistic picture of employer involvement. It can be argued that employers’ main activity, particularly in the private sector, is to run a successful business that makes a profit. They argued that, in the public sector, thought by government to be an important role model for employer engagement, the organisational aims still take precedent over workforce development. Quoting Gleeson and Keep (2004, p. 57) they noted that expansion of both higher and further education is displacement activity that skirts around the central problem that employers have not acted as hoped in the development of the workforce.

From the outset, Robertson (2002, p. 281) had claimed that if the international evidence is a guide, intermediate-level qualifications ‘of the type represented by the Foundation degree are successful in meeting planned objectives, provided they are designed to include five key features’. These he listed as:

• arecognisedhighereducationqualification,• thepromiseofprogressionwithinhighereducation,• acloserthannormalaffinitywithoccupationalspecifications,


13

• proximitytolocallabourmarketsandlocalemployerneeds,• flexibilityofattendancemode,andprogrammechoice.

Based on the research and programme reviews explored in the following sections, he seems, as will be shown, to have been close to the mark.

Summary

• Althoughexpandingrapidly,Foundationdegreesconstituteasmallfractionofallvocationalhighereducation.

• 56%ofFoundationdegreesaretakenpart-timeand20%aredeliveredintheworkplace.Around65%ofstudents are over 21 on enrolment. Two distinct clusters are discernible: the first is predominately male aged 25 years or under, the second is predominantly female, aged over 25.

• MorethanhalfofFoundationdegreestudentsprogresstoanhonoursdegree.

• ThepolicyaimsofFoundationdegreesaretoaddressshortagesofintermediate-levelskillsinthenationaland regional economies and to enhance the employability of students. Foundation degrees are also designed to widen participation in higher education and to contribute to lifelong learning.

• Consultationswelcomedtheaward,supportedtheproposalstoestablishthemasthestandardtwo-yearhigher education qualification and the idea that they would be designed primarily as vocational awards.

• There was some disagreement about the potential for Foundation degrees to widen participation and the arguments and data to date do not resolve this, although there is some evidence to suggest that Foundation degrees have encouraged involvement amongst those who would not normally have taken up higher education.

• Therewas,though,concernthataddressingtheskillsgapandwideningparticipationwerecontradictoryaims.

• ThereweresomeconcernsaboutFoundationdegreesactingasasubsidytoemployerswhowouldhavefinanced staff development.

• Therewasconcern,too,aboutthepotentialdumbingdownoftheconceptofdegreeswithatwo-yearprogramme.

• ConcernswereexpressedaboutFoundationdegreeshavingnostatusandasactingonlyasastepping-stonetoa bachelor programme, and a concern that a new level of credentialism was being introduced with potential to create a non-credentialised underclass.

• AlternativeviewssawFoundationdegreesasindicativeofjoined-upgovernmentalthinking,movingfromcost cutting and efficiency to a stress on service and collaboration.

• Foundationdegreesarealsoseenashavingthepotentialtoraisethevalueofwork-focusedhighereducationand break down the status-divide between knowledge-based and vocational subjects while still meeting an academic standard at the appropriate level.

• FoundationdegreesareseenasrepresentingasignificantdevelopmentinBritishhighereducationproducing some innovative and successful programmes.

• Forsome,Foundationdegreesareattheheartofthemodernisationofthepublic-sectorworkforce.Thisisthe area where they are having the greatest impact, particularly in education and the health and social care sectors.

2


14

15

Value of Foundation degrees

3

The 2004 briefing to Ministers (Besley, 2004, p. 5) referring to the Foundation Degree Task Force Report, commented that:

The third fundamental issue likely to determine the long-term strength of the Foundation Degree is perhaps the most daunting of all. It is the extent to which this particular qualification can succeed “in raising the status of vocationally–oriented courses and the credibility of two year HE qualifications.” No qualification has succeeded in achieving this in the past so the question has to be asked what has changed to make this more likely to happen in the future? The promotion of vocational learning throughout many stages of learning, the building of the skills infrastructure under the Skills Strategy and the strengthening of the relationship between the worlds of education and employment all point to the fact that perhaps things are changing. It’s the word ‘perhaps’ that’s telling….

The briefing commented on a further recommendation, which did not materialise:

That QCA [Qualifications and Curriculum Authority] considers accrediting ‘one or more of the awarding bodies’ so that they can award some Foundation Degrees. This is a cautiously worded but fascinating proposal particularly in the context of widening the criteria for degree awarding powers. The rationale is given in paragraph 7.15. “Restricting the authority to award the degree to those with degree awarding powers is seen to provide a guarantee of quality in the early years, but the argument becomes difficult to sustain as Foundation Degrees become embedded in the system.” There are two points to consider here. One is how to avoid this sounding like a change, for which in some peoples’ eyes read lowering, of the status of the Foundation Degree. The other is whether this would hamper any progression potential for Foundation Degrees. (Besley, 2004, p. 6)


16

Earlier Roberston (2002, para 242) had suggested that:

At some point, a college or perhaps a consortium of colleges will be in a position to negotiate a more independent, autonomous role in quality assurance, and ultimately apply for the right to award Foundation Degrees in their own right, either generally or in specific fields. This course of action would be consistent with international best practice as observed in this report.

Hyland (2002) argued that the upgrading of vocational studies is high on the political agenda. However, the deep-seated prejudice and negative valuing of vocationalism that is endemic in the system may render the new initiatives, including Foundation degrees, no more successful than the many failed experiments of the last half century. He concluded that: ‘changing terminology and tinkering with pathways will not bring about the necessary values transformation required to achieve the desired objectives’ (Hyland, 2002, p. 287).

Value to students

The Ministerial briefing referred to visibility of the Foundation degree. Referring to the Task Force Report it pointed out that ‘at the beginning of 2004 student awareness of the name and concept of Foundation Degrees had risen to 41% and employer awareness to 38%’ (Besley, 2004, p. 3). However, the Task Force Report suggested that there is insufficientevidenceoftherealgrowthinintermediatevocationaleducation;Foundationdegreeenrolmentsmaybesubstituting for HNDs. Thus, a lot of ‘nurturing’ is still necessary if a new learner group is to emerge (Besley, 2004, p. 3).

A year later, Stickland (2005, p. 14) noted:

‘There is a need for greater understanding of the value and success of the FD from the students’ perspective. Clear career paths for each FD route need to be identified and added into the mapping document, aiding marketing techniques (such as programme information in Prospectuses) and for Careers Advisors.

Caller (2005) explored the views of 175 students at a sixth-form college in Yeovil. She showed that students most interested in studying locally for a university-level qualification correlated significantly with inability or unwillingness tomoveaway;financialconstraints;social,employmentorfamilytiestothearea;alackofinterestinstudentsociallife;andalackof interestinlivingsomewherenewandmeetingnewpeople.Thisgroup,whichshereferredtoas‘non-traditional higher education aspirants’, were also most likely to show an interest in Foundation degrees. This, she suggested, shows that Foundation degrees contribute to widening participation and are attractive to their ‘target market’ (those not intending to follow the traditional higher education route). Those most interested in Foundation degrees did not want to study full-time and felt that going to university would be too expensive for them.

Those students with a parent/sibling who had been to university were more likely to want to go away to university and were less likely to express an interest in Foundation degrees. Caller (2005, p. 18) concludes:

‘The current study provides evidence to suggest that Foundation degrees appeal primarily to the ‘non-traditional’ student and could potentially attract those who have not previously considered entering higher education. The value of practical skills and workplace knowledge with regard to graduate employability is clearly evident. However, vocational qualifications are still predominantly viewed as an easier option than traditional degree schemes.


17

A Heist study (Rhodes and Ellis, 2008), explored further below, a sample of 600 general public respondents revealed that over half (54%) said that they had heard of Foundation degrees, 37% said that they had not and the remainder (10%) were unsure. There was, though, little evident understanding of the qualification. A quarter (27%) said that theyhadheardthename‘Foundationdegree’butdidnotknowanythingelse;29%believedthattheywereentry-level courses that could lead on to the first year of a full honours degree, clearly confusing them with foundation programmes;13%believedthatFoundationdegreeswereahighereducationqualificationequivalenttoadegree;8%identifiedthemaswork-basedlearningaccreditedwithauniversity;3%thatFoundationdegreeswereabasicfirst levelDegree,2% that itwasanothername foranNVQ level4or5; 2% thought it tobeanothername foraHND;7%werecorrectlyawarethatthequalificationwasdevelopedwithemployerinvolvement;and6%thatitisaprofessional/academic degree in its own right.

Value to employers

Little et al. (2003, pp. 38–39) explored whether vocational education met employer needs. Without giving a definitive answer, the study identified the diversity of vocational qualifications and the consequent lack of clarity for employers. They noted that:

…in some sectors, there is a clear business case for employers to use Foundation degrees as both a recruitment tool and as a vehicle for workforce development (although the case may be being driven directly by government legislation). In other areas, the business case seems less strong so far. It is not yet clear whether these new programmes are going to attract a ‘new’ type of student to higher education, or whether they are going to attract those who previously would have sought to undertake another sub-degree programme (e.g., an HND). Some providers considered that, as currently conceived, the Foundation degree was particularly suitable as a vehicle for enhancing and developing the skills and knowledge of those already in the workplace.

Morgan et al. (2004), exploring the credibility of Foundation degrees, claimed that employers generally understand the differences between HNDs and degrees and value both qualifications. They acknowledged that when the Foundation degree was introduced students and employers were unclear about the meaning of the award and that, in the case of the University of Glamorgan, considerable work was required to dispel misunderstandings. Students, although apparently glad to have the opportunity for a vocational-based higher education award, wanted to know more about three main issues.

1. The nomenclature of the award, ‘what initials can I place after my name?’ A lot may be read into a question like this, but it does suggest there is a value in having public recognition of academic achievement... The White Paper, The Future of Higher Education (DfES, 2003a) recommended that one should ‘Recognise that Foundation degrees are ends in their own right, giving them enhanced status as qualifications. Those with Foundation degrees will have the right to use the letters FDA (for Arts-based subjects) or FDSc (for Science-based subjects) after their names (DfES, 2003a, p. 61).

2. Could they progress further onto an honours degree? For many older students, initial access to and progression onwards to honours degree classification takes on a level of concern that is, perhaps, relatively more important than for younger students. The Foundation degree at Glamorgan has been devised as a qualification in its own right… It also offers a progression route to an honours degree in Business Administration for those who wish to further their studies.

3


18

3. The perceived level of the Foundation degree, especially by employers.

Of all these concerns the most difficult one to address remains the final question, what are employer’s perceptions of the Foundation degree. The White Paper recognises this as a difficulty, stressing, ‘We now need to embed Foundation degrees and ensure that they are widely accepted and valued both by employers and students (DfES, 2003a, p. 43). This, however, is not so easy to achieve. (Morgan et al., 2004, p. 365)

Differentiation of Foundation degrees and HND/HNCs

Morgan et al. (2004, p. 365) suggested that employers are unclear about Foundation degrees and ‘what holders of the award are able to do’. They suggest that retaining the HNC and HND names may be contributing to the lack of clarity. They suggested that: ‘Employer understanding of qualifications is essential if it is to have currency for students’. In the case of the development at the University of Glamorgan, Morgan et al. (2004) indicated that there was a clear justification for introducing a new award in place of the existing HNCs and HNDs. Principally and pragmatically these opportunities included:

• flexibilityofstudentchoice(ofmodulestosatisfynamedFoundationdegreeawardse.g.Finance,HRM,Marketing, Leisure and Tourism, reflecting existing and emerging vocational preferences)• vocationalrelevance,emphasisingthedevelopmentofwork-relatedskills;• theopportunitytoincludeAPELprocesses• thedevelopmentofModernApprenticeshipsandNVQs,whichcouldbeusedasaccesspoints• the opportunity for students to continue to undertake related components of the award during traditional academic holiday periods. (Morgan et al. 2004, p. 359)

They further added that status, level and credibility of vocational qualifications is a major issue and that while the establishment of a National Qualifications Framework will address some of these concerns ‘a lack of common agreement between the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and QAA when describing similar awards at the higher levels will continue to contribute to a wider stakeholder uncertainty of relative worth’.

Mason (2004) had noted that distinguishing Foundation degree from HND was important in gaining confidence from industry as well as being able to tailor the Foundation degree in a way the HND could not.

Kademo (2008), six-years on, still questions the Foundation degree brand. Although accepting that Foundation degrees have merit he suggests that ‘the wholesale shift from the Higher Nationals to Foundation Degrees might have been too drastic’ and that ’re-engineering’ higher national diplomas might have avoided ‘the huge amounts of resources expended on promoting the Foundation degree’. As a brand, the Foundation degree “’s in limbo without foothold in the market, something which could be attributed to the fact that the programme is relatively new on the higher education market. An important question that may be asked is whether the launch of the Foundation degree was political gimmicking or a well-founded move meant to change the education system in the UK.’ Kademo is of the view that although ‘The principle behind the launch of the Fd is far-reaching and well founded’, the ‘positioning of the Fd is shrouded in confusion and it will take a long time to overcome’ (Kademo, 2008, pp. 10–11).

Despite it being seven years after their introduction, Kademo still thought he had to explain the Foundation degree, but not the higher national diploma, to his, albeit nominally international, readership:


19

The FD is not a conventional bachelor’s degree despite having the word degree in its name, neither is it a Higher National Certificate or Diploma, though it takes the same duration to complete. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) points grading equates it to the Higher National Diploma, that is a 240 credit rating compared to the degree, that is the bachelor’s degree which attracts 360 credits. (Kademo 2008, p. 4)

As late as 2007, Thurgate et al. (2007) also thought it necessary to refer back to the origins of Foundation degrees and to specify the reasons for them and their unique features in a lengthy introduction that accounted for about a third of the article. This suggests that Foundation degrees are still an undervalued and little known phenomenon in the traditional university world.

Canter (2006) reported that research has shown that employers in the built environment and construction sector as well as the professional bodies are confused as to exactly what a Foundation degree might be. ‘This may well be as a result of the way in which FDs were introduced and the lack of clear marketing nationally and in the construction sector in particular.’ (Canter, 2006, p. 49) The ConstructionSkills (2008) project still reported a degree of resistance from employers to the concept of Foundation degrees as employers in the sector considered that HNC/Ds met their requirements.

Marketing

Gibbs (2002a) had referred to the slow start for Foundation degree recruitment (well under target at the time of the article). From a marketing perspective he considered this a failure of care in the construction and promotion of this product. The article called for greater clarity of purpose and veracity in the claim of parity of esteem for vocational qualifications.

Granting trust to the brand usually requires an understanding and reassurance of the competence of the brand, its performance, and the consistency of that performance plus the existential belief in the veracity of the brand. Trust and consistency is built up over time and requires a drip feed approach to change. Gibbs (2002, p. 239)

Gibbs argued that that if the Foundation degree programme fails it will be the fault of the marketing not the product itself. He had, in an earlier piece (Gibbs 2001) questioned whether the public’s perception of higher education could sustain a brand extension of the notion degree, as is implicit in the new Foundation degree proposals.

An fdf (undated c. 2006) advisory publication reports the outcomes of in-depth interviews carried out during visits to ten institutions with people involved in the design, delivery and specific marketing of Foundation degrees. Based on the findings, an e-survey was returned by heads of marketing departments in 33 institutions. Follow-up telephone interviews were then conducted with a sample of self-selecting respondents. The suggestions for marketing are based on the experiences of those institutions that took part in the research project. Many of those who took part stated that their institutions saw Foundation degrees as part of a suite of courses and training opportunities thus the suggestions in the report are relevant for any training or consultation work that institutions may undertake with employers.

For the purpose of the research, ‘marketing’ is taken to mean the broad range of activity from original development of the Foundation degree programme right through to the promotion of courses’ and is not just something done by a marketing department (fdf (undated), p. 11). A key issue is the extent to which the programme had been developed on the back of any kind of market research.

3


20

Examples were given of Fds that had been developed with only a scant amount of market intelligence or employer involvement and which had then failed to recruit as there was no real market for them. The frustration for those who were tasked with promoting such Fds was that they were often held responsible for the lack of success, yet they had little input into the initial stages of development. Conversely, those Fds that had been fully researched and developed with the co-operation of employers flourished without the need for much promotion at all. This explains, in some ways, why there were so many different roles involved in the marketing of Fds. It is very difficult to separate out marketing from the research and development functions. (fdf, undated, p. 11)

Indeed, the research showed that the most effective Foundation degrees are those where marketing has been seen as part of the entire process, rather than an ‘add-on’ at the end (fdf, undated, p.15). The research suggested that the best way to identify areas for Foundation degree development included identification of local or regional skills needs (a view cited by over three-quarters of respondents). Most of the other suggestions related to specific local enquiries, suchas:concentratingonnichemarketsandlinkingtoexistingsubjectspecialismswithintheinstitution;reviewingspecificsectorsandcontactstoseeifthereareopportunitiesforretrainingorcontinuingprofessionaldevelopment;developexistingshortcoursesforindustry;useFoundationdegreesasprogressionroutesfromwell-establishedlocallower-levelprogrammes;andfacilitatecontactsandenquiries.

The research also identified the kinds of market intelligence already available and suggestions on how to conduct market research. It suggested the most effective promotional messages for different types of students and for employers.

Some accounts of developments of Foundation degrees read more like marketing exhortations than reflections on developmental processes. For example, Herrera (2007, p. 312) describes a new Foundation degree for pharmacy technicians and concludes:

If the pharmacy profession is to meet the challenges of delivering quality health care in the modern era, and pharmacists are to develop more clinical roles, it is crucial that the technician’s role is developed simultaneously. Foundation degrees help ensure that pharmacy technicians are highly trained and competent, and capable of delivering enhanced technical services.

Market research

There are a few market research studies exploring the potential for Foundation degrees. Foreman-Peck and Middlewood (2005) explored possible employment fields (including engineering, creative industries, environmental industries, bioscience and clothing and textiles) for the development of Foundation degrees in the East Midlands region. In part this was also to raise employers’ awareness of the qualification and the role it could play in the training of their employees. Raddon and Quinn (2007, p. 2) also explored demand for Foundation degrees in the East Midlands and noted that developments were not matching demand and that employers and employees exhibited a low level of awareness of Foundation degrees. Further that ‘even where there is awareness their relevance is not fully understood’. This was not helped by a shortage of information about Foundation degrees, confusion about how Foundation degrees related to other qualifications and a perception of the qualification as being too academic. Step Ahead Research Ltd and RCU Ltd (2004) looked at the supply of and demand for foundation degrees in the North East of England and a HEFCE-commissioned small-scale study showed that small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Northamptonshire also revealed a lack of awareness of the nature of Foundation degrees. Some SMEs were sceptical about the qualification and that the costs would outweigh the benefits. Some small enterprises thought that undertaking a degree was daunting for staff who had not undertaken any formal learning since leaving school (Matthews et al., 2007, pp. 4–5).


21

Heist (Rhodes and Ellis, 2008) undertook a study on key target markets’ understanding and awareness of Foundation degrees prior to a marketing campaign at the end of October 2007. The research aimed inter alia to: obtain a benchmark level of awareness; improve understanding of the nature of perceptions about Foundation degrees; provide thefoundationforfuturemarketresearchtotracktheimpactofmarketingandcommunicationsactivity;andtoevaluatewhether there is any evidence of sector or regional differences in perception or awareness of the qualification.

The study discovered that although 76% of a sample of 601 employers said that they were aware of Foundation degrees, hardly any (of 491 respondents who provided additional clarification) had a clear idea of what they were. Of thetheserespondents,21%hadheardthenameFoundationdegreebutnothingelse;35%believedthattheywerean entry level course that would lead onto the first year of a honours degree, clearly confusing them with foundation programmes; 11% believed that Foundation degrees representedwork-based learning that was accredited by auniversity;6%of respondentsbelievedthataFoundationdegreewasahighereducationqualificationequivalenttoapassdegree;5%believedthatitwasabasicfirstleveldegree;2%ofrespondentsthoughtitwasanothernameforHNDandNVQlevel4/5;and4%accuratelyidentifiedthattheywereadegreethatemployerswereinvolvedindeveloping.

Only 43% of 601 employer respondents, even when prompted, identified Foundation degrees as being equivalent to Year 2 of an honours degree. Even fewer, that employers are involved in the delivery (39%) and design (33%) and that they were introduced in 2000 to overcome skills gaps (32%).

Early evaluations

There are also various early formative evaluations and guidance documents that assess or extol the value of Foundation degrees. Many of these are undertaken by various key agencies. The Foundation Degree Support Team (2002) examined the learning from the first year of the Foundation degree initiative. The Foundation Degree Task Force (2002) reported a second national event that provided advice to institutions intending to deliver Foundation degrees via the dissemination of lessons learned from the first full year of the implementation of Foundation degrees (2001–02). Another briefing to ministers was based on the Foundation Degree Task Force/Department for Education and Skills (2004) Foundation degree task force report to ministers.

The QAA (QAA, 2003a) reported the findings of a survey of the provision of the pilot programmes of Foundation degrees in seven colleges of further and higher education. QAA (2003b) was an overview report of Foundation degree reviews (conducted in 2003). In 2004 the agency produced a Handbook for the Review of Foundation Degrees in England (QAA, 2004a) and the Foundation Degree Qualification Benchmark (QAA, 2004b), which described the characteristics, aims and purpose of a Foundation degree and the benchmarks of the qualification. In 2005, the agency reported a survey of 39 Foundation degrees converted from existing HNDs since 2001 (QAA, 2005b) and also discussed the findings of a survey of the development of 34 Foundation degrees since they were reviewed in 2002–03 (QAA, 2005c).

These agency reviews are picked up, where relevant, in the studies reported in the various sections below.

3


22

Summary

• AkeyissueforFoundationdegreesiscanthequalificationraisethestatusofvocationally–orientedcoursesand the credibility of two-year higher education qualifications?

• Althoughhighonthepoliticalagenda, this requiresengagingdeep-seatedprejudiceandnegativevaluingof vocationalism.

• TherehavebeenongoingconcernsaboutthevisibilityoftheFoundationdegreeforpotentialstudents,employers and higher education staff. Limited evidence suggests that the programme has more appeal to students with no previous family history of higher education.

• Studiessuggestemployershavebeenunclearabouttheawardandthatthisisstillnotfullyresolved.Thosethat are engaged with Foundation degrees, though, generally have no problem distinguishing them from higher national qualifications. Distinguishing Foundation degree from HND was important in gaining confidence from industry.

• Students,though,arestillunsureaboutthequalificationassuchandhowitrelatesto(a)career(b)furtherstudy.

• Thestatus,levelandcredibilityoftheFoundationdegreecontinuetobeanissue.Insomeareasemployersprefer to stick with higher nationals, an existing qualification that meets their requirements.

• According to some, Foundation degrees are hindered by poor branding, marketing and positioning of the qualification.

• Researchhasdemonstratedthat themosteffectiveFoundationdegreesare thosewheremarketinghasbeen seen as part of the entire process, rather than an ‘add-on’ at the end.


23

Collaborative working and employer engagement

4

The official line on collaborative working can be seen in the World Class Skills (DIUS 2007) report, a manifesto for vocational education, which surprisingly only mentions Foundation degrees directly on four occasions and two of those are footnotes on equivalence. The report states:

Foundation Degrees already provide an excellent example of collaborative working between universities, FE colleges, employers and SSCs. We will encourage SSCs and HE institutions to extend their collaborations, while recognising that HE institutions are autonomous awarding institutions. (DIUS, 2007, para 3.25)

Smith and Betts (2003) note that the development of a new vocational degree does not necessarily require collaborative partnerships but Foundation degrees have this at their heart because, uniquely for higher education, the government decreed it. They comment that business will be reluctant to participate in the running of vocational awards but that they will be partners in Foundation degrees if they see it addressing specific needs of the business or of their employees. Pointing to the PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2002) report that showed a high degree of re-badging of existing programmes as Foundation degrees, Smith and Betts suggest that it is indicative of the problem of engaging employers who are unsure what their needs are.

They also point out that collaboration between FECs and HEIs is complex and fraught with problems that derive from different cultures, different forms of pedagogy, resources as well as issues of status. Universities do not regard sub-degree work or co-operating with FECs as adding to their status albeit there may be strategic advantages. For FECs, the Foundation degree poses a threat to their traditional, autonomous education portfolio. On the other hand, it does provide an opportunity to expand their market. Smith and Betts argue that further education and higher education partnerships need to be quality partnerships not based on cynical exploitation by the separate partners.


24

An issue for students that arises from collaborations is that of identity. Is the student on a Foundation degree a member of the university or of the college where the course is delivered? What access does the student have to university facilities? The progression route to a final year on a bachelor degree is also supposedly to be in place but Smith and Betts forecast, what many commentators subsequently report (see section on student experience), that different teaching styles and support make it hard for Foundation degree graduates to adjust to the final year of a degree.

Smith and Betts (2003) concluded that the future of the Foundation degree and of partnerships and collaboration are secured and that potential pitfalls should be addressed as a matter or priority by partnerships. This will require transparent processes and clarity of management responsibility.

Brain et al. (2004) referred to the ‘risky business’ of attempting to develop and deliver Foundation degrees. They outlined the problems, from two HEIs, of initial development and securing employer involvement. The risk comes in part because of the need to steer a course between partnership, collaboration and competition and in part as a result of the contradictory aims of widening participation and addressing skills gaps.

Rowley (2005) also examined the ‘risky business’ of Foundation degree development. She examined experiential learning across a sample of higher education and further education institutes and argued that risk is a shared responsibility between all partners. Rowley argued that clear objectives, strong commitment and clear articulation of responsibilities are necessary for successful partnership working. It is important, she argued, for individuals from different organisations to learn how to work effectively together, which requires, amongst other things, effective communication, persistence in managing the partnerships and appropriate resources.

Kademo (2008, p. 11) endorsed Rowley’s position, suggesting that, although the skills gap needed addressing:

The modalities of operationalising the Fd presented a rare scenario of combinations with a potential for disasters…. The demands on institutions for the need to learn and relearn practices and incorporate students from unfamiliar backgrounds and experiences while introducing a new programme with a different approach would impact on the effectiveness of the affected institutions….A partnership of delivery between institutions and with employers and employer organisations is an authentic move but one that is fraught with a number of clear and real potential disasters. The first problem in this stakeholder puzzle is the practicality of operationalising that partnership of design and delivery where these relationships have often been suspicious if not accusatory of each other. HEIs and FEIs do not always cooperate and there is a feeling of competition and suspicion of standards hence the need for stringent monitoring and direction where validation agreements are in place. While employers benefit from the availability of appropriate skills their long-term commitment to educational programme is likely to brought into question.

Smith et al. (2005) asserted that a research-led analysis of employer needs is required when establishing Foundation degrees. In an article that sets out the methodology used, but provides no results, they conclude that ‘Providing research is used consistently to inform and update curriculum design, a research-led approach to establishing Foundation degrees is a secure way of ensuring that qualifications are meeting the needs of employers.’ They noted, in passing that employers lack awareness of Foundation degrees and ‘did not realise that the government’s aim was to overcome the skills gaps faced by organisations (Smith et al., 2005, p. 37).

The ConstructionSkills project (ConstructionSkills, 2008) examined Foundation degrees in the sector. Among other conclusions, it stated that several institutions reported that real and perceived time constraints were the main inhibiting factors for employer involvement in the design and delivery of Foundation degree programmes. Institutions


25

reported a low level of awareness of Foundation degrees amongst employers and a great deal of misunderstanding regarding the nature of the qualification. This was perceived a major challenge for institutions attempting to develop partnerships with employers. The preferred delivery method for Foundation degrees for employers was day release, part-time and evening.

The report noted also that academic institutions value the input from professional bodies on their validation boards and employer liaison panels. Foundation degrees can provide entry routes to professional qualifications that are mapped to industry competence requirements. The importance of mapping to professional membership requirements is recognised by academic institutions. However, some professional bodies are reluctant to recognise Foundation degrees as an entry qualification for further honours degree study. One of the responding professional bodies commented that the main challenge encountered when considering recognition of Foundation degrees is establishing appropriate benchmarks for the mapping of work-based learning as the level and requirements vary between programmes.

Madell (2006, p. 60) made a large number of recommendations following a review of public- and private-sector oriented Foundation degrees. Some of these related to collaboration and include:

• Ensuretheco-operationoflocalemployerandemployeemarketsinthedesignoftheFD,astheFDmustmeet their needs. For this reason, it is highly desirable to involve FEIs in the development of FDs as their staff may have stronger links with industry than those in higher education institutions

• Beawarethatthequalityoftherelationshipsbetweenpartnerorganizationsmayhaveagreat impactonthe success of FDs. In this regard, maintain stability of personnel throughout the development of the FD if possible. In addition, keep consortia to a manageable size, as this makes communication between agencies easier

• Produceclearstatementsconcerningtheresponsibilitiesofpartners,andprovideschedulesandresourcesthat permit individuals from different organisations to work together…

• Strong leadership for theFD is essential. In addition,where anorganisation is responsible formanyFDs, the recruitment of a co-ordinator may be highly beneficial

• TrytoorganisetheFDsothatcourseworkandexamrequirementsforstudentsdonotcollidetemporallywith workplace obligations. Ensure that the content of the FD is challenging enough for students….,

• EncouragediscussionamongstemployersaboutareasofcommonneedwhendesigningFDs….

Reeve and Gallacher (2005) suggested that the emphasis on partnerships with employers is problematic. They suggested that there is limited evidence that employers wish to engage in these sorts of relationships with universities. Echoing Rowley (2005), they pointed out the problems arising from the different cultures of the potential partners and, in particular, different understandings of ‘learning’ and ‘knowledge’. Furthermore, they argue that the quality assurance agenda within higher education reduces the influence of employers in vocational programmes. This led them to the conclusion that the emphasis placed on partnership may well be hindering rather than helping the development of work-based learning in higher education.

As part of a wider study, Greenwood and Little (2008, p. 39) reported the results of interviews with 37 employers across a range of employment sectors. They noted that employer engagement with the design and development of Foundation degrees ranged from actively engaged to minimal. Likewise in the delivery of programmes most employers were fairly evenly divided between active and passive engagement. However, for a significant minority engagement in the delivery of Foundation degrees was minimal. The authors noted that although many employers intend to send their staff to study on Foundation degree programmes about 40% were concerned about the uncertain place of the Foundation degree ‘in a complex qualification environment’.

4


26

However, most employers indicated that employees on a Foundation degree gained broader understandings of the industry as a whole and their performance in the job improved through increased knowledge and skills, increased confidence in applying such knowledge and skills, sharing new techniques and willingness to take initiative. They also indicated that motivation and commitment were enhanced. Furthermore, placement students brought fresh ideas, and existing staff were motivated and enthused by taking on mentoring roles. The following case-study examples elaborate these conclusions.

Some case-study examples

Sheldon et al. (2003, p. 21) suggested that the implementation of the Foundation degree in health care, validated by the University of Southampton, illustrates how ‘a complex programme with 23 partners can be developed using a traditional framework of curriculum development’.

Colleges and employers worked in partnership with the university to deliver the programme: the colleges being responsible for co-ordinating units that are delivered on their premises. A legally-binding partnership agreement specified the rights and obligations of all partners. Employer representatives were full members of the curriculum-planning group and were involved in the programme design and structure, the work-based component, the work-related skills and the assessment schedule. The appropriateness of the proposed qualification was checked with a larger group of employers.

Foskett (2003, 2005a) also explored the process of collaborative development in three Foundation degree developments at the University of Southampton. In part this paper is about Foundation degrees but in part a more general analysis of partnership working:

The emergence of Foundation Degree programmes in response to employer workforce development needs provides a rich environment for the study of curriculum innovation in the context of cross-sector partnerships in post-compulsory education. (Foskett, 2003, p.1)

Evidence was drawn from documentary analysis, participant observation and informal interviews of the major stakeholders over a two-year period. Foskett noted that collaborative provision is at the heart of the Foundation degree aim of increasing access combined with employer relevance and skill development (HEFCE, 2000a). She suggested that this is not a new idea and that:

Closer working between the sectors has been suggested by many authors. Melville (1999) talks about a ‘seamless web’ of further and higher education providing easy transition for students. Harvey (1996) put forward the idea of a ‘federal omniversity’ with all FE and HE institutions in an area working together under one name with the full range of post-compulsory education provision on offer (see also Smith and Bocock, 1999). Marks (2002) sees closer working and collaboration as desirable in order to produce a less intimidatory system more appealing to adult students. Foundation degrees allow the sectors to move more closely towards this ideal. (Foskett, 2003, pp. 4–5)

In a rare example articulating the reasons for failure, Foskett (2003, p. 6) notes that an attempt to develop a Foundation degree in sport and leisure management was not successful for the following reasons:

• Theemployershadbeenusingcommercialoff-the-shelftrainingmoduleswhichareindustry-specificandwhich suitedtheirpurpose(butdidnotgiveacademiccredit);itwaseasierforthemanagerstocontinuewiththismodel ofCPD;


27

• Theemployerswereunable tocommitstaff timeto thedevelopmentphaseof thecurriculum: the teamwas unabletosecurecommitmentandresourcefromthedecision-makingleveloftheorganisation;• Theindustryhasaveryhighturnoverofstaffandintheprivatesectorthecommitmentisonlytoprovidestaffwith immediatehealthandsafetytrainingandnottocommittolonger-termstaffdevelopmentforretentionpurposes;• TheUniversity systems forqualityassurancemake thevalidationprocess time-consumingand lengthy (even thoughtheUniversityofSouthamptonhasworkedhardatincreasingitsresponsivenesstoemployerneeds);• TheexistenceofHNDsinthisareaofthecurriculumincreasesthedifficultyofsecuringcommitmentofallpartners to the development process.

However, two other programmes were launched: a Foundation degree in health care and a Foundation degree working with children. On the basis of the successes and the failure, Foskett emphasised the need for good organisation and leadership of the project, transparent aims, convergence of those aims towards a common purpose, trust between partners and good personal relationships. She noted that trust is not something that can be rushed. Good personal relationships and the associated trust are helped by a consistent group, with low turnover. Foskett refers to Milbourne et al. (2003) who suggest that change in personnel is a key factors working against the success of collaborative partnerships. These points are repeated in her later, similar reporting of a different programme (Foskett 2005a).

Edmond et al. (2007) echoes Foskett in highlighting the need for strong organisation, which, in the education field, means:

effective employer organisations (as it tends not to be individual employers who get involved in course design), linked with what might be termed an “organisational learning culture” which is more or less supportive of training partnerships and learning in the workplace. (Edmond et al., 2007, p. 177)

They also reassert the need for good personal relationships and a desire to invest time in building these up.

Foskett (2003), although emphasising transparency of formal stated aims, noted that transparency is only part of the picture:

It is clear from this study that the success or failure of the partnership depends as much on the unstated aims. These may be emergent aims which are slowly revealed as the project develops as the trust between the partners grows, but which are not stated at the start. As in all relationships, people are more likely to be honest and reveal their true motives to old friends rather than new acquaintances…. The most successful partnerships occur where institutions have similar value systems. The partnership needs to be ready to recognise these emergent aims and work with them or risk weakening or jeopardising the partnership.

In addition, each stakeholder may also have a set of aims that it does not articulate to the other partners at all. These may include issues of financial security, programme viability, institutional resistance to change and other sensitive subjects. For the unwary curriculum developer these unarticulated, hidden aims can hijack the process. (Foskett, 2003, p. 7)

The development of trust is a long-term process and is helped if there are pre-existing working relationships between partners: some ‘cultural capital’ that can be drawn on during the development process. As she said: ‘Trust between organisationsrarelyexists;itisinrealitytrustbetweenindividualsthatisthecementintherelationshipandwhichwillensure sustainability’ (Foskett, 2003, p. 9).

4


28

In conclusion, Foskett (2003, pp. 13–14) made the following recommendations:

• Theconsortiumshouldbekepttoamanageablesizeandrolesandresponsibilitiesshouldbearticulatedatan early stage. • Thepartnersshouldfeelthatthereisequalityandthattheyallhaveanequalsaybutnotattheexpenseofclear leadership and management of the project. • Theaimsforthecurriculumdevelopmentshouldbearticulatedearlyonand,ifpossible,revealasmanyofthe ‘hidden aims’ as possible. • Thiswillrequireanatmosphereoftrust,whichmaytakesometimetodevelopandcannotbehurried.• Foundationdegreesshouldbeclearlyfocusedandbebasedonawell-definedemploymentarea.• Marketanalysisandscopingoftheviewsofthoseworkingintheareaisanimportantearlystepinthecurriculum development process. • Thereneedstorecognitionfromallpartnersthatthiswillbealearningsituation.• Staff-developmentneedsshouldbeidentifiedearlyonandabudgetsetupforthisactivity.• The learningenvironment shouldbeanalysedand, ifmore thanonesite is involved in thedelivery, issuesof equity of student experience will need attention. • Thereneeds tobe a clearly stated contractual agreement ofwhat eachof thepartners is committed to, the procedures for partners joining and leaving the partnership, and how the financial resources will be shared and used.

Benefer (2007) also noted that the company involved in the successful Staffordshire University Foundation degree is a large employer and there is a particularly strong relationship with the educational institution. Such a relationship cannot be established quickly and he wondered whether small to medium-sized enterprises would be able to commit to the same extent. The programme, he claimed:

embodies the success factors identified by Foskett (2003): complementary aims, compatible missions, good personal relationships, clear responsibilities and mutual trust, together with the effective communication and persistence emphasised by Rowley (2005). (Benefer, 2007, p. 217)

Mason (2004) had earlier also emphasised the advantage of working with a large employer in an account of the development of a Foundation degree at Kingston University. He also suggested that an essential success factor was the clear identification of a local, national and international industry need and the identification of the key players and getting them on board to ensure the programme was industry-led. He also reckoned that the programme would not have been developed without prototype funding and that a clear staff development programme was essential. Good communication, regular meetings and a close working relationship with industrial and other partners, both during development and operation, was very important. This development was further aided by being able to employ academic staff from the industry and to have industry staff with an understanding of education and training.

Stinton (2007, pp. 31–2) also provided a long-list of recommendations based on a study of work-based learning (see Section 6), including some specific to collaborative working. These included specific recommendations about availability of posted electronic versions of programme specifications and clear reference to work-based learning in programme specifications. In addition:

• Skillsectorinequalitiesneedtobeaddressedthroughemployerempowermentandproactivestrategies,these should be relevant to the particular area as opposed to general Foundation Degree issues. • Employersshouldbeencouragedtobecomeinvolvedwithfuturework-based learningplans,asthistendsto develop supportive behaviours.


29

• Extendingemployerengagementindeliveryandassessmentshouldbeaprimaryobjectiveastheseareaslack involvement and may promote engagement effectiveness in other areas….• Creatingbanksofknowledgeable,supportiveandenthusiasticemployersisvital,whileotheremployerscanbe drawn in by the use of collaboratively trusting networks….• Employerengagementrelationshipsneedtobeaddressedandmanaged.Smalleremployerengagementforums can encourage communication and careful timetabling can maximise the number of attendees. Liaison with Sector Skill Councils can foster high quality engagement and provide further examples of good practice.

Mullen&Kilgannon(2007) reported on the development, in the North-West of England, of a Foundation degree for assistant practitioners in the NHS. Employers got involved because of the need to recruit, retain and develop staff as part of the modernisation of services to patients. As one employer from a primary care trust noted: ‘There is really no sort of career structure for this workforce at the moment…who are really wasted in the roles that they are doing.’ Another commented:

I think the second driver was a recognition that we had to change the way we worked. Just doing things the traditional way wasn’t perhaps meeting the new expectations of people. (Mullen&Kilgannon,2007, p. 6)

In developing the programme, which involved six universities delivering the Foundation degree to trainee assistant practitioners in 70 health and social care organisations:

partnership forums and away days were held to develop the curriculum. Employers came to the events with outlines of the role they wished to develop, core characteristics of the roles were identified and fromthiseducationproviderswereabletodesignthecurriculum.(Mullen&Kilgannon,2007,p.8)

Employers continued to be involved in the design at every stage, which was an enormous task. Among other things, the authors cited the following ‘tips’ for successful collaborative development. Be aware that the process is time consuming and will take longer than expected. It helps to agree common definitions of terminology and concepts at the outset. It is important to be open and develop trust and while being aware of ‘politics’, try not to let this dictate how responsive institutions are to the needs of employers. Maintaining relationships between further education and highereducationinstitutionsiscrucial;ensureappropriatesupportmechanismsandavoidassumptionsabouteachother’s knowledge.

Doyle (2006) in reporting the case study development of a Foundation degree in community governance questioned taken-for-granteds about collaboration and partnership. He regarded the whole area as under-theorised. He drew on interviews with partners, interspersed with developmental workshops, to explore the nature of collaboration. At core, he argued that rather than the assumed approach, that attempts to smooth the ground for collaboration by providing spaces or fora to engage in dialogue linked to the development of a shared interest, collaboration uses the contradictions and barriers that arise as catalysts for development. He argued that:

Making partnerships more effective needs the articulation of interest, difference, perspective and interpretation explicitly from the outset. This needs to initiate a process of reflexivity that requires partners within the activity, regardless of status, to articulate their object, or purpose, which may vary between partners. This needs to be recognised and appropriate priorities, compatibilities and compromises negotiated from the beginning, and subsequently throughout the process. The notion of ‘collaborative advantage’ should be contextualised in determining the realisation of interpretation of goals for partners, and the potential of the process for (distributed) knowledge construction through practice needs to be monitored reflexively. (Doyle, 2006, p. 142)

4


30

He claims that rationalist goals for a partnership need to be adaptable and that negotiability is critical. This requires an acceptance that goals may change. ‘Tensions, difference and contested ground should not be conceptualized as barriers to development.’ Rather, Doyle (2006, p. 142) argued, space and time need to be built into developmental processes to allow for this adaptability.

In a report highlighting exemplars that effectively integrate work-based and subject-based learning, Evans et al. (2009) claim a new approach to moving from theory to practice in work-based learning. They state that issues of teaching and learning and knowledge content have been neglected compared to considerations about organisational arrangements and technical issues. Their approach is to ‘recontextualise’ forms of knowledge:

For knowledge generated and practiced in one context to be put to work in new and different contexts, it has to be recontextualised in various ways that simultaneously engage with and change those practices, traditions and experience. (Evans et al., 2009, p. 12)

For them, this means engaging with ‘schools of thought’ as much as life experience and norms of practice. They identify four modes of ‘recontextualisation’ of work-based learning:

• theprogrammedesignenvironment(contentrecontextualisation)• theteachingandfacilitatingenvironment(pedagogicrecontextualisation)• theworkplaceenvironment(workplacerecontextualisation)• thelearnersmakingsenseofthewhole(learnerrecontextualisation)

These reflect the key areas of concern identified by researchers and practitioners involved with Foundation degrees. Three of the author’s six case studies are Foundation degrees (in aircraft engineering at Kingston University; infinancialservicesatCityCollegeNorwich;andinmediapracticeatUniversityoftheArts,London.)Thefirstofthesewill illustrate their approach.

The key characteristic of the Foundation degree in aircraft engineering, which is for maintenance engineers working on commercial jet liners, developed in partnership between Kingston University and KLM UK Engineering in Norwich, is the gradual transition from a college environment to an operational aircraft hangar.

The Foundation degree provided an answer to skill shortages in the industry and was flexible enough to meet employer needs. This had not been the case with higher national qualifications or traditional engineering degrees. The Foundation degree provided a way to develop employees to meet Europe-wide registration requirements while at the same time providing the option for academic progression. Students took the programme because it provided the licence and, thus, entry into well-paid employment: although some students progress to honours degrees with a view, inter alia of going into management.

The content ‘recontextualisation’ described by the authors involved the field manager at Kingston translating the industry requirements into programme outcomes and enabling objectives. He brokered the negotiations between all parties, which were difficult because, being an early Foundation degree, the university had reservations and the industry was sceptical of the university commitment to industry requirements. The upshot was a flexible approach to both QAA and industry requirements, with the Foundation degree being awarded after a two-year learning programme and the industry-recognised licence after a further two-year’s work experience as a mechanic.

The programme starts with a broad introduction in two areas, mathematics and science, then focuses on fundamentals such as electrical fundamentals, digital techniques and maintenance practices before shifting to detailed aspects such as propellers, engines, human factors and aviation legislation and is topped off by 15 week’s practical work on an aircraft.


31

The rationale for this pedagogic structure was an incremental orientation to practice built on a discipline base of mathematics and physics, which are the science underlying the trade, and a reinforcement of the interdependency of knowledge. This process seemed, to the reviewer, to be ‘reinventing’ coherence and, indeed, the development, the authors reported, explicitly moved away from the ‘learn and dump’ approach of assessed units in many modern developments of modularisation. This need for coherence and comprehensive understanding of the operational environment is effectively mandated by law as part of the safety rationale within the industry.

In concluding the section on the pedagogic recontextualisation, Evans et al. (2009, p. 34), commented that ‘Overall, the theory-practice balance has long been recognised as a complex area in vocational and professional education and even though the FD’s content is broadly pre-specified by EASA [the industry body], there were different views as regards the balance between theory and practice.’ In effect, this was a concern that some parts of the programme, such as aspects of the mathematics curriculum, seemed not to be directly linked to the workplace practice.

Commenting on what they called the ‘workplace recontextualisation’ the authors noted that the 15-week hangar phase was continually refined on the basis of the experience of each cohort of Foundation degree students. ‘What we see in the hangar placement is a further extension of ‘gradual release’ i.e. from a stimulated to a controlled operational environment. There is a link back into the college through an instructor operating as a ‘link person’…’ (Evans et al., 2009, p. 37)

The structured ‘gradual release’ approach, with a considerable period in the workplace engendered not just an awareness of the responsibility attached to the job but a feeling that all the learning fits the practice and that the theory plays a part in being able to undertake the work. Indeed, it aided a view of the need for continuous learning.

The learner recontextualisation process is aided by the cultural synchronicity between the college and the hangar environments in that both are formal. Social relations and the division of labour (especially in the workplace) are disciplined by safety imperatives…. Learners felt that ‘instructors prepared as well as they could’ but ‘it it’s always a bit of an in-at-the-deep-end kind of thing’, not least because ‘working on a plane that you and your family could get on next week’ is very different from ‘working on an aircraft that no-one will use’. (Evans et al., 2009, p. 43)

The upshot of this ‘reconceptualisation’ was, in effect, that the Foundation degree developers and those representing industry requirements were flexible and agreed, for example, to develop both multi-choice testing (an industry preference) and discursive assessment (academic preference). They were equally flexible about the integration of work placement, the structuring of content and the length of the ‘dual’ qualification. In this, the process reflected Doyle’s (2006) ‘collaborative advantage’ and the programme is similar to the JCB link up with Staffordshire University (Benefer 2007) (see Section 6).

The various recommendations proposed by the authors at the end of each of the Foundation degree case studies reproduce well-rehearsed advice. For example they recommend that, in developing the programme, it helps if there is mutual respect between partners and that industry concerns have been identified by experienced professionals and converted into specifications about theory and practice. They recommend the development of a shared rationale about the sequencing of modules, why different forms of knowledge, skills and practice-based experiences are included in the curriculum, as well as assessment practices that suit both parties.

Focusing on the aircraft maintenance case, they make recommendations about knowledge and skill development that are less in evidence in the literature. They suggest, for example, supporting learners to personalise their understanding of concepts, use instructor’s industry knowledge and work artefacts (such as manuals) to make connections between

4


32

types of knowledge and to provide feedback to students that relates to both workplace and academic criteria. The latter, in the reviewer’s view, is the single most important recommendation.

Thurgate and MacGregor (2008) used the case study of the Health and Social Care Foundation Degree at Canterbury Christ Church University as a basis for exploring effective collaborative working. They concluded, much as earlier analyses have (Foskett,2003;Doyle,2006;Mullen&Kilgannon,2007) that developing a successful collaboration takes time, space and resources. Each new partner needs a certain level of regular face-to-face support not least because of the different cultures in universities, colleges and businesses. ‘The challenge is to use knowledge of each other’s business to cross boundaries in areas of function/professional discipline for the sake of the shared goal: cooperation and partnership are at the heart of the collaboration.’ (Thurgate and MacGregor, 2008, p. 34)

Echoing Doyle (2006), Thurgate and MacGregor suggested that differences, when discussed openly and in a friendly manner can act as spurs for reflection, although there are potential dangers in exploring differences. Nonetheless, they concluded:

We need to accept difference, whatever that might be, and put energy into collaboration in order to produce a new paradigm in education. The strength of FDs and WBL, in that they are not prescribed from traditional learning disciplines, will have more potential to deliver the upgrade skills for the workforce and new role development as many of them draw from a range of new working practices. (Thurgate and MacGregor, 2008, p. 34)

In a parallel paper the year before that reflected on the issues that arise when a traditional university introduces Foundation degrees, Thurgate et al. (2007) pointed out that ‘While the role of employers in designing the FD may be perceived as a driver in the successful development of the FD, it is the role undertaken by employers in delivering the programme (HEFCE, 2000a) that is perceived as a major risk factor in employers’ willingness to adopt FDs in the workplace’ (Thurgate et al., 2007, p. 218). Crucial is the provision by the employer of not only a trainer but also a work-place co-ordinator who is able to facilitate employees in work-based learning. The key here is persuading employers that dedicating two staff to a group of students is a worthwhile return on their investment.

As others have also noted, Thurgate et al. (2007) reminded the reader that the employer faces further expense when workers are taken out of the workplace to attend taught study days. The authors emphasise the need to take these economic aspects into account and that ‘FDs for universities and employers remain high-risk ventures until the outcomes are evaluated as giving added value for service users’ (Thurgate et al., 2007, p. 219). Added to this is the issue of different organisational cultures and the need to have a ‘receptive’ approach to teaching that facilitates learning from groups that include learners who, although highly motivated, may not have had a high degree of success in past learning ventures. They conclude that: ‘to develop and manage this FDHSC programme in a traditional university environment should not be undertaken lightly’ (Thurgate et al., 2007, p. 222).

Coombs and Denning (2006) reviewed continuing professional development in the education sector, including Foundation degrees. Using recent experience at Bath Spa University they suggested that HEIs need to both rethink their programme design and the delegation of quality assurance of academic programmes from the campus to the workplace. Further, partnership activity with colleges requires new quality assurance management support structures, systems and processes that both interpret and build upon the QAA’s Code of Practice. They reported progress towards developing such a policy at Bath Spa University.

Stuart-Hoyle (2007), comments on a Foundation degree in tourism from Canterbury Christ Church University. Reflecting the views of Lyle and Robertson (2003) on the importance of transparency (see Section 6 on work-based learning),


33

she regarded the following as ‘critical success factors’ when trying to overcome the cultural differences between higher education and further education institutions (delivering higher education). First, have an operations manual or memorandum of agreement that details each institution’s administrative and quality assurance responsibilities. Second, ensure that further education staff are suitably rewarded for the time they spend developing materials as they do not have the same flexibility as higher education staff.

Stuart-Hoyle talked about innovative teaching and learning methods but is referring to flexibility of delivery (a blended learning approach using a virtual learning environment supported by residential teaching weeks) rather than innovative pedagogy or learning theory. Stuart-Hoyle argued that the approach helped to empower people to survive through building self-confidence, independence, flexibility and adaptability but that employers, during the consultation exercise, were strongly of the view that:

this was the only way the programme would be a realistic option for employees, and that this flexible approach to delivery would receive the employers’ support, critical if the programme was to recruit. (Stuart-Hoyle, 2007, p. 87)

However, in a bitter conclusion, Stuart-Hoyle (2007, p. 89) noted:

The harsh reality is that, however hard we try to make the involvement with employers genuine and meaningful (resulting in their feeling compelled to support employees in the form of release to study and financial contribution to fees), it is impossible to prevent employers retracting their support. This FD did not recruit again. Despite continued expressions of interest from potential students, they were unable to secure the necessary financial support or release for the residential weeks from their employers. Faced with financial constraints and falling profits, the human resource or training budget is the first to suffer. Unless employers are offered real financial incentives to support and release workers to study, this tale will be retold again and again across the sector. Widening participation is all about encouraging those individuals who would not ordinarily consider entering HE an opportunity to do so. It is not about raising their hopes and subsequently dashing them because government does not provide the finances required to turn employer support ‘in principle’ into a reality.

Talbot (2007) discussed the Foundation for Government (F4Gov) programme developed for the British Civil Service by the University of Chester. It is an innovative, low cost, accredited, distance Foundation degree using a dedicated virtual learning environment. The paper has no research findings but includes a salient reflection from the tutor about organisational change that provides another angle on the concerns expressed by Stuart-Hoyle (2007).

The Civil Service has changed dramatically in the last two years as the reform agenda has clearly swung towards a concern with greater efficiency. Very few of the initial cohorts two years on are still performing the same role they were when recruited. Some have had more than two job changes in that time. Changing jobs is hugely disruptive to study. Not only are there new roles to learn, but there is also a change in line management. Learners tend to originate from parts of the Service that are supportive oflearning;thisisnotalwaystrueoftheareastheymoveto.Itisnotjustthatlearnersareperformingdifferent roles. The consequences of the Gershon (2004) report and the reduction in headcount mean that most of them are also working a great deal harder, leaving less time for study.

A further consequence of rapid change is that the programme itself has had to be adapted more or less continuously. Each of the three Heads of the Civil Service since 1999 have had different views about reform of the system and the current transition in government from one which is dominated by

4


34

Prime Minister Blair, to one with Chancellor Brown’s imprint has also led to change. The point is that a government programme has to be relevant but government changes very quickly. (Talbot, 2007, p. 257)

The fdf/HEIST (undated, p. 18), report on marketing offered the following suggestions, based on the responses to their research, about how to make links with employers. These reflect many of the issues identified in other research:

• Personalcontactisaveryeffectivewaytodevelopsuccessfullinkswithemployers,butbepreparedtoinvesttime and energy in developing these relationships. It is important to be sensitive and responsive to an employer’s specific need.• Isitpossibletopiggy-backonotherlong-terminitiativesorrelationshipsthatalreadyexistbetweenemployers and different parts of your institution?• SeeifyourinstitutionalreadyrunsEmployerForums,orarrangeyourownbreakfastmeeting.Someinstitutions have used these not only to develop personal contacts but also to test aspects of the proposed Foundation degree curriculum.• Make contact with the local Business Link, Chamber of Commerce and RDA. See if there are any relevant networking events being held that might be relevant.• Conductaminiinternalauditofstaffattheinstitutiontofindoutwherethereareexistinglinkswithemployers. Sharing information with colleagues internally can also avoid any unnecessary duplication of effort. These ‘warm’ contacts can then be used as a resource either to test out initial Foundation degree ideas or to see if there are relevant training needs that could be met by a Foundation degree (or any other short course). However, be aware that staff can often be very protective of their contacts and may need reassurance before they are willing to share details.• ForFoundationdegreesthataretargetedatnichesectorsororganisations,themarket-researchphaseshould have highlighted who are the key companies or figures within the sector. See if there are any conferences that provide networking opportunities. Set up meetings with company training managers to discuss skills needs.• Target specific employers and personally invite them to amaster class or taster session (whichever ismore appropriate) where Foundation degree curriculum ideas can be shared. See if it would be possible to take the taster session out to the employers ‘…rather than expecting them to come to you’.

The research also led to them to suggest concentrating on training and skills rather than the actual Foundation degree qualification;emphasisethatFoundationdegreesprovideawayforcompaniesto‘growtheirownmanagers’andthatthe work-based learning element means that employers get practical and business benefits from their employees taking the course. Further, Foundation degrees lead to a more competitive and efficient workforce.

The Higher Education Academy’s (Higher Education Academy, 2008) small-scale study of employer engagement in six institutions across a variety of workplace-linked provision reiterates some of the benefits already identified by the research into Foundation degrees.

Summary

This chapter identified some research and review outcomes, mostly in the form of recommendations for effective action in developing partnerships and securing employer engagement. There is a view that collaboration and partnership is an under-theorised area.


35

General issues

• Thegovernmentencouragescollaborationbetweenuniversities,collegesandemployers.

• Partnershipsshouldbemutuallybeneficialandnotbasedonexploitation.Forsomethereisaneedtosteera course between partnership, collaboration and competition

• Reviewofcollaborationssuggeststhatpartnershipsneedtobebasedonequalityofcontributionandtransparency of decision-making.

• Collaborationsneedtobewell-organisedandprobablynotinvolvetoomanyactors,asthismakescommunication between parties easier.

• Somesuggest,onthebasisofexperience,thatstrong(oratleasteffective)leadershipisessential.

• Collaborationsrequireclearspecificationofaims,outcomes,rolesandresponsibilitiesandthataimsconvergeto a common purpose.

• Perhapshavealegally-bindingpartnershipagreementthatspecifiestherightsandobligationsofallpartnersand the procedures for partners joining and leaving the partnership, and how the financial resources will be shared and used.

• Provideschedulesandresourcesthatpermitindividualsfromdifferentorganisationstoworktogether

• Agreecommondefinitionsofterminologyandconceptsattheoutset.

• Collaborationsneedtobebasedontrust;whichinpracticemeanstrustbetweenindividualsnotorganisations; although there is a problem with turnover of staff and fractured personal relationships. Build on existing relationships where possible.

• Developingtrusttakestimeandcommitment:andusuallytakeslongerthanexpected.

• Individualshavetolearnhowtoworkeffectivelytogether.Beawareofthepoliticsofcollaborationbuttrynot to let this dictate how partnerships develop. Flexibility is important and partnership aims need to be adaptable and negotiable.

• Notallaimswillbeexplicit,therewillbeunstatedaimsandtheseneedtobeuncovered.Itislikelythattruemotives will be revealed to old friends rather than new acquaintances.

• Ignoringconflictsiscounterproductiveandexplorationsofcollaborativeworkingsuggestthatdifferencesand barriers should be used dynamically to explore potential alternative means of going forward, as catalysts for development and spurs for reflection.

Employer involvement

• Mostcommentariesandresearchemphasisethatemployerswillparticipateinthedevelopmentandrunningof Foundation degrees if they see it addressing specific needs of the business or of their employees. Therefore, be sensitive and responsive to an employer’s specific need.

• Somesuggestthataresearch-ledanalysisofemployerneedsisrequiredwhenestablishingFoundationdegrees. Market analysis is an important early step in the curriculum-development process.

• Employer-engagementrelationshipsneedtobeaddressedandmanaged.

• LackofunderstandingofFoundationdegreesamongstemployersisamajorchallengeforinstitutionsattempting to develop partnerships with employers.

• Developandnurturegroupsofknowledgeable,supportiveandenthusiasticemployers:thismayhelpdrawinother employers through their networks. Liaison with Sector Skill Councils can foster high quality engagement. Encouraging employers to become involved with future work-based learning plans also helps develop supportive behaviours.

4


36

• MakecontactwithlocalBusinessLink,ChamberofCommerceandRegionalDevelopmentAgencyandattend any relevant networking events. Target specific employers and invite them to an event to explore Foundation degree curriculum ideas.

• Conductaminiinternalinstitutionalaudittoseewhatlinksstaffhavewithemployers.Sharinginformationwith colleagues internally can also avoid any unnecessary duplication of effort. However, be aware that staff can often be very protective of their contacts.

• Ifpossible,piggy-backonotherlong-terminitiativesorrelationshipsthatalreadyexistbetweenemployersand different parts of the institution.

• Realandperceivedtimeconstraintsareamajorinhibitingfactorsforemployerinvolvementinthedesignand delivery of Foundation degree programmes. Commitment is essential.

• Employersfaceexpensewhenworkersaretakenoutoftheworkplacetoattendtaughtstudydays:takesuch economic aspects into account.

• Beawarethatemployersituationschangeandthatgoodintentionscanevaporateinchangingbusinessclimates or as a result of changing policy or financial constraints.

Further and higher education institution issues

• Researchandanalysishasshownthatcollaborationbetweenfurtherandhighereducationinstitutionsiscomplex. Problems derive from different cultures, different forms of pedagogy, levels of resourcing and status issues.

• Maintainingrelationshipsbetweenfurtherandhighereducationinstitutionsiscrucial;ensureappropriatesupport mechanisms and avoid assumptions about each other’s knowledge.

• Ensurefurthereducationstaffaresuitablyrewardedforthetimetheyspenddevelopingmaterialsastheydonot have the same flexibility as higher education staff.

• Createanoperationsmanualormemorandumofagreementthatdetailseachinstitution’sadministrativeandquality assurance responsibilities.

• Staff-developmentneedsshouldbeidentifiedearlyonandabudgetsetupforthisactivity.

• Trytostreamlinequalityassuranceprocessesandbepreparedtodelegateresponsibility.

Issues for students

• Three-waypartnershipsraiseissuesforstudentidentity:aretheyamemberoftheuniversityorofthecollegewhere the course is delivered? How does the programme relate to their work environment?

• SomesuggestthateffectiveFoundationdegreesareclearlyfocusedandbasedonawell-definedemployment area.

• Thereneedstorecognitionfromallpartnersthatthiswillbealearningsituationandissuesofequityofstudent experience in different locations need to be addressed.

• Beawarewhenestablishingaprogrammeofworkcommitmentsandavoid,forexample,clashesofcourseworkand examination requirements with workplace obligations.

• EnsurethatthecontentoftheFoundationdegreeischallengingenoughforstudentsbutalsorelatestotheirwork setting.

• Allpartnersneedtohaveaflexibleattitudetopedagogythatfacilitateslearningfromdiversegroupsofstudents with differing experiences of learning.

• Encourageandfacilitatestudentstomakeconnectionsbetweentypesofknowledge.

• Providefeedbacktostudentsthatrelatestobothworkplaceandacademiccriteria.


37

Student experience of learning

5

The student experience of Foundation degrees is explored in some of the research, using quantitative and qualitative data-collection methods. Much of this research is restricted to specific programmes on a regional or national basis or the experience of Foundation degrees in a single institution. Beaney (2006, p. 3) commented that:

Given the centrality of innovative forms of learning (work based, flexible, blended and reflective learning) to Foundation degrees it is confounding to find that the learner’s experience of engaging with the new qualification is so under examined.

Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree

The Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree (EYSEFD), a programme offered nationwide, has been the subject of some intensive examination of the student experience. The extensive empirical analyses reviewed below were prefaced by an examination of the UK Early Years Foundation Degree and the notion of senior practitioners. O’Keefe and Tait (2004) explored the evolution of senior practitioners in early-years education sector and the effectiveness of a Foundation degree in encouraging the reflective practice and critical thinking necessary. The study, which used a very small sample, was supposedly ethnographic but is basically a common-sense collection of observations, to demonstrate the efficacy of the Foundation degree. ‘The study indicated overwhelmingly that the present cohort or ‘unique practitioners’ have the skills and ability to rise to the challenge of a higher education qualification’ (O’Keefe and Tait, 2004, p. 28).


38

The article essentially advocates the senior practitioner role, however, the final exhortation indicates suspicions about the role:

Without understanding the breadth of learning and the merit of the FdA, where the emphasis is on independence of practice, reflection, evaluation and critical thinking—which are traditional graduate skills—as well as the continual growth and the enhancement of learning opportunity in early childhood skills, is there a possibility that this will be curtailed for a second time by the agency or place of employment? Perhaps the coordinators and head teachers have become rather nervous about their clear-cut role and its status as combined early years centres become more commonplace and welcome staff from health, social care and educational backgrounds… (O’Keefe and Tait, 2004, p. 39)

Snape and Finch (2006) were commissioned by the DfES to survey students on the EYSEFD. This followed four earlier studies of the area, the first of which was an initial study by Mowlam et al. (2003) of five institutions that were piloting the course. Staff, students and employers were interviewed and areas of particular interest for future research were identified. These included the role of employers and mentors in accommodating and facilitating students’ work-based learning as part of the Foundation degree. The second study by Mowlam and Snape (2004) involved mapping of delivery strategies for the EYSEFD. The third study by Blom and Snape (2004a) reported the baseline survey and, the fourth, Blom and Snape’s (2004b) statistical profile of providers.

Given the longitudinal and sector-wide nature of the Snape and Finch (2006) survey, this will be reviewed in some detail as the results, although particular to the sector, are indicative of key issues for mature, Foundation-degree, students. The research involved a three-stage survey and Snape and Finch reported the second-stage responses (October to December, 2004). There were a total of 2852 funded student places on the programme at 130 institutions: 971students in119institutions(34%)consentedtoparticipate;themeannumberofstudentsper institutionwasseven. The report documents, inter alia, the reasons for take up of the degree, expectations, achievements and an indication of the relationship between methods of course delivery and student outcomes. Most (70%) of the students studied in FECs, 79% were part-time and 90% were doing work-based learning for the course at their own place of work. Full-time students spent an average of 7.2 hours a week on supervised work and 13.2 hours on unsupervised study. The figures for part-timers were 5.8 and 9.9 respectively.

Snape et al. (2006) provided aggregate statistical data on students taking the EYSEFD at all DfES-recognised institutions and their affiliated partners during the first two academic years of the course: 2003–5.

Levels of satisfaction with tutors remained high, although it was lower among those who had changed tutors. Around 80% of respondents thought their tutors were knowledgeable and experienced in the subject area and that most lessons were well organised. Assignments were viewed less positively: around two-thirds thought that assignments were well explained, that tutors gave enough help and support with assignments and that they were given enough time to complete assignments.

Two-thirds (67%) of the students at the second-phase said they had received help with developing study skills from staffattheiruniversityorcollege;adropfrom75%atthebaselinestage.Theauthorscommentedthat:‘Itmaybethatsuch support was more common in the early stages of the course and was not recalled by students at the second interview a year later’ (Snape&Finch,2006, p. 39). Most students (90%) who had received help with study skills were satisfied with it.

Most students agreed that their participation on the course was beneficial to their work. More than three-quarters agreed it had made them more enthusiastic about their work, given them more confidence at


39

work, or given them a deeper understanding of their work. The proportions citing each of these benefits rose slightly from the first interview.

Those who expected to get a higher level job after they completed their course were more likely to report that the course had made them more enthusiastic about their work. (Snape&Finch,2006, p. 6)

Time-planning caused the most problems for students, particularly those with children. The programme had brought littleimmediatefinancialbenefittostudents;incomehadstayedthesamefor80%anddeclinedfor10%asaresultof reduced hours. Overall, the proportion of respondents who reported financial worries rose slightly, from 43% at the baseline stage to 50% at the second-stage survey. The most common concerns were course fees and other course costs.

The main non-financial concerns centred on the pressures associated with family life. The most commonly cited were the pressures of combining work and study (69%), time commitments of the course (56%) and the impact of the course on partners/families (46%). The next most common group of concerns were about the course itself, namely difficulties keeping up with the pace of the course (37%) and with its academic requirements (35%). The authors noted: ‘While such concerns were already present at the start of the course, it is encouraging that they did not increase during the second year of the course’ (Snape&Finch,2006, p. 7).

Nearly all current students indicated they would work in the early-years and childcare sector once they had finished their EYSEFD. About half the students (53%) who expected to complete the course said that they would do another course in the field of early-years and childcare.

Snape et al. (2007), reported findings from the final EYSEFD student survey. These were not radically different from the phase two results. They noted:

Most students viewed their experiences of the course favourably and reported positive outcomes in terms of employment and further study on completion of the course. They expressed highest satisfaction with the quality of teaching and the work-based aspect of the degree.

Overall, students’ course expectations were very well met. The most commonly cited work-related aspirations, such as gaining new skills for their job and receiving recognition of their skills, were particularly well achieved.

Nearly all students (95%) showed a firm commitment to continuing to work in the early years or childcare field. Most course completers (87%) reported that they were already doing (37%) or very (35%) or fairly (15%) likely to do another course in early years or childcare which built on the Foundation Degree. (Snape et al., 2007, p. 2)

Those respondents who completed the course were generally satisfied with their experiences of the course and, not surprisingly, perceived more benefits of the course than non-completers. Satisfaction was ‘highest with the quality of teaching on the course and the work-based learning aspect of the degree’, which reflects many other student satisfaction surveys.

Course completers were 99% female, White (93%) and mostly aged 36 or older (77%). Two-thirds (68%) lived in a double-headed household with at least one child. Prior experience and qualification appear to be important in successful completion with the authors reporting 84% of completers holding an NVQ level 3 or equivalent prior to starting the course and 90% having an early-years qualification prior to starting the Foundation degree: 95% had

5


40

worked in the early years field for at least two years. Only 1% of completers were unemployed and almost all were working in a job related to early education or childcare.

Non-completers were more likely to receive means-tested benefits and had not specified the focus of their studies by the time of the phase-two survey (one year into the course). This compared to just 2% of completers. As well as indicating slightly lower levels of satisfaction, non-completers had more work-related problems, financial concerns and health problems.

At the final survey, 87 per cent of course completers had either taken further relevant study (37 per cent) or expected to do so (35 per cent said this was very likely and 15 per cent fairly likely). This commitment to continuing education is similar to that observed at both the baseline and second student surveys and highlights the dedication and enthusiasm of this group of students to gaining higher levels of qualifications and seniority in the early education and childcare fields. (Snape et al., 2007, p. 4)

However, respondents generally have to move to a new employer to gain a promotion or increased pay. ‘If they stay with the same employer, they are likely to gain more responsibility, but their level of pay may remain static.’ (Snape et al., 2007, p. 4).

Knight et al., (2006) undertook a parallel qualitative study of the views and experiences of a small sample of 50 students on the EYSEFD. This comprised 20 ‘course completers’, 15 ‘course continuers’ and 15 ‘early leavers’. As with the quantitative study (Snape et al., 2007), the teaching on the EYSEFD was widely praised, particularly when ‘it was being delivered by someone with practical experience of working in the EY sector who also recognised the particular needs of students on the course’ (Knight et al., 2006, p.7). Students also reacted positively to enthusiastic teachers who were interested in the students’ experiences. However, students reported that elements of the college-based learning had ‘seemed disorganised, with some course modules being revised or cancelled at short notice, and assignment deadlines sometimes being clustered close together’ (Knight et al., 2006, p.6).

Also reflecting the quantitative study, students referred to the increased pace from the second year of the degree. The authors comment that ‘Some adjusted to this well, as they had to the demands of the EYSEFD more generally. However others, often those without recent experience of higher learning, found meeting the demands of this pace more difficult. There continued to be little evidence of any formal Individually Paced Learning’ (Knight et al., 2006, p. 7).

Again, reflecting the quantitative study, some students indicated that: ‘support was less readily available from the end of the first year, as tutors adopted a more ‘hands-off’ approach. Some students felt this reflected their own growing confidence, but others had felt ‘abandoned’’ (Knight et al., 2006, p. 7).

An aspect that was not picked up in the quantitative study was the positive peer group support. Students on the EYSEFD had developed systems for collecting notes and hand-outs for absent friends and lift-sharing to and from college sessions. ‘Students also gave one another informal support and encouragement. In the context of less hands-on support from tutors, students reported relying more heavily on the support provided to them by their peers’ (Knight et al., 2006, p. 7).

Some important areas that are potentially problematic include the failure at some institutions for on-line resources to materialise: at other institutions intranet sites were well-developed and used regularly by students to download missed lecture notes, view book-lists and check assignment deadlines. The withdrawal of the fee-waiver for part-time students after the first two years was a problem and students had to seek alternative sources of funding, including from their own employer. None of the respondents reported having to find the full cost of fees themselves. The DfES


41

package of financial support for part-timers, including the fee waiver, a bursary and the loan of a laptop and printer, were significant in facilitating students’ participation in the course. However, the childcare grant had not been widely accessed. A third, somewhat problematic, area was that the focus of advice and guidance was on ‘progressing to higher level education or pursuing qualified teacher status, with students reporting much less advice about how their careers could benefit immediately from the EYSEFD’ (Knight et al., 2006, p. 8).

As in many other studies of early withdrawal from programmes (Harvey and Drew, 2006), early leavers from the EYSEFD usually cited multiple interrelated factors for the decision to leave. These included:

• feelingunabletomeettherequirementsofthecourse• havingspecialneedsthatwerenotmetbythehighereducationinstitution• problemsachievingabalancebetweenthecourse,familyandwork• feelingdepressedorstressed• barriersintheworkplacetoparticipatinginthecourse• lackofclarityaboutthevalueoftheEYSEFDqualification• decidingthecoursewasnotrightforthem• thewithdrawalofDfESfinancialsupport• movingtoajobincompatiblewiththecourse.

There were also a small number of underlying factors that had a contributoryinfluence on why students had left the course:

• lackofsupportfromtutors• lackofpeergroupsupport• lackofsupportfromthehighereducationinstitution.(Knight et al., 2006, p. 9)

Most students found the decision to leave a difficult one and most reported that it had been several months from the point when they had first contemplated leaving to the point when they had finally done so. The authors noted that:

the interviews with course completers and continuers found that there were six key factors that had enabled them to remain on the course, despite the fact that they encountered some of the same problems as early leavers:

• highself-motivation• accesstoalternativesourcesoffinancialsupport• supportandflexibilityoftutor• strongpeer-groupsupport• workplacesupport• supportfromfamilyandfriends.(Knight et al., 2006, p. 10).

Although the authors do not say so, this also reflects the extensive research on retention.

The qualitative study elaborated the positive view of work-based learning evident in the quantitative study. Work-based learning was seen to be beneficial for the development of students’ overall knowledge and skills.

The students thought their participation in the EYSEFD had increased their confidence, led to a greater sense of self-worth and enhanced their expertise in both specific and generic skills. However, duplicating the quantitative study, students reported frustration at not being rewarded with increased salary or job status, despite assuming greater

5


42

responsibility, initiated by their employer. ‘The experience of most students who had completed the EYSEFD was that there had been no formal recognition of their achieving the qualification’ (Knight et al., 2006, p. 10).

Programme studies

As is the case in much education research, a significant proportion of reported studies are small scale (usually unfunded). This is the case with the student experience of Foundation degrees. Some of these studies are mentioned below as they add nuances to the picture identified in the more substantial studies. First, a look at some broader studies.

Jackson and Tunnah (2005) reported the outcomes of a questionnaire survey commissioned by AGCAS. It attracted 639 responses from Foundation degree students on 47 courses in 19 institutions. Although an opportunistic, in-class, sample, it was reasonably representative of the Foundation degree profile produced by HESA.

The main reasons for taking a Foundation degree were ‘to enhance my career prospects’ (69%) and ‘to continue my education’ (53%). Almost three quarters (73%) indicated that the Foundation degree was their first choice of course and most of the rest (22%) had wanted to do a degree. Almost half (47%) had supportive employers and 11% said that their employer had sent them on the course. Most were first-time-in-family undergraduates.

Most respondents (83%) wanted to carry on studying after their Foundation degree and the majority wanted to find workinafieldrelatedtheirstudy;only12%wantedtostayintheircurrentjob.Almosttwo-thirdssaidtheywouldrelocate for either work or study. However, only a quarter of the whole sample would move out of their region.

Dodgson and Witham (2005) reported a study of 500 Foundation degree students from 13 colleges and two universities in the North-East of England. Students in the region, they noted, are broadly similar to elsewhere in the country but with a higher proportion of part-timers. The authors found that Foundation degrees in the North-East are successful in attracting non-traditional learners with a range of qualifications and experiences.

However, although learners face few problems when applying to study on Foundation degrees, there were financial issues and a lack of pre-entry information, advice and guidance (identified by about 40% of respondents). This is a function of low levels of awareness of Foundation degrees in schools and colleges. Employers it seems played an important role providing pre-entry advice and guidance and encouraging employees to study for a Foundation degree. Funding was also a major pre-entry issue for 16.5% of respondents and fewer than a third of respondents thought the financial advice was useful.

In line with the national picture for England, the students…are enjoying their degree course and believe it is meeting their needs. Specifically, their Foundation degree is flexible and convenient and they are enjoying the mix of academic and work-related learning experiences. (Dodgson and Witham, 2005, p. 2)

The respondents indicated satisfaction with content, learning style and structure of their programme, especially the work-related elements. Only 9% thought the programme of study was not meeting their needs and 12% were not enjoying their Foundation degree. The academic element was rated as good or very good by 72% of respondents and the work-based learning part as good or very good by 64%. Few (5%) thought either was poor.

Retention is an issue and, reflecting other research on early withdrawal, mature female students cited family responsibilities and problems adjusting to higher education after a long period away from formal education.


43

The respondents endorsed the support provided by the institutions and noted that the personal tutor system was the most useful of the support services. Support played a significant role in retention and this also extended to support provided by employers, not least in helping to organise work-based placements. However, support could be better for part-time and distance learners.

Researchers within Foundation Direct (2008) at the University of Portsmouth undertook an electronic survey of student views on the impact of Foundation degrees. With 184 respondents, from 31 courses, the study complemented research undertaken for fdfbytheCentreforHigherEducation&Research(CHERI)(Greenwood and Little, 2008), which undertook focus groups and had responses to a questionnaire from 300 students as well as in-depth interviews with 37 employers.

Responses to the Portsmouth study showed that age is a significant determinant of the sources through which students hear about and are advised to take up the qualification. For young students, schools, colleges and universities are the main sources while mature students are more likely to hear about Foundation degrees through employers or searches on the Internet. The authors suggest that more mature students could be recruited if there were better links with local employers.

The relevance of a course to a chosen career was the most important motivational factor overall, followed by interest in the course content. However, younger students apparently were more inclined than mature students to take the course for academic interest. Career enhancement was the main motivational factor for mature students. Links with an employer was an important factor as was locality and timing of classes, especially for employed respondents.

The CHERI study (Greenwood and Little, 2008) echoed this, indicating that young students had chosen the Foundation degree because of their interest in the general subject area and a desire to work in the industry. The older students had taken the initiative to find out about Foundation degrees as a way of developing personally and professionally whilst continuing to work full-time. All were looking to build on existing qualifications. Additional reasons mentioned included the access to relevant workplaces via placement; a desire to study in their locality and in a collegeenvironment;abridgetoanhonoursdegree,albeit,forsome,theFoundationdegreeseemedlessdauntingthananhonours degree programme.

Practitioners consulted acknowledge that:

recruitment of students can be difficult, particularly in respect of the potential limited shelf life of bespokeprogrammes; the lackofsustainedsupport fromschoolsandotheremployers forstudentsonearlyyears/teachingandlearningsupportFds;students’reluctancetomove‘away’fromaprovider’slocality to secure suitable work placements. (Greenwood and Little, 2008, p. 52)

Practitioners were also concerned about the suitability of some students for the Foundation degree and progression of students, such that someproviders interviewedand screened students in amore systematicway; introducingadditional elements into the Foundation degree, for example, numeracy skills to meet employment needs.

Three-quarters (76.7%) of the respondents in the Portsmouth study (Foundation Direct, 2008) were in some form of paid employment, three fifths of them full-time and half the employed students worked in the public sector. Three-quarters (78%) of employed students considered their course relevant or very relevant to their current career. Most (92.9%) had to undertake some work-based activities as part of their course and 86.5% were able to draw upon their work-based experiences to help them with their studies. Just under a third of the respondents in paid employment receivednosupportfromtheiremployer;themainformofsupportfortheremainderwaspaidtimeoff,followedbypayment of course fees and allocation of a workplace mentor. Again, a similar picture emerged with the CHERI study,

5


44

the authors noted:

Once enrolled, employer support (in the form of tuition fees paid for, paid day release, or finishing work ‘early’toattendcollegeintheevening)wasinthemainforthcoming;inonecase,suchsupportextendedto provision of personal copies of relevant text books. However, for some students, particularly those working in early years/teaching and learning support settings, such financial support was much less secure (and in some instances, non-existent). (Greenwood and Little, 2008, p. 16)

Most (90.7%) of the 23.4% unemployed in the Portsmouth study thought that their course was relevant or very relevant to their future career. Most unemployed students studying in community and social studies, health or public services indicated they would only look for a job with a publicly funded organisation. In other subject areas, unemployed students felt they had more options and 42% included self-employment as a potential future option.

Just over half (52.7%) the respondents had found their studies as demanding as they had expected, most of the rest (41.8%) had found it more demanding (proportionately more so by females than males, and more so in subject areas that had ‘technical’ or ‘scientific’ elements to the course content (such as art and design, ICT, health and veterinary nursing&animalsciences).TheCHERIstudyelaboratedthis:

In general these students found the Fd programmes were intellectually challenging (with some in engineering described as highly theoretical). Students who had (only) NVQs as prior qualifications commented on the different expectations in the Fd assignments in relation to academic writing. In addition to the intellectual stimulation provided by the Fds, the majority of students commented on the (time) demanding nature of their studies (juggling work, study and home life—especially if work ‘just piled up… when I was away at college...’). Though they had been given initial indications of the amount of independent study needed to complete the Fd, in many cases they had to devote more time than originally anticipated, though some acknowledged this might be ‘just’ poor time management on their behalf. (Greenwood and Little, 2008, p. 20)

For many part-time students, email was the main form of contact with tutors and mentors. FECs provided more face-to-face contact for their Foundation degree students than did HEIs. In all the subjects represented in the survey, students were expected to use text books, tutor hand-outs and web-based resources as part of their study.

The majority of the Foundation Direct (2008) respondents (88.1%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of their course, 94.6%hadgainednewknowledge;83.7%haddeveloped studyand learning skills. Slightlymoreolder than younger students indicated benefits included new critical reasoning skills and intellectual stimulation. Respondentsinart&design,ICT,health,performanceartsandmusicandveterinarynursingandanimalsciencesalsoindicated they had gained new technical skills.

Greenwood and Little (2008, p. 31) reported that respondents were positive about teaching standards, expectations and choice as well as their learning experiences. Young students (aged under 21) were slightly more positive about expectationsandchoicethanolderstudents;olderstudents(aged40plus)wereslightlymorepositiveabouttheirlearning experiences. ‘Potential employees in the CHERI study cited benefits including: gaining real business and industry experience, gaining broad knowledge of a specific industry, developing relevant knowledge and skills, including critical reasoning and reflective skills, and making contacts for future jobs’ (Greenwood and Little, 2008, p. 20). Current employees emphasised a return to higher–level learning developing academic skills, gaining new subject knowledge and an understanding of theories linked to and informed by workplace practices, as well as a broader perspectives on their current work.


45

They particularly valued the opportunities for sharing and discussing their differing workplace practices. But these same students found their limited ‘time’ in college or university constrained opportunities for engaging with a range of tutors outside of ‘timetabled sessions’, and also sometimes made access to some resources (e.g. text books) difficult. Generally the majority of students seemed satisfied with their learning experiences, though a few difficulties were highlighted, including: access to, and reliability of IT-supportedlearningresources;therelianceonaveryfewmembersofstaff;students’ownreluctancetouseweb-basedfacilities(preferringface-to-facecontact);paucityofrelevantplacementopportunitiesin some localities. (Greenwood and Little, 2008, p. 25)

The majority of respondents in both sets of respondents considered they had gained confidence through their studies. However, there were some discipline differences: respondents on early years and teaching and learning support programmes were slightly less positive about their studies and reported more difficulty coping with studies than those on business, management, logistics, media and creative/design programmes.

The majority (88.6%) of the Foundation Direct (2008) respondents thought that the Foundation degree would be helpful or very helpful for their future employment prospects and 77.7% thought that their course had enhanced their prospects for career progression. A significant group (69.6%), albeit with proportionately more unemployed respondents, thought the Foundation degree had enhanced their prospects of getting a new job or career.

Nearly all (90.8%) thought that employer involvement in courses was important for a variety of reasons. These included ensuring:theachievementofrelevantlearningoutcomes;thatstudentsgottherighttypesofemployersupportfortheirstudies;thattheprogrammewasatrulywork-basedqualification;theprogrammemettheneedsofemployers;the relevanceand reputationofFoundationdegreesasaneffectivework-basedqualification;and thatgraduateswere employable. The authors noted that ‘the minority of students who did not feel that employer involvement was important demonstrated a lack of awareness of the original reasons behind the introduction of Fds as a new qualification that would help to meet intermediate and professional skills shortages in the labour force’ (Foundation Direct, 2008, p.7).Themost commonly cited formsof involvementwere information andadviceon assessments;followed by one-off lectures and presentations, and employer assessment of student assignments (employers were also involved in a smaller proportion of courses through the presentation of business problems or work issues for discussion). However, a third of respondents (33.2%) did not think that employers were involved in any way with their course.

For the three-quarters of the respondents on the CHERI study in paid employment, ‘the employer had sent the student on the Fd as part of job/professional development, or knew the student was studying for an Fd and was supportive’ (Greenwood and Little, 2008, p. 31).

Most of the Foundation Direct (2009) respondents (71.2%) considered pursing a honours degree after graduating from the Foundation degree, although there were some variations between subject areas (ranging from veterinary nursing and animal sciences (22%) to business students (94%)). A fifth (20.1%) thought a professional qualification was another option. Just over a third indicated they may look for a new job or career, although only 18% thought that they may apply for promotion with their current employer, reflecting other studies that suggested internal promotion did not necessarily follow the award of the Foundation degree. The CHERI study also noted that many students intended to progress on to an honours programme. However, some (in the early years/teaching and learning support area) noted that, unlike the Foundation degree, which was timetabled to accommodate particular working patterns, the linked honours programme ‘was less amenable to ‘fitting-in’ with work commitments’. In other sectors, students were less sure about further studies and ‘many were hoping the Fd would provide a springboard for promotion/applying for other jobs’ (Greenwood and Little, 2008, p. 21).

5


46

The Dodgson and Witham (2005) and EYSEFD results are echoed in Tierney and Slack (2005), which reported part-time students’ experiences on a Foundation degree. The study suggested that students chose the programme for career-related reasons. Respondents reported experiencing an increase in self-confidence and additional life skills. As in the EYSEFD and North-East study, some students reported concerns about financial hardship, the competing demands on their time, the need for emotional and practical support and a lack of assistance from tutors in writing up assignments.

Increased confidence along with the development of job-related and information technology skills are also attested to by the contributions of the two students highlighted in Smoothy’s (2006) account of the e-learning approach used in the Foundation degree in hairdressing and salon management at the University of Derby. Similarly, de Caestecker (2008, p. 256) showed that students on a Foundation degree in health and social care (palliative and supportive care) report a growing sense of confidence and ability to carry out their role: as one student put it ‘I have a much better understanding of the importance of holistic care and feel more confident and knowledgeable to care for palliative care patients’.

Jones (2003) reported student perceptions from focus groups a year into a Foundation degree in community governance, which also highlighted enhanced understanding. The respondents highlighted the support and learning from the group, a recurring issue in comments of students on Foundation degrees. At a personal level students found the programme a struggle:

Learning can be painful…my daughter said this when I have been struggling…painful for me and everyone who knew me. (Jones, 2003, p. 6)

However, students spoke of changes in their own learning, of becoming more critical, reflective and as having a better basis for making judgements. Some students focused specifically on changes in their work context, their understanding of their role at work and access to information. Three out of eight learners in one group had been promoted to other jobs within the local authority.

One learner spoke of how ‘Information has always been there …now I can get to it. That was either because he now ‘Knew where to look’ or, in another case, he was ‘Provided with access because of the Foundation Degree’. What the two students then did with that information was to extend their involvement beyond different perspectives on their roles at work and into other roles in the community. One spoke of how he was taking the skills he was learning through the course into a new role as a school Governor and the other of how he was using the skills as part of a campaign against the closure of another school. (Jones, 2003, p. 6)

However, the impact of their formal learning meant that some students had less time because of the work for the Foundation degree and had, therefore, resigned from community roles.

A Construction Industry Council (2008, p. 25) report asserted that ‘Students are reported as seeing Foundation degrees in a positive light, particularly as programmes enable them to make employer contacts and develop work-based skills’, although it provides no evidence for this conclusion.

Heslop’s (2007) doctoral work on the training of police recruits on a Foundation degree showed, unlike other studies that suggested enhanced understanding, that the programme produced unintended consequences. The research explored how the training impacted on the emerging identities as police officers. Although some aspects are positive, the study showed how aspects of the programme operated to undermine professional identity and reproduce


47

negative facets of ‘police culture’. In particular, the reinforcement, on the programme, of a ‘them and us’ attitude towards the public goes against the central tenet of policing in the UK.

Hampton and Blythman (2006), explored, using of semi-structured interviews, how a sample of 15 full-time students at London College of Communication perceived barriers to learning in their first two terms on a Foundation degree course.Thestudentswerefromoneofthreeprogrammes:interiordesign;travelandtourism;andvisualdesignanddisplay. The study revealed that most students were using the course to help with a career change, which led the authors to conclude that: ‘Foundation degrees are making a contribution to the employability agenda as well as widening participation’ (Hampton and Blythman, 2006, p. 6). As with other mature student cohorts the respondents identified problems in combining home and work commitments with studying. This could be overwhelming and student support was important. The small sample is reflected in somewhat idiosyncratic concerns, although the issue of large classes and a feeling of alienation may be rather more general. As with other studies, the students talked of knowledgeable and enthusiastic lecturers, learning practical knowledge and skills in a specialist area, gaining confidence, support to help integrate into the course, and meeting new people.

Wareing (2008) reported similar student experiences in his small-scale, in-depth pilot study of five graduated healthcare Foundation degree students. Despite the claim for a ‘hermeneutic phenomenological’ approach the resulting report of the research does not exhibit the hermeneutic or phenomenological insights that are intimated, viz. research that ‘aims to transform lived experience into a textual expression of its essence’ (Wareing, 2008, p. 533). The report differs littlefromanyotherreportingofqualitativedata;thegroupingofquotesfromstudentsundervariousheadings.Thedata from this tiny sample showed that, in retrospect, initial transfer into the university as Foundation degree students was a ‘terrifying, frightening’ experience in which the students questioned their own motivations and that the results from the first piece of assessed work acted as a confirmation that the respondents had become students (Wareing, 2008, p. 533).

The students described their experience as transforming in various ways including being more analytic, reflective, broad-minded and aware, particularly of research, which informed the students’ practice and encouraged team working and sharing of ideas. Nonetheless, applying new-found knowledge in practice environments was not always met with approval.

Organisation and task-management was a prominent feature especially linked to family commitments. Study and working in the NHS was stressful and needed to be balanced with the emotional and social demands of home life. However, the respondents expressed some disappointment with learner support and one commented on the problem of switching from work to study modes ‘and the effect for me was that I found it difficult to absorb new material because quite often I felt I needed time to sit down and digest new information’ (Wareing, 2008, pp. 534—5).

All five participants expressed a sense of relief, achievement and reward from completing their studies. However, as in the Knight et al., (2006) qualitative study, Wareing’s participants commented that:

…the completion of the course had made no difference to their job role or grade, although all felt that the course was worthwhile, with several expressing an interest in further learning and personal development. (Wareing, 2008, p. 536)

Craig (2004) reported student evaluations showing very high levels of student satisfaction with the community governance and public sector management Foundation degree at the University of Huddersfield, with particularly good responses to some of the more innovatory areas such as the distance learning packages and student support systems.

5


48

Thurgate et al., (2007) pointed out that Foundation degree students have different expectations from those of a full-time undergraduate (within the professional pathways).

They are generally highly motivated, they demand knowledge to underpin the workplace skill, they see their teachers as facilitators of success and they feel the pressure of being chosen by their employers. These students are safe in the knowledge that they have employment and are motivated to complete the FD in order to progress in their career. The spontaneous development of action groups has improved their ability to cope with the demands of work and study. (Thurgate et al., 2007, p. 222)

Noting 15% drop-out, the authors stated that it compares well to other university faculty cohorts. They also noted that the local employer has reported improved service provision and they concluded by reasserting their commitment to Foundation degrees and the students on them.

The respondents to Dunne et al.’s (2008a, 2008b) study of students on Foundation degree in supporting teaching and learning in the northwest of England echoed other studies by claiming to have improved self-confidence, self-esteem, and a sense of achievement. They also indicated better knowledge and understanding and a positive impact upon professional ‘performance’ in the classroom.

Also, reflecting other studies that point to the issues faced by mature students, half of Dunne et al.’s (2008a) respondents indicated that their studies had had a damaging effect on their family life:

This was exemplified by the comment, ‘At some points throughout the course my personal life suffered under the pressure of managing full time work, family and the course’. Another said that studying had been ‘detrimental to finances and marriage’. Indeed, the demands of juggling responsibilities were particularly difficult for some: ‘The last year affected my health and I’m still trying to overcome that. (Dunne et al., 2008a, p. 54)

The authors argued that the widening participation agenda raises more than just academic issues and it is time to address the complexity of mature students’ lives when entering higher education particularly in part-time, vocationally-linked courses. Dunne et al. (2008a, p. 55) ‘suggest that greater recognition needs to be given to the sacrifices, challenges and conflicting commitments that face working, mature students’.

In similar vein, Bainbridge (2005) investigated the motivation of an opportunity sample of mature women on Foundation degrees in London and the South East. This small study raises important issues that are faced by many students who enrol on Foundation degrees. Bainbridge contested the claim that ‘women frequently refer to the process of the higher education programme being of more importance to them than the final outcome (Reay (2003) and Reay et al. (2001))’ and showed that the comments of their respondents indicated that both the process and outcome of higher education act as a motivator. Vocational and monetary reasons for following the course were common, probably because the women were already in work and, as such, had a clear idea of the career potential of the course. It also allowed them the opportunity to engage and transcend gendered perceptions of the role of working-class women and they saw the transformative potential of higher education. The women wanted to change their lives and those of their family and communities. The experience of higher education raised their self-esteem and opened up opportunities of greater self-fulfilment. As one respondent said: ‘I wish to raise my self-esteem…the needtobeabletosay‘Icandoit’;‘Tobuildmyconfidence…torealiseadream’;‘Idon’twanttowastemylifebydoingnothing’’ (Bainbridge, 2005, p. 5).


49

Bainbridge (2005, p. 1) noted that ‘inequalities still exist between social classes and some groups (mature students) appear to be reducing in number’. Half the respondents commented that the structure (time of the day and links to school holidays) and location of the course were positive features. These pragmatic issues were important in enabling the women to maintain their role as carers, while pursuing higher education goals. There were other psychological aspects that the mature women had to engage with.

The stark reality here is one of judgements being made by self and others, that the ‘new, improved’ life of a non-traditional entrant to higher education potentially under-values their own past. As a result of this, destructive unconscious forces may require significant psychological work to resolve the effect of (social) transformation. To have the freedom to be upwardly mobile—to leave the past behind, individuals need the psychic capacity to cope with these potentially destructive forces. Just starting out on the journey is challenge enough for most. Crossing social barriers involves significant psychological work to overcome destructive forces that already exist within individuals and communities. (Bainbridge, 2005, p. 4)

The women have to make difficult choices about their role and commitments and consider both financial and psychological consequences of their pursuit of upward mobility. Bainbridge (2005, p. 6) concluded though, that: ‘success is due in no small part, to the significant determination and deep psychological strength of the women taking part.’

Progression

The 2004 briefing to Ministers, (Besley, 2004, p. 4) commented that:

Defined progression arrangements are one of the key features of Foundation Degrees, formalised in the Foundation Degree Benchmark yet both the QAA Report and the Task Force Report note that they are currently ‘under developed.’ These are of course early days and few Foundation Degree graduates have emerged into the sunlight but the Report calls for considerable work to be done in this area at both an institutional and a national level.

To Foundation degrees

Little substantive work appears to have been done on progression to Foundation degrees. McBride et al., (2004) included a consideration of NVQs as a progression route on to Foundation degree programmes a point picked up by Roodhouse (2007). Stickland (2005) explored feeder route gaps into Foundation degrees. Bowers-Brown and Berry (2005) explored apprentices’ perceptions of their opportunities for progressing to higher education. The University Vocational Awards Council (2008) also explored the apprentice progression that falls between further education and higher education remits and advocated including apprenticeship programmes in UCAS tariffs. However, progression to Foundation degrees is outside the scope of this review.

Foundation degree completion and articulation

Nelson (2006) explored available data on progression, completion and attrition. She noted that around one-sixth of enrolled Foundation degree students withdraw from their programme of study (QAA student data tables, unpublished) and that part-timers have a slightly higher withdrawal rate than full-timers. Data does not, however, permit a demographic profile of those who withdrew, their reasons for doing so or the point within the programme at

5


50

which they withdrew. There is considerable variability of withdrawal rates: one-third of programmes had a withdrawal rate of over 30%, a small number recorded a rate in excess of 50%.

The evidence from the QAA Reviews (QAA, 2005d) on post-graduation activity, which cover 10% of all recorded enrolments to that date shows that a ‘sizeable proportion’ progressed on to articulated awards, albeit there is considerable variation by programme. However, ‘regarding articulation, it is not clear what proportion of students, for example in Education, become teaching assistants or articulate on to a qualified teacher status programme’ (Nelson, 2006, p. 71). Further, the evidence suggests that ‘those who opted not to articulate, but to return to employment did so either in a new position, or gained a promotion in their current employment’. The evidence that Nelson offers is scant and her conclusion tentative:

This permits the cautious conclusion that in some circumstances completion of a Foundation degree programme has a variety of positive outcomes for students, and that the Foundation degree qualification is a potentially valuable commodity in the work place, and can provide currency for promotion and improvement of employment prospects (personal and professional development). (Nelson, 2006, p. 69)

The ConstructionSkills project (Construction Industry Council, 2008) reported how one professional body emphasised the need for clearer progression routes between vocational/technical qualifications although admitting that as the Foundation degrees surveyed were recently established no sound judgements could be made about available progression routes.

Loftus (2007) specifically explored the issue of progression, attempting to ascertain whether a market exists for a two-year, part-time, work-based ‘top-up’ course, from HND/Foundation degree to Honours level. She interviewed, 48 current Foundation degree students studying a range of subject areas in the South of England. There was almost 100% support for the notion of a two-year, part-time, work-based top-up to honours level. The preferred delivery mode was distance learning, with support from a tutor via e-mail and telephone. As one student noted: ‘I would rather do something like this via the internet. When you work and study there is a lot to juggle, from my point of view, time management is crucial: cutting down on travel time would have helped me a lot this year’ (Loftus, 2007, section 5.2).

Respondents preferred more depth in a specific subject area rather than a broadening out of their Foundation degree. Of those interviewed, 90% wanted to progress to further study but not onto a ‘generic’ BA(Hons) course and the breadth of most top-up courses did not appeal.

There was evidence that students took Foundation degrees in the first place because of the specialist subject areas available, for example, an FdA Wine Business. However, it was the opportunity to combine academia with practical work experience that was the main reason as it provided the opportunity to develop a relationship with a potential employer. However they were concerned that employers may not be familiar with the Foundation degree qualification, which Loftus noted was a justified concern given the responses she had from employers. Some students had, from the outset, seen the Foundation degree as a stepping stone. Finance was a major factor effecting decisions to progress or not.

Dodgson and Whitam (2005, p. 3), supposedly focusing on progression in their study, came up with the rather weak summary statement that: ‘Some higher education institution in the North East have reported problems in providing smooth progression between Foundation degrees and honours degrees.’ They contended that tensions around progression are mainly the result of information inadequacies due to Foundation degrees being a new qualification. They highlighted particular problems for mature and part-time learners in accessing appropriate information and guidance on progression opportunities.


51

Earlier, York Consulting (2004, pp. 41–42) had reported about progression arrangements that ‘Two-thirds of the [15] case study Foundation Degree courses had clear progression arrangements in place. In the majority of cases progression is actively encouraged from the outset’ and that ‘With over two-fifths of students suggesting that their main hope as a result of completing their Foundation Degree course was to gain an honours degree, it is essential that the necessary mechanisms are working efficiently to facilitate this progression.’

Hicks et al. (2008) compared the progression of Foundation degree graduates from the University of Plymouth Colleges Network with Foundation degree students nationally and found that the Plymouth graduates were proportionately less likely to be in full-time employment, and employed in a graduate occupation, and were more likely to be continuing with their studies. Comparing the destinations of those who had ‘topped-up’ to bachelor’s degrees with those who had graduated with a Foundation degree, it was notable that the former group were more likely to be in a graduate occupation six-months after graduating. However, levels of unemployment between the two groups were similar.

Progression and promotion at work

Evidence from other studies, both those below that explore the issue directly and those that refer to workplace progression in passing (such as Wareing, 2008), suggests a rather mixed picture on progression at work and this is an area in much need of further substantive longitudinal research as current cohort data does not provide sufficient insights into personal and professional enhancement and development in the work place. There is also the issue, which needs further research, of the experience of transition to a bachelor programme (studies on this are addressed below).

Adding to comments made in the other Early Years studies(SnapeandFinch,2006;Snapeet al.,2007;Knightet al., 2006), Taylor et al. (2006) noted that, overall, there was a lack of clarity as to how the EYSEFD qualification related to career progression.

Those settings which felt most able to recognise the EYSEFD with a promotion or pay rise or both were those which had scope for role diversification—notably state primary schools—and settings with a range of different job titles and salary scales such as large nurseries and multi-agency settings. Key barriers to recognising the EYSEFD were felt to be lack of positions into which to progress EYSEFD employees, inability to afford a pay rise, and lack of recognition of the EYSEFD on the setting’s pay scales. (Taylor et al., 2006, p. 94).

Dunne et al. (2008a) reported a degree of disillusionment regarding professional status and career progression among the 73 respondents in their survey of Foundation degree students supporting teaching and learning. The qualitative and quantitative data derived from the questionnaire (with a 38% response rate) indicated that graduates have varying experiences of the effect the qualification had on their careers: 34% were given more responsibility, 31% were promoted, and 34% of participants had not experienced any change. Typical increase in responsibility included the opportunity to teach whole classes. Promotions included gaining employment in the desired sector and an increase in grade. Change in status seemed to be closely linked to age: those in the 26–40 age group were the most likely to gain promotion with commensurate pay and career enhancement. The 18–25 age group were more likely to take on extra responsibility without additional pay and none of the 56–65 age group experienced any change. The authors claimed that sector was linked to promotion: those in the secondary sector were more likely to be promoted than those in the primary school sector but given age association and that none of the youngest or oldest respondents were in the secondary sector, the results on age and sector influences might need to be treated with caution.

5


52

Our findings highlight an imbalance between the (governmental) rhetoric and the reality for these students of engaging in lifelong learning courses like Foundation degrees. Our findings also suggest that some students feel a sense of disappointment and betrayal, in that doing the degree and committing themselves (and in many cases their families) to a long-term challenge has not provided a ‘passport’ to increased pay and career progression. (Dunne et al., 2008a, p. 55)

These findings are also developed in a conference paper (Dunne et al., 2008b), which claims a response rate of 91 out of 125 invited participants to ‘a brief questionnaire that invited open-ended responses around aspects relating to present roles’ augmented by two focus groups. It is not clear whether this is the same or a different enquiry to Dunne et al., (2008a) but results are similar. Comments indicated that, in the school sector:

…the only way for greater career advancement is to gain QTS [qualified teacher status]. This potentially perpetuates the narrow professionalised hierarchical tradition within school, which positions the teacher as the sole professional in the classroom. (Dunne et al., 2008b, p. 171)

Thus, the authors comment that there are parallels between the teaching assistant role and its positioning within the school staff hierarchy and the way the Foundation degree is perceived. ‘The implication is that a Foundation degree is not a ‘real’ degree and the TA is not a ‘real’ educator’ (Dunne et al., 2008b, p. 170). However, the authors claimed that the respondents identified intrinsic rewards and a sense of inclusion in their education. This is exemplified by the following comments from students:

I still feel I am not being paid enough for the work I do, but despite this I have tremendous job satisfaction and appreciate the respect I have from my colleagues.

[there was] no change in job, but I enjoyed studying and being part of university life and meeting a variety of people. (Dunne et al., 2008a, p. 54).

In the conference paper, Dunne et al., (2008b, p. 172) noted somewhat more positive impact of the Foundation degree:

Several TAs signified that they felt ‘more included’ and that there was ‘more acceptance’ and involvement in whole school activities. Others directly signified that they felt they had ‘more respect and acceptance’ and, as one put it, the ‘different attitudes from other staff’ afforded more peer and teacher recognition.

They concluded that taking a Foundation degree ‘may have a significant impact on TA’s personal and professional identities’ and they quote one respondent: ”I’ve seen a shift as we’ve developed. I’ve developed speaking for myself, they [teachers] are more inclined to consult with you and value your opinion”.

Bedford et al., (2006) had also indicated that the Foundation degree was of value as a professional qualification for teaching assistants, it did not necessarily lead to promotion, especially in the primary sector. They noted that teaching assistants with the qualification increased in confidence and esteem, and most felt they were recognised by other professionals. Nonetheless, personal benefits outweighed professional ones.

O’Doherty (2006a) had emphasised the importance of upskilling and, in relation to the health sector, noted:

…many women in support roles in the NHS who were studying NVQ level 2 or 3 can study for a higher education qualification. This meets both the organisational and the individual needs and it means when they become an Assistant Practitioner and are placed in a Trust they automatically receive a change of status and an increase in salary.


53

However, he pointed out that it is not as straight forward within Education.

There are two routes to HLTA and one is the Foundation Degree and once this has been achieved the status and remuneration of the member of staff alters in a school. However, the ability to pay staff once they have been accredited with HLTA depends on the school budget and in some cases HLTA staff may need to move schools or Local Authorities before getting their pay rise commensurate with their qualifications.

Although there is no new workforce agreement in local authorities, O’Doherty suggested that there is evidence of people who study for the Foundation degree being promoted within the project at the sub-regional level but there has not been a systematic analysis of the effect of the qualification within local authorities. Similarly, there have been few analyses of the effect of studying Foundation degrees in the private sector among small and medium businesses.

Student experience of transition to bachelor degrees

Goddard and Penketh (2007) and Greenbank (2007) both specifically explored the experience of students in transition from a Foundation degree to a final-year honours degree. Like Bainbridge (2005), Godddard and Penketh (2007) also looked at the experiences of mature women on a Foundation degree and used them to illustrate the efficacy of narrative approaches. However, in so doing, the students’ journals also revealed the interrelation between the personal, social and professional as a learner. The 12 participants in this study came from a single class of twenty-two students in their first year of the BA (Honours) in teaching, learning and mentoring. They were all women between the ages of 30–60, working in part-time or full-time posts in primary, secondary and specialist educational settings. The progression to a BA involved a shift to a ‘traditional’ academic model, focusing on the articulation of critical thinking and conceptual understanding in essays and research report formats. This contrasted with the format of the earlier Foundation degree in supporting teaching and learning that required shorter pieces of assessment undertaken at more frequent intervals. The students placed considerable emphasis on assessment through the transition. The transition also involved a shift away from the vocational experience of putting theory into practice in the workplace (supported by a mentor). To this was added a change in location and culture. Some students changed from on-line learning to face-to-face provision and from study in an outreach centre to study on the main campus. The students faced different demands on their study practices not least the need to engage with deeper ways of thinking.

A number of key themes relating to transition emerged from the journals. The authors referred to a ‘disconcerting’ emphasis on written assignments. Given years of research that highlights the importance of assessment as a motivator, it is surprising that the authors should label it as disconcerting. Perhaps what is disconcerting is the way it:

appeared to dominate the students’ learning experience in relation to the ways in which they engaged with reading, their time management but also the ways in which their vocational roles might support or obstruct the development of the written assessment. (Goddard and Penketh, 2007, p. 8)

The journals suggested that anxiety about academic reading—how to analyse those texts and extract key ideas—was an early and key concern for students. It is likely, the authors claimed, that reading for the Foundation degree was undertaken at a surface level. Time management, as a result of competing demands from work and the family, was a key issue that engendered a feeling of guilt generated by failure to meet all competing needs simultaneously. In addition, the journals, clearly revealed ‘aspirational stories’ that identified strongly with their sense of being a learner, coming from a non-traditional route with relatively little experience of academic work and a sense that they were studying at a level that exceeded both their own and others expectations.

5


54

Greenbank (2007) found that the transition from Foundation to honours degree created considerable levels of stress for the students. This largely arose because of the different approaches to teaching and learning adopted in further educationandhighereducation.Inparticular,EdgeHilladoptedwhatGreenbankcalls‘amoreacademicapproach’;more lectures, less small group discussion and fewer opportunities to meet with the lecturer. There was a greater emphasis on independent learning and less support. One could argue, contrary to Greenbank, that less opportunity for one-to-one interaction with lecturers is less ‘academic’ not ‘more academic’ in approach.

As one respondent noted:

The teachers [on the Foundation degree at the college] were in the main willing to give more help at our college than here [at the university]. There are some tutors who are willing to give help but others seem reluctant—as if they don’t care—or haven’t got the time for you (Greenbank, 2007, p. 94).

Some respondents thought there was a negative attitude towards them in their final year: suggesting they ‘were looked down upon, and even ‘victimised’ (the actual word used by a couple of students), because as one student commented “they were Foundation degree students’’ (Greenbank, 2007, p. 95). The lecturers at the university were perceived as more knowledgeable than their further education counterparts and the modules of study were more complex than the Foundation degree modules. That Foundation degree students felt ill-equipped for the less supported approach may, Greenbank argued, reflect the greater emphasis placed on more practical aspects of knowledge, understanding and skills on the Foundation degree. Greenbank concluded that the transition needs to be made easier, and suggested various possible approaches. He noted that ‘The FD graduates should feel confident in their ability to make the transition, but this was often not the case.’ More support for students making the transition from Foundation to honours degrees might help but there is a serious policy issue to be debated based on substantive research on the student experience of transition. An alternative interpretation might be that the lack of direct dialogue with teachers, faced by the respondents at final-year level, might raise questions about ‘old-fashioned’ teaching methods on the degree programme rather than assume that Foundation degree students cannot manage an unsupportive lecturing environment. The implication drawn by Greenbank is that Foundation degree students are not suited or equipped for autonomous learning, which is a rather contentious position, not least because it implies that there is only one way to approach autonomous learning.

Weatherald and Moseley (2003) also raise concerns about the different learning environments in further education and higher education. They described a ‘higher education in further education Development Fund’ collaborative project to develop a set of materials and staff development opportunities intended to raise the quality and standards of higher education learning and teaching within FECs so as to ensure that the student experience in the colleges is comparable to that in HEIs. This would be important, they claimed, given the growth of structured partnerships between colleges and HEIs as Foundation degrees take off.

A study by Harwood and Harwood (2004) drew on local experience to raise fundamental questions about the parity of the experience in universities and colleges. They raised issues about differences in teaching practice and pedagogy between further education and higher education. This is important, they argued if universities are to ensure that Foundation degrees, delivered in colleges, are of the highest quality. The slant of their study was, in effect, that further education has a problem in delivering an authentic higher education learning experience. They used telephone interviews (n=34) and questionnaires (n=83) with staff in six FECs in the South-West either teaching higher education or managing and coordinating higher education courses. Only 11% indicated their college had a policy supporting scholarly activity and research. Two-thirds of staff teaching higher education hold neither a doctorate nor a masters qualification. Nonetheless, there was considerable engagement with scholarly and research activity although most of it was in the respondent’s own time. However, only 14 respondents were engaged in what the authors categorised


55

as higher education-level research. Only 12% of respondents spent more than two-thirds of their teaching hours on higher education. Staff were not given adequate time to prepare for higher education-level teaching. As a result of the study the University of Plymouth has now agreed an higher education in further education policy with its partner colleges.

Dixon et al. (2005) also reported on the experience of students moving from Foundation degree in colleges to the University of Plymouth’s BSc(Hons) Public Services Programme in 2004-05. There was, he suggested a need for the lecturers and tutors to apply reflexive practice to combat any subliminal, and unintentional, discrimination against students from a vocational route and to ensure the best means to effectively deliver academic knowledge. This involved understanding the students’ academic aspirations, learning attitudes and social behaviours in the classroom and what made it comfortable for them to learn. He suggested that:

…universities sometimes pay little attention to this comfort factor, particularly in third year, when relationships between students and lecturers have been established by previous contact. Instead, there is an established, although not universal, opinion that students should take responsibility for their own learning thereby releasing teaching staff from the burden of unnecessary intrusion, so that they are able to get on with their research. (Dixon et al., 2005, p. 36)

However, as others have noted, this does not meet the expectations of students who have experienced consistent support and personal involvement in the further education context.

Put quite simply, university lecturers teaching FD graduates must be prepared to adopt a more student-centred approach to the learning process. This requires them to do more than imparting knowledge by lecturing at students in a way that demonstrates their erudition. Rather, they must adopt teaching and learning facilitation methods that are flexible enough to accommodate both individual and group learning needs at third-year university level. (Dixon et al., 2005, p. 36)

There is also a role for the further education teacher. Students in their second year of Foundation degree study must be ‘intellectually challenged by being asked to critically review and synthesise knowledge and to solve intellectual problems;todemonstratethattheyhavelearnthowtolearnandthuscanbecomeindependentlearners’.Thismaybe threatening in the further education context and ‘minimising the threats and exploiting the opportunities require improved channels of communication between university lecturers and their CFE colleagues.’ The AcHE Project has attempted to develop these aspects to achieve ‘a seamless progression’ onto the bachelor degree (Dixon et al., 2005, p. 36).

Student feedback reported by Dixon expressed concerns about the underdevelopment of particular skills, including: timemanagement; information technology skills; writing skills, particularly referencing and plagiarism; ability tomanage a dissertation, particularly the concept of a literature search. They also expressed concerns about their lack ofunderstandingofwhatfinal-yearbachelorstudyinvolves,particularlythelanguageusedbyuniversitylecturers;expectationsaboutstudents’theoreticalandanalyticalunderstanding;theamountofreadingexpected;theexpecteddegreeofself-awarenessandself-regulation;andthelackofself-esteemtheyfeltinjoiningthethirdyearas‘universityfreshers’.

Of the initial graduating cohort of students, 92% progressed to the bachelors programme ‘and almost 50 percent of them graduated with Upper-Second Class Honours Degrees’. Further, the AcHE team found that ‘if college-based students consider themselves as part of a university structure then the more likely they are to progress’ (Dixon et al., 2005, p. 36).

5


56

The AcHE team recognised that, with the expected growth in student numbers, there is a need to formulate and implement a comprehensive transition programme. Apart from anything else, the concerns that may be felt by college students about progression into a university environment can be gradually alleviated during the Foundation degree years.

Summary

It has been suggested that the student learning experience on Foundation degrees is under-examined. One area that has been extensively explored is Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree, with several national studies including a longitudinal survey. The general impressions from these and the other studies are summarised below.

• ThemainreasonsfortakingaFoundationdegreeweretoenhancecareerprospects.

• Manystudents,especiallymaturereturners,seetheFoundationdegreeaspotentiallylifechanging,which,amongother things, necessitates confronting class, gendered and ethnic preconceptions.

• Aspirationsaremediatedbysocio-culturalfactorsandarecomplexrequiringabalanceofindividualdevelopment,familial responsibilities and cultural expectations.

• Aboutthree-quartersofFoundationdegreestudentshadFoundationdegreesastheirfirstchoiceprogramme.Many of the rest had wanted to do a bachelor degree.

Recurrent outcomes from the various studies include students indicating:

• improvedself-confidence,self-esteem,andasenseofachievement

• betterknowledgeandunderstandingandapositiveimpactonperformanceatwork(althoughapplyingnew-found knowledge in practice environments was not always met with approval)

• enhancedacademicand life skills:becomingmore critical, reflectiveandashavingabetterbasis formakingjudgements

• enhancedenthusiasmfortheirpaidworkbutalsoanincreaseininterestinfurtherlearning(inonestudyabout80% of students want to continue studying after their Foundation degree)

• little immediatefinancialbenefit; a smallminorityexperienceany increase in income.Respondentsgenerallyhave to move to a new employer to gain a promotion or increased pay

• financialconcerns(notleastcoursefees)

• adamagingeffecton family life, especially formature students.This canbe amajor factor inwithdrawal formature females.

The Foundation degree’s contribution to the widening participation agenda thus raises personal and emotional as well as academic issues and there is a need for recognition of the sacrifices, challenges and conflicting commitments that face working, mature students.

Students indicate satisfaction with their programmes. Generally they indicate:

• highlevelsofsatisfactionwithtutors,especiallytheirenthusiasm,knowledgeandexperienceinthesubjectarea

• satisfactionwithcontent,learningstyleandstructureofprogrammes;

• thatlessonsarewellorganised


57

• appropriateandwell-explainedassessmentswithappropriatetimetablesforcompletion

• appropriatesupport,especiallyinthefirstyear.Supporttendedtodeclineafteryearoneandthisledtosomestudents feeling abandoned. The personal tutor system seems to be an important part of the support structure, which itself plays a significant role in retention. However, support could be better for part-time and distance learners

• positivepeergroupsupport,whichisveryimportant

• satisfactionwithwork-relatedelements,howeversometimesthisisverybadlyorganised

• thatintranetsiteswerewelldevelopedandusedregularlyatsomeinstitutionsbutatotherson-lineresourcesfailed to materialise or were inadequate

• appreciationoftheopportunitytomakeemployercontactsanddevelopwork-basedskills.

Students indicated that they struggled with some aspects of being on the course.

• Time-planning caused the most problems for students, especially those who had family commitments.Appropriate scheduling of classes, for example, allows women to maintain their role as carers, while pursuing higher education goals

• Asignificantminorityofstudentsexperienceddifficultykeepingupwiththepaceofthecourseandwiththeacademic requirements

• Alackofpre-entryinformation,adviceandguidancewasanissue(forabout40%ofrespondentsinonestudy).

• TransferintotheuniversityonabachelordegreefromaFoundationdegreeisdemanding.

• Transitionstudentsrefertodifferentlearningandteachingstyles:morelectures,feweropportunitiestomeetanddiscuss with lecturers, less on-line learning and less direct link to workplace experience.

• Forsometransitionstudentsthereistheneedtoengageinadifferentsocialandorganisationalsettingwhenmoving from an outreach centre to the main university campus.

• Muchoftheproblemrelatestothepedagogicmodels,thenatureoftheacademicsupport(orlackofit)andthepresumption about what constitutes autonomous learning in the university sector.

• Some commentaries imply that either the further education experience or the students themselves are notequipped for ‘proper’ higher education study at final-year level. Some, however, raise fundamental questions about the lack of flexible pedagogy in the university setting.

5


58

59

Work-based learning

6

Prefacing the commencement of Foundation degrees, Smith and Betts’ (2000, p. 595) discursive paper commented on the development of work-based learning. They referred to the new Foundation degree concept as representing:

…a national ‘supply side’ initiative, whereas work-based learning successes to date have been through local customisation in response to demand via close cooperation. The DfEE in their consultative document have of course recognised this by stressing the absolute need for collaboration between industry, universities and colleges in the development of local initiatives.’

They suggested that as Western Europe moves from the industrial age to the information age, ‘most of what we know about work-based learning is based upon a model of the workplace that itself is in transition’. They suggested that ‘future work-based learning partnerships will be less hierarchical and become more democratic’ in knowledge-based economies. The learner will become an increasingly equal partner alongside the employer and the provider’ and there will be ‘a constantly changing and updated negotiation between learner, educational provider and workplace’. They suggested that employers are likely to draw on an increasingly diverse labour market ‘made up of individuals who aim to acquire the widest possible range of professional and transferable skills’ (Smith and Betts, 2000, p. 602–3).

The 2004 briefing to Ministers, (Besley 2004, p. 8) commented that, given the centrality of work-based learning to the Foundation degree:

…it is a little strange that guidance and good practice in this area is not more developed. The [Foundation DegreeTaskForce]Reportrecognisesthatthereisnoprescriptivemodelforworkbasedlearning;totake the current ‘in word,’ it is the personalisation of the experience that counts. This is of course different for learners already in part time work where the issues are how to build on the experience, identify any APEL potential and deploy appropriate assessment for the rest of the experience. Assessment of


60

work based learning emerges as a real concern and although the Report talks smoothly of “innovative approaches” it’s not clear what these are or how to apply them. It will be interesting to follow QAA reporting on this area to see what progress is being made. That said, there are bodies that could help notably the Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) and the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA). [Lack of hyphenation in the original]

Besley’s comments are apposite and what research there is of the work-based learning element of the Foundation degree tend to be small-scale studies.

Taylor et al. (2006), undertook a small-scale qualitative study exploring employers’ and mentors’ views and experiences of the early years sector-endorsed Foundation degree (EYSEFD), which complemented other studies of this well-researched subject area (SnapeandFinch,2006;Snapeet al.,2006,2007;Knightet al., 2006). The study interviewed 17 employers, 18 mentors and 19 employer-mentors from 37 different schools and nurseries.

Some employers, although supporting employees, are not interested in the EYSEFD specifically and would have supported whatever staff development the employee wanted. Some employers have practical, hands-on involvement in supporting the employee while others had little or no involvement. Involvement seemed to be a function of employerinterestinandunderstandingoftheEYSEFD;thetimetheyhaveavailable,theextenttowhichtheydelegateoversight to the mentor as well as how close their relationship with the student is and the levels of confidence in the college delivering the programme.

In general, the more interest the employer has in the EYSEFD the less satisfied they are with available information and the levels of contact with the college. In particular, they wanted more information on how to facilitate work-based learning, on the student assignments and the student’s progress. The ‘lack of contact with the college could have a negative effect on employers’ ability to accommodate the EYSEFD, and on their attitudes towards the rigour of the qualification’ (Taylor et al., 2006, p, 43).

Employers were likely to be positive about the EYSEFD if it is relatively straightforward to arrange cover for the student, which often depended on the student’s role and seniority at work: the absence of more senior staff from smaller settings often being particularly difficult to accommodate. In some cases, employers indicated an unwillingness to pay staff when they were at college because they had not done this for other members of staff and they did not want to seem to be being unfair. However, inter alia, employers were demotivated when they had a lack of confidence in the quality of the EYSEFD, ‘based on the perception that potential students, the setting and/or the WBL are poorly assessed’ (Taylor et al., 2006, p. 15).

Employers and mentors were of the view that, as a result of taking the EYSEFD, employers were more reflective, had improved organisational skills and confidence and exhibited independent thought. In some cases students instigated changes to policy or practice and transmitted some of the learning to other staff members.

Northrop and Jones (2006) outlined the process of development of a blended learning approach on a Foundation degree programme at Anglia Ruskin University, which in part overcomes the issue of absence from the workplace:

The nature of some of the modules, particularly those focussing on work based practice, do not require the same degree of face-to-face content and can be supported through the online community. This also allowed for minimal time away from the work setting which meets stakeholder needs. (Northrop and Jones, 2006, p. 1720–1).

Work-based learning

61

Green (2006) used semi-structured interviews to establish the perceived benefits and costs of the work-based component, triangulating the views of students, staff and employers. The research explored programmes in three areas: information technology, construction and health and social care. Green (2006, p. 27) noted that: ‘It has to be said at the very outset that there is little doubt that most students appreciated the value of the work-based component of their respective Foundation degrees’. The construction and health students were in employment and the former claimed that not only had their skills been enhanced and extended as a result of the work-based element but that having the opportunity to choose a topic for their work-based learning project had enabled them to further develop their interest in their work area. Unlike the construction students, the health and social care students were rather more constrained in their work setting and did not get experience or familiarity in other clinical or professional areas. This runs somewhat counter to the aims of the Foundation degree, which include enabling the student to look beyond their current role and to develop transferable skills.

The information technology group was on placement at the time of the research and each student had found his or her own work-place learning provider. The experiences were varied and employers were not always clear about what was required. Some used the student to develop a piece of work that they required, which in some cases meant the student was working off-site and not integrated into the organisation. The nature of the placement experience was, Green concluded, mainly a function of the information given to providers by the college teaching team.

Students in all three programmes sometimes felt that they were operating as go-betweens between the course team/college and the employers. This view seemed to correspond with the extent to which the course team had made contact with employers prior to commencement. This was reflected in variable experience of work-based learning and variation in the process for choosing work-based projects. One area of good practice was the drawing up of a shortlist of topics that students were expected to discuss with both employer and college staff, which produced project material relevant to the workplace. The extent, to which this was transparent depended on who, from the workplace, had agreed to the topic, as that person might not be the line manager for the student. ‘An example of poor practice was where students were in placement undertaking work which the provider had assigned them, but where the provider admitted that the organisation had no idea whether or not it was appropriate’ (Green, 2006, p. 29). The article concludes:

It is apparent from this small, but not insignificant sample that the success of the work-based learning component is evident. However, at times it felt that this was more by luck than judgement, and this needs to be recognised by some of the course-based staff and, indeed, by some employers. (Green, 2006, p. 30)

Benefer (2007) described the work of Staffordshire University in engaging with a local employer (JCB) and a local further education college (Burton College) in the development of a Foundation degree in applied technology. The case study is, the author argued, a model of good practice in engaging with employers, especially in the development of the work-based learning approach.

Benefer (2007, p. 211) quoting Foskett (2003) suggested that potential barriers to effective curriculum development include ‘cultural disparities and the diversity of expectations between stakeholders’, Further, he used the same source to argue that it is important that all partners have complementary aims, compatible missions, good personal relationships, clear responsibilities, trust each other, and are prepared to sign up to a common agreement on respective roles and commitments (Benefer, 2007, p. 211). This is not an easy task and the Staffordshire programme does this by incorporating the following elements.

The work-based learning element is delivered, in part, on the employer’s premises and the content and assessment is aligned with business needs, which is ensured by the involvement of the company, JCB, in the development of the award. Module content is negotiated with the company and assignments and tasks fitted into the day-to-day work.

6


62

For the students (who are also JCB employees), the programme is relevant to their needs, the assignments are work-based ‘live’ projects and academic skills development is integrated with experience. It also impacts on career development. This means that the students are highly motivated. When questioned, the students described the curriculum content as ‘alive’, ‘applicable’ and ‘valid’. A key component is the project, typically 6000 words, which includes at least one of the following:

• design,constructionandtestingofprototypeequipment;• implementationofatechnologysystem,involvinghardwareand/orsoftware;• newand/ormodifieduseofexistingequipmentorsystems;• reviewandevaluationofaspecifiedtechnologypracticeorsystem;and• commissioningofapieceofequipmentandwritinganinstructionmanual.(Benefer, 2007, p. 214)

Student employees at JCB give presentations on their projects to senior management, which is part of the learning experience, and ‘in turn becomes part of the employer’s learning experience in engaging with higher education’ (Benefer, 2007, p. 214).

The key issue for the company has been the college’s and the Foundation degree’s credibility with industry. The fact that the college lecturers delivering the course also undertake industrial secondments at JCB as part of their own continuing professional development is critical in achieving this credibility. For lecturers at the college the advantages of partnership working with JCB are that they have access to high-quality, top-of-the-range industrial equipment and real, modern working production methods. This is an effective form of industrial updating that allows for in-company developments to be rapidly incorporated into the Foundation degree programme.

Benefer (2007, pp. 215–6) suggested that the success is due to the following:

• theFoundationdegreeisdeliveredinacollegewithastrongreputationforitsengagementwithemployers;• Thecollegeiscommittedtowork-basedlearningandtomeetingtheskillsneedsoflocalindustry;• theemployercontributestothedesignoftheprogramme;• theemployerprovides“real”projectsandassignmentstosupporttheassessmentoflearning;• deliveryonsitehelpstoensurethatwork-basedlearningandacademiclearningareintegrated;• company-basedmentoringsupportsandguidesstudentprogress;• staff from thecollege, theuniversityand thecompanyworkasa team toensure thequalityof the student’s

learning experience.

Morgan et al. (2004), in reviewing the business administration Foundation degree scheme at the University of Glamorgan, argued that it encouraged employability and work readiness through ‘live’ projects:

…designed as an integrating mechanism for the scheme as a whole, thus relating learning to real problems in the business world for actual clients and employers, and consequently strengthening the vocational relevance of the programme. It adds a new character to the development of business skills, through an exploration of the ways in which academic work can be located within the workplace, supporting understanding in higher education. At the same time, it targets higher level skills shortages in the enterprise and knowledge economy… (Morgan et al., 2004, pp. 359–60)

For Morgan et al., the two critical success factors for the successful validation and accreditation of awards are developing the work experience activities of the university and consultation with professional bodies as well as regionally-based groups;thelatterreflectsbroaderconcernsinWales.

Work-based learning

63

One of Lyle and Robertson’s (2003) four strategic considerations when developing a Foundation degree was also ‘regional presence’. The others were widening participation, recruitment benefits, establishing and developing higher education-further education links based upon existing links.

Walsh (2006) expressed other concerns, suggesting that a focus on work-based learning (in Foundation degrees among others) could reinforce gender stereotyping. Statistics relating to some of the new awards indicate clear gender divisions that reflect established workplaces. Additionally, she suggested:

the effect of employment factors (such as the glass ceiling and full-time versus part-time working) constrains the extent to which women can take advantage of recognition of workplace learning at higher academic levels. (Walsh, 2007, p. 1)

She concurred with the Equal Opportunities Commission that the new opportunities for workplace learning are likely to reinforce the status quo.

Tynan (2006, p. 44) undertook a ‘small action research project’ using responses from two separate focus groups of eight students on a well-established BA degree and eight students from the new Foundation degree in Fashion Promotion and Marketing at London College of Fashion, a constituent college of University of the Arts. The aim was to explore how non-traditional students ‘negotiate the uneasy relationship between theory and practice in art and design education’. She maintained that although work-based learning is a feature of traditional art and design education, there is a clear rift between theory and practice in art and design education. This is manifested in the cultural studies components of such courses. The project explored how Foundation degree students ‘negotiate the complexities of a learning environment structured by traditional disciplinary separatism’ (Tynan, 2006, p. 44).

Both focus groups were questioned about identical issues around their experience of the cultural studies unit. Responses from Foundation degree students suggested:

they perceived their learning to be undermined by lack of prior experience and unrealistic expectations of them in higher education as one response showed ‘We didn’t know what cultural studies was. We were treated as if we should know about it’ (FDA student). This is not just the result of the lack of appropriate induction, but viewed along with other similar responses demonstrates the lack of integration between theory and practice on the course, revealing assumptions held by academic staff that students come to courses with uniform prior learning experiences. Moreover, the lack of integration of these two learning experiences also shows how students experience the separateness of these parts of the course. (Tynan, 2006, p. 45)

Although this may be a particular art and design problem, it does highlight the need for Foundation degrees to integrate the practical, work-based element with the more theoretical academic element of the programme.

However, if academic tasks have credibility for the non-traditional learner, vocational courses designed to recruit them are not necessarily sending clear signals to Foundation degree students but instead use the allure of traditional aspects of university education to attract new student markets. (Tynan, 2006, p. 46)

In a rather more substantial study, Stinton and Chittenden (2006) explored the nature and efficacy of work-based learning on Foundation degrees in the East of England (a summary, including a second phase, is reported in Stinton (2007)). The study’s aims were to examine the experience of work-based learning, explore the extent of integration and investigate how employer engagement and work-based learning can become more effective. The authors analysed 157 Foundation degree programme specifications, used 62 responses from a follow-up questionnaire for tutors and

6


64

in-depth interviews with an unstated number of curriculum managers, students and employers from institutions in the Eastern region.

Foundation degrees in the Eastern region cover a wide variety of skill sectors and there is considerable variation in employer engagement across all the industrial areas. In the main, 60 credits are allocated for work-based learning components and the majority of Foundation degrees can be studied on a part-time or full-time basis.

Not surprisingly, ‘employer engagement effectiveness is most valuable when employers are fully engaged in all aspects of the Foundation Degree’. However, respondents thought that employers were supportive of Foundation degrees in general and work-based learning specifically. Questionnaire respondents considered that employer engagement was most effective in course development and least effective in course delivery (Stinton and Chittenden, 2006, p. 56) and ‘minimal involvement was reported with assessment’ (Stinton, 2007, p. 30).

Interviewed students were of the view that in some Foundation degrees the focus was oriented towards encouraging learners to progress to a degree-level qualification. Some part-time students questioned the need for the college component, arguing that: ‘the work-based learning element was of a sufficiently high enough standard to enable them to undertake the job without class-based sessions’ (Stinton, 2007, p. 31). Further, they indicated a clear separation between workplace and classroom. ‘They maintained that there was a significant divide, which had the effect of making the students feel like they were doing two different things’ (Stinton, 2007, p. 31).

Students also indicated that high turnover of college/university staff had disrupted work-based learning arrangements and planning, with potentially a major impact upon the quality of their work-based learning.

All interviewees maintained that there should be more educational staff in the workplace and work personnel at college/university. This would help to close the gap between the two groups and assist in the integration of theory and practice. (Stinton, 2007, p. 31)

Stinton (2007, p. 31–2) recommended that employers ‘should be involved in work-based learning management as this advances supportive behaviour’.

Work-based learning should be meaningful and relevant for all stakeholders, and appropriate for a diversity of learners. A work-based learning coordinator can facilitate this, along with appropriate funding, employer knowledge, skill sector relevance and sympathetic timetabling.

Further, ‘care should be taken to avoid high staff turnover disrupting work-based learning arrangements and planning’ and, to overcome the divide perceived by students, greater integration of educational and workplace personnel needs to be developed.

A systematic evaluative programme can help work-based learning to develop within Foundation Degrees.Areastoconsiderinclude:appropriatenessoftasks;embeddedactivities;competencytraining;studentprogress;experientialknowledge;keyskills,andrelevantindustrialchanges.

Stinton (2007, p. 32) also emphasised the need to encourage employers to make the theory-practice links: successful integration of theory and practice can be enhanced by employers making explicit links between workplace and classroom content. To promote this, course development should:

…incorporate discussion with employers over learning aims and objectives, ensure that there is a balance between academic and practical learning and provide encouragement for students to proactively

Work-based learning

65

integrate their learning in the workplace and vice versa.

In a couple of papers, Graves and Jones (2006) and Graves (2006), the use of action learning sets is discussed as a means of facilitating the delivery of a work-based learning module on a part-time Foundation degree in educational support at Liverpool John Moores University and two local colleges. The action learning sets were used to aid students’ reflection on a rapidly-changing world of practice within their own work setting and to help identify links with theory and policy. Developing as a reflective practitioner is a central theme on the programme and developing the ability to relate theory to practice and to learn through and at work is a pivotal component. The work-based learning module presents an opportunity to make this link explicit. Interim feedback from students revealed that the perceived consciousness raising experienced by the student as a result of the reflective process can result in some tension with other stakeholders in the workplace.

Hillier and Rawnsley (2006), reporting on a Foundation degree in public service management, noted the variability of student experience and levels of support for work-based learning offered by employers. Some students had the opportunity to undertake tasks that supported their learning within their work role while others struggled to ‘integrate such learning opportunities within their work’ (Hillier and Rawnsley, 2006 p.12). They also noted that, in line with Gleeson and Keep (2004), employers tend to want learning which is specific and non-transferable to avoid ‘poaching’ of trained staff. Employees, on the other hand, tend to have the opposite aims.

Although the Foundation degree review recommended that employers be ‘involved in the summative assessment of students’ work-related skills’ (QAA, 2003b, p.11) Hillier and Rawnsley’s (2006) research indicated that there are difficulties in achieving this and that employer involvement requires careful nurturing. As Edmond et al. (2007) note, employer involvement is cited as good practice in only 25% of cases in the QAA’s Learning From Reviews (QAA, 2005a, para. 33).

Edmond et al. (2007) disagreed with the QAA’s (2005a, para. 40) conclusion, which claims that work-based learning is most effective when integrated fully into the programme, ‘with students who are in employment in the relevant sector pursuing their studies on a part-time basis because of higher levels of employer involvement and explicit workplace learning agreements.’ Edmond et al. (2007) argued that this is an over-simplification of work-based learning. Reflecting on experience in five Foundation degrees offered by the School of Education at the University of Brighton, they noted that the management of work-based learning opportunities is problematic and the status of student as employees presents real challenges. A common tension expressed by students is constraints on developing learning opportunities in the workplace by the demands of the job role.

Students have more or less facility with undertaking work-based learning activities at work notwithstanding that all participating employers sign up to work-based learning agreements. Some students will be supported and have safeguards around their time to undertake work-based learning activities while others will routinely find that they are called to undertake other work activities instead of the designated work-based learning tasks. (Edmond et al., 2007, p.176)

They went further than questioning the role of employers and repeated the argument that ‘work-based learning is still an idea in search of a practice, a pedagogy that is undergoing development as it accommodates itself to the exigencies of the workplace and the university’ (Boud and Symes, 2000, p.3). They stated that the ‘relationship of work-based learning to more traditional models of knowledge transmission remains unclear, and its interpretation by institutions lacking in consensus’ (Edmond et al., 2007, p.173). They added that the notions of employer engagement and of work-based learning are under-theorised.

6


66

Between the rock of ‘employer engagement’ and the hard place of student learning, HE institutions and HE staff need to develop better articulated pedagogical models which recognise a move away from ‘teaching’ and towards ‘managing learning opportunities’ and the complexities of employer engagement and how this may be incentivised and/or enforced. (Edmond et al., 2007, p. 179)

This is a situation that is exacerbated, as a similar author team noted in an earlier piece (Edmond et al., 2005), by course leaders feeling they have little control over the learning environment for a large part of the course and the authors expressed concern about issues of parity of student experience.

Brown et al. (2007) suggested, on the basis of an examination of the approaches to work-based learning in two programmes within the same university, that work-based learning can be implemented in many different ways to serve a variety of needs. Curriculum developers need to explore, with employers and potential students, their rationale behind engaging in work-based learning. Furthermore it is important to align ethos, with teaching, learning and assessment.

The study showed that the learning of diverse groups of staff, both those entering the health and social care services and those who are experienced and professionally qualified can be met by implementing different approaches to work-based learning. In the skills-based Foundation degree for health care assistants (nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, dietetics), where most students have a limited educational background, an affirmative model of work-based learning was used, designed to link to national occupational standards. It supports the acquisition of pre-specified skills and competencies to an appropriate articulated standard through teaching, coaching and work-shadowing.

The underlying ethos, from both the students’ and employers’ perspectives, is to acquire a sufficient set of skills and underpinning knowledge to meet employers’ requirements. In the case of the health care sector, this would be to maintain safe levels of practice in care settings. (Brown et al., 2007, p. 195)

Adopting the affirmation model of work-based learning means that curriculum developers are very clear about the desired knowledge and skills required and assessment measures of attainment of these skills.

The other approach is a transformative model of work-based learning that is ‘concerned with liberating creativity and enterprise’ Brown et al. (2007, p. 197). This is in a postgraduate leadership programme and contrasts sharply with the approach at the Foundation degree level. There are no predetermined end points in the transformation approach, rather learners are supported as they innovate and create change.

The underlying ethos of this programme…is to disturb the status quo and create change in the workplace. In the health service, this means for example, adapting care services to ensure they are more patient focussed. As a result of this ethos, teaching, learning and assessment strategies are designed to help students become effective leaders and change agents. Teaching methods include…action learning sets so that students can gain support from one another as each faces work-based challenges. (Brown et al., 2007, p. 197)

In conclusion, the authors suggest that neither model is better than the other and that they serve different needs. The affirmative model ensures that ‘junior members of the workforce are encouraged to up-skill and meet employer needs for a stable, effective workforce’, whereas the transformative model ‘enables more senior members of the workforce to apply new learning to take them to a higher level of decision making and leadership’ (Brown et al., 2007, p. 199).

Work-based learning

67

In a couple of papers, Reeve, Gallacher and Ingram compared the work-related learning in HNDs (in Scotland) with Foundation degrees (Reeve et al., 2007, 2008). These followed a study the previous year by Gittus and Hemsworth (2006) that examined models of short cycle, work-related higher education provision in Scotland and England. Reeve et al. (2007) summarised the findings of the first stage of a comparative study, which showed that the importance of work-based learning has been emphasised more strongly in Foundation degrees. Many higher national qualifications, though, do include work experience and work-based or work-related learning as a central part of the programme. Reeve et al. (2008, pp. 458–9) confirmed that Foundation degrees ‘are engaging with employers to a greater extent than are HNs’ particularly the range and extent of work-based and work-related learning being offered. However, they noted that sectoral differences are evident.

The context of the Early Years sector, drawing as it does on traditions of mentoring which were already established in the sector and the wider field of education, has encouraged workplace staff to take on a significant role in student support in both the FD and HNC. However, these staff are careful to distinguish their roles from those of trained educators, and to identify tutors as the source of course standards. There appears some reluctance, even here, to become involved in summative assessment. Where this is happening, ironically on the HNC programme, supervisors continue to refer to it as providing ‘feedback’, and retain a view of tutors as the final arbiter.

They compare this, for example, to the fashion and hospitality/travel sectors, where employers’ roles are more limited and college staff remain the main source of support for students, even for the work-based elements. However they point out that the existing tradition of colleges employing experienced people from industry shifts the interaction with employers from simply engaging them to employing them.

Nevertheless, it appears that the FD framework does encourage college/university staff to increase the range and extent of WBL and WRL [work-related learning], in comparison with HNs. However, in doing so, they take on the significant task of maintaining these relationships with employers, and this may be more possible within smaller FD cohorts. (Reeve et al., 2008, p. 459)

A study by the Learning Skills Development Agency in conjunction with Sheffield University (2002, p. 21–22) also showed that the relationship between employers and Foundation degree students is one that is more definite than that of higher national qualifications:

One of the major differences emerging between HNC/Ds and FDs is in relation to the work-based element. Visits had confirmed the conclusions from the telephone survey that links with employers on HND/HNC programmes were often quite weak, although there were some significant exceptions to this. Much of the work on FDs was with specific employers or groups of employers.

As with the HND, Foundation degrees offer the opportunity of accessible higher education to people who are already in employment. Foundation degrees seek to encourage more emphasis on technical education while also giving it a higher profile. To this extent the requirements of the workforce and the individual can be achieved.

On a more pragmatic note, the ConstructionSkills (2008) project reiterated the value of work-based learning for both students and employers but found that work placements for students not in employment can be a challenge as employers are unable to help on a regular basis. Further, one of the responding professional bodies commented that the main challenge encountered when considering recognition of Foundation degrees is establishing appropriate benchmarks for the mapping of work-based learning as the level and requirements vary between programmes.

6


68

Workplace mentoring and coaching

A key element of work-based learning, as has been suggested in various studies reported above, is the support for learning in the workplace. This is an important aspect of the student experience (see section 5) but is addressed separately in this section as it is germane to an overall analysis of research on the work-based aspect of Foundation degrees.

The role of the workplace mentor is to familiarise themselves with the programme of learning and facilitate learning in the work place. As such the mentor oversees the employer investment in the process and undertakes a key role in employee development by making the learning motivating and challenging.

The quantitative study of the EYSEFD, Snape&Finch,2006, (see Section 5 for details) reported high satisfaction with mentors. Most mentors were based at students’ workplaces and by the time of the second-phase survey 69% of students with a tutor and mentor said their tutor had visited their mentor to give information and advice about their work-based learning. Most students regarded the work-based component of the course as relevant to their job and 75% said it was very relevant, while a further fifth rated it as quite relevant: 90% were satisfied with the work-based component.

The parallel qualitative study (Knight et al., 2006) was rather more reserved. Students regarded having a mentor as vital with the following factors influencing the success of the mentor-student relationship.

Where mentors and students were unclear about the role of the mentor this made it difficult for the relationship to be successful in meeting students’ needs. A lack of clarity over the mentor role was linked to problems with the provision of mentor training, limitations with written material explaining the role, and variable contact between HEIs and mentors.

The amount of time their mentor was able to spend supporting them in the workplace was also an important issue for many students. This depended on how busy the mentor was, whether or not they were based within the same classroom or nursery setting as the student, and the willingness of the mentor to perform the role.

The experience and knowledge their mentors had in the EY sector, the mentor skills and their personal attributes were also factors in how satisfied or unsatisfied students were with the mentor support they received. (Knight et al., 2006, p. 8).

Knight et al. (2006) showed that as the course progressed, there was evidence that the intensity of the support students were receiving from mentors had sometimes changed. Some students had become more confident in their own abilities and therefore felt they needed less support. In other cases, students had felt they still needed frequent on-going support from their mentor, despite their increased confidence. In a few cases, students reported negative attitudes to their participation in the EYSEFD and a reluctance to make allowances for their work-based learning. The respondents attributed this to limited awareness and appreciation of the EYSEFD.

Taylor et al. (2006), in their contribution to the EYSEFD research, indicated that their qualitative study indicates that mentors were usually positive about taking on the role, seeing it as both important for the student and rewarding role for themselves. Mentors had disparate views about the role: some had regular contact with the employee and close overview of assignments, others had little contact and did not appear to be acting as witnesses that work had taken place.

Work-based learning

69

Apart from prior experience and the nature of the information received, mentors’ feelings about the role were also affected by their relationship with the student and whether mentoring had a positive effect on that relationship.

It was often the case that the more talented and committed to the early years a member of staff was perceived to be, the more likely employers were to make arrangements for accommodating WBL and attendance at college that were beneficial to the employee. (Taylor et al. 2006, p. 12)

In addition, feelings about how rewarding it was to help a student, the amount of time they had available to devote to the role and views about the personal benefits of taking on the role also impacted on their perception. Taylor et al.identifyatri-partitetypology.First,the‘reactivementor’:availableasandwhenneeded;someinthisgroupwerecontent not to be proactive, while others thought that they should be doing more although they were unclear what that would involve. Second, the ‘pastoral mentor’: who see the role as primarily to provide pastoral support and were proactive in providing it. Often such mentors were also studying for the EYSEFD themselves. Third, the ‘quality control mentor’: viewed the role as overseeing the quality of the student’s work, were proactive and constructively critical. Such mentors were usually more qualified than the EYSEFD student and had a higher position in the organisation, seeing the mentoring role as an extension of their line-management role.

Burgess&SheltonMayes(2007) also examined, on the basis of a small sample of 34 schoolteachers, the role that class teachers play as mentors in the training of teaching assistants as opposed to mentoring trainee teachers.

Benefer (2007) claimed that mentoring is a crucial element of Foundation degrees and a key factor in retaining students on work-based learning awards and to involving employers. Benefer argued that the allocation of workplace mentors enables the employer to take an active part in the student’s learning, a feature noted by Wilson et al. (2005, p. 119) in their account of the Foundation degree in Health and Social Care at Bradford:

A mentor in the workplace…helps the student to identify their individual learning needs, apply knowledge to practice and act as a resource for the student’s development.

Benefer described the in-company mentoring at JCB as fitting the philosophy spirit of Foundation degrees. The mentor meets with the college tutor, the student employee and JCB training manager to plan three-month placements within the company. Assignment dates are schedules and the assessment tasks are matched to the employee’s day-to-day work activities.

Stinton (2007) found that work-based learning was, in most cases, the responsibility of the course tutor and only 29% of questionnaire respondents indicated that their institution provided any workplace mentor training. Maximum employer support occurs when the employer is involved in work-based learning coordination, when there is a dedicated work-based learning coordinator or when workplace mentor training is provided. Stinton (2007 p. 30), thus, recommended that some form of workplace mentor training should be provided as, ‘in cases where this does occur, employers were reported as being supportive and more engaged in work-based learning generally’.

Edmond et al. (2007, p. 176) pointed out that role conflict may be a feature of the workplace mentor: for example, line management and learning support priorities may be in conflict.

An important aspect of course development has therefore been the development of explicit learning contracts and agreements including the role of workplace mentors with partner employers. The difficulty is that in practice such agreements are somewhat rhetorical in nature with little in the way of sanctions for transgressions and it is difficult to enforce the agreements in the interest of the student and their learning when the employer does not abide by the agreement or the mentor is less than supportive.

6


70

The respondents in Wareing’s (2008) small-scale pilot study expressed concerns about mentoring, which led him to question the nature of the mentoring relationship in Foundation degrees. One respondent talked about having ‘five minutes at the end of the shift’ with the work-place mentor. Only one of the five students had a more positive experience: ‘’They made sure that the activities that I was doing at the time complemented or suited the module that I was working on and so I got a lot support from them’ (Wareing, 2008, pp. 534—5).

Wareing raised an important point about the nature of workplace support. The five participants in this pilot study were all former Foundation degree students (awaiting graduation) and employed by the NHS in a variety of support worker roles within a hospital setting. Wareing adopted the concept of ‘communities of practice’, which suggests an apprenticeship-type model of the learner’s trajectory from the periphery to the core of the community. However, given that all participants had worked in the health and social care sector for many years:

…many participants indicated the value of their experience as FD students in relation to their future professional development, suggesting a commitment and deepening of their expertise rather than commencing the course as a novice which an apprenticeship model suggests. (Wareing, 2008, p. 536)

Wareing thus suggested that the data do not fit the ‘communities of practice’ approach, that there is a conflict in relation to a student relinquishing their role as a worker, being recognised and subsequently supported as an undergraduate in their own right. In essence this raised questions about the mentoring role. Wareing argued that Foundation degree work-based students (in nursing at least) require more than mentoring because of their prior work experience. They are not novice apprentices and the expectations about their role make it important that they are coached as well as mentored. Wareing claimed that Foundation degree students: ‘are distinct from other practice-based learners as they are not necessarily being prepared for practice, but for performance.’ He does not explain this distinction clearly, only infers, in the abstract that the distinction ‘rests on the observation that FD students are already immersed in practice and possess a wealth of experience to link to the underpinning knowledge gained from higher education’.

Wareing proposed that a different model of ‘coach-mentorship’ is required. Traditional models of mentorship emphasise self-development of the mentee, a teaching, role modelling or counselling role for the mentor and the interpersonal relationships based on trust. However, he pointed out that literature on work-based learning makes constant reference to coaching and the need to recognise and build on workplace learners’ experiences. Citing Clutterbuck and Megginson (2005), Wareing suggested that coaching is usually ‘associated with some form of performance change, while mentoring is more concerned with career self-management. Mentoring may involve the giving of practical advice (but not as a first option), whereas coaching can involve coaches having priorities and actions set for them’ (Wareing, 2008, p. 536). Wareing argues for mentoring to be replaced by mentor-coaching.

Mentoring may involve assistance in enlarging the learner’s networks, whereas coaching may focus on the immediate work context. Therefore, when coaching is incorporated into mentoring, there is a change in emphasis from something which is merely a role or responsibility to a reciprocal activity. Foster-Turner (2006) describes coach-mentoring as a developmental relationship ‘defined as planned or spontaneously arising relationship, through which an individual enhances their capacity to learn about themselves and their work context in order to act effectively within this. Within such relationships, individuals are encouraged to learn from the experience of existing and novel situations, drawing on, interpreting and integrating the information these present in order to support the development of new behaviours. (Wareing, 2008, p. 537)

Work-based learning

71

Assessment of students: the problem of assessing the work-based element

Assessment is a problem for work-based learning. Sometimes it is complicated to identify what it is that is to be assessed in the workplace. Sometimes employers, as noted, for example, by Stinton, (2007), are reluctant to play any role in assessment towards the qualification. The QAA (2005a, para. 67) review of Foundation degrees indicated that assessment was an area of good practice or innovation in just a few cases. However, there is little research that has tackled this issue in detail.

Edmond et al. (2007) noted that, at Brighton, the use of the workplace as a site of assessment is managed differently depending on the workplace culture, the resource implications and the availability of appropriately qualified staff to undertake such assessments.

the capacity of employers to be involved in the assessment is constrained by existing work place assessment regimes. Where work-place staff have both the training and the time to undertake assessment as part of their management role (in youth work and associated contexts for example), such assessment can be incorporated into the FD assessment regime. Where they do not exist or do not exist uniformly across a sector (such as in the Early Years Sector), then the cost of enabling such assessment, within the budget of the FD, can become prohibitive. (Edmond et al., 2007, p. 176)

Walsh (2007) suggested that academics whose background has been in formal teaching, and who find it difficult to shift to the perspective that is necessary to effectively support work-based students, would benefit from adopting Biggs’ concept of constructive alignment when they are required to engage with the evaluation and assessment of work-based learning.

Solkin (2006) addressed the issue of assessment of the work-based component of a Foundation degree. His analysis starts from the premise that assessment is a major driver for students and that they often use the assessment process to define what it is they should learn from the programme of study. Further, assessment in the workplace is normally associated with the process of performance management, which involves varying proportions of development and reward. The small study undertaken by Solkin (2006, p. 150) is described grandiosely:

…as mixed in that it seeks to combine two different methodological positions or discourses—regulatory positivism (in the form of a questionnaire) with a more discursive or interpretive approach (using focus groups and students’ own reflective assignments).

Basically, some in-depth questioning was combined with responses to a questionnaire from a convenience sample of students on a Foundation degree in public service management at a single institution. The data is ‘derived from over 12 full-time and part-time’ students, although it is not clear how many ‘over 12’ actually represents.

Solkin reported that the perception of theory and knowledge within the work place did not match academic perspectives.

Learners received recognition not from theory but through their knowledge of other organisations’ practice. This preference for practical or case-based knowledge could be expressed explicitly but more often was seen as part of a culture which perceives theory as abstract or irrelevant to day to day management practice. Pragmatic knowledge was seen as more available and useful to practising managers and therefore preferred by workbased assessment systems. (Solkin, 2006, p. 151)

6


72

The research revealed two parallel and interlinked approaches to assessment: a formal system with a regular appraisal cycle and a day-to-day informal system. The formal process consisted of target setting translated into group and personal objectives, although there are difficulties in mapping these onto managerial roles or activities. Usually, such targets provided a broad context within which individual performance is assessed rather than any specific measures or criteria. This contrasted with the other aspect of the formal system, the annual appraisal system, which involved a periodic review of performance focused on the individual and ‘although service targets were used to derive annual objectives, space was also provided to include personal objectives in the form of learning or development needs’ (Solkin, 2006, p. 153). Learners also identified a diverse range of informal processes that informed day-to-day decision-making.

The criteria for judging effectiveness varied according to the task, the job or role, and the location of the assessor. Perceptions of competence or effectiveness were distributed across a network or community of practice and the extent to which judgements could be made varied with the location of both performer and assessor. Although gender and ethnicity were not directly cited as significant components in this process, work status (grade and length of service) and sometimes location within the organisation were highlighted as affecting the perceived validity of judgements. (Solkin, 2006, p. 153)

Some learners were ‘reluctant to demonstrate competence based on academic knowledge’ in an environment which preferred actual experience, which leads to choices about ‘the presentation of self in different contexts for different purposes’. Solkin (2006, pp. 154–6), thus, argued that his small study showed:

…a complex pattern of activities through which learners seek to manage themselves within the assessment processes. Far from being a simple act of integration or synthesis, learners choose what sorts of evidence they present about their competence and are careful about presenting themselves to different audiences for different purposes. Whilst there is some agreement that the processes of academic and work place assessment may share common elements, the selection of what, where and above all how to present different sorts of evidence is key to understanding how learners interact with assessment…What is actually presented by learners to the different parties may differ considerably according to the perceived purpose and outcomes of the process. Some elements of what is learned within higher education are deliberately not presented directly to the employer and the learner is therefore reliant on these being recognised and validated by the educational provider.

Dalrymple and Smith (2007, 2008) reported on an approach to assessment of students on a Foundation degree module in work-based education. They argued that the approach known as ‘the patchwork text’ had:

…proved particularly congenial to the cohort of mature students studying for this teaching qualification, many of whom were returning to formal education after many years’ absence and few of whom were immediately comfortable with the Higher Education setting. (Dalrymple and Smith, 2008, p. 47)

They argued that the approach, which effectively provides a range of writing experiences with the option to integrate approximately 50% into a summary identifying the key learning points, worked well for the professional dance-teachers who were the students on the course (Dalrymple and Smith, 2007). It enables ‘progressive induction into academic discourse by allowing students to explore critical and analytical writing by experimenting with different modes of reflective, narrative and discursive writing’ and that the methodology encourages ‘acculturation and progressive induction into the discursive practices that characterise Higher Education’ through writing tasks that ‘exhibit a progressive shift from descriptive writing to reflective, discursive and analytic writing’ (Dalrymple and Smith, 2008, p. 47).

Work-based learning

73

The student respondents indicated that the patchwork pedagogy aided their return to learning and helped the induction into higher education and that they appreciated the flexibility of the approach.

Having not studied for so many years, I was afraid to get back to learning in case I wasn’t capable and the fact that the ‘Patch’ is…flexible, not rigid as opposed to some of the other module assessments…. I think I have actually enjoyed the ‘Patches’ better (Interview One). (Dalrymple and Smith, 2008, p. 49)

The students were also of the view that the assessment process aided their conceptualisation, understanding and capacity for reflective practice, although how much this was due to the programme as a whole rather than the assessment per se was hard to judge from the reported comments.

The approach does place a premium on formative feedback, which suited the type of mature returner on the programme. Dalrymple and Smith (2008, pp. 52–53) concluded that:

It would appear that the Patchwork Text approach adopted for use in this module successfully achieved its goals of encouraging students to reflect increasingly critically on their own practice, to foster their sense of inclusion in the Higher Education community and to enable them to begin to use relevant theory to illuminate and inform their professional practice. Of the 19 students on the module, all completed successfully both module and programme, seven of them progressing on to further courses of study…. Students not only appreciated promptness of feedback in responding to their ‘patches’, but also perceived the advantages of the cumulative and progressive nature of the ‘patch’ process.

The approach seems to be beneficial, providing for formative as well as summative assessment and integrating the assessment into programme content. However, it does seem as though the students, in reflecting, placed considerable emphasis on the assessment process. Assessments also seemed to emphasise reflection on practice rather direct assessment of practice.

Summary

It has been suggested that work-based learning is at the core of Foundation degrees (to an extent that goes beyond the higher national qualification). However, work-based learning is in flux given that the workplace itself is in transition. Future work-based learning partnerships will be less hierarchical and the learner will become an equal partner alongside the employer and the provider.

However, there is a concern that a focus on work-based learning could reinforce gender stereotyping as Foundation degrees reflect gender divisions and reinforce the workplace status quo.

The 2004 briefing to Ministers commented on the underdeveloped guidance and lack of evident good practice in work-based learning.

• Employer involvement inwork-based learning, inpart,dependsontheir interest inandunderstandingof theFoundation degree and the level of confidence in the college delivering the programme.

• Employersaremorelikelytobepositiveaboutwork-basedlearningifitisstraightforwardtoarrangecoverforthe student, which often depends on the student’s role and seniority at work. Minimising absence of key staff, perhaps via the use of virtual learning, is important.

6


74

• Employerstendtosupportwork-basedlearningandrecognisetheimprovedorganisationalskills,criticalthinkingand confidence of Foundation degree students.

• Moststudentsappreciatedthevalueofthework-basedcomponentoftheirFoundationdegrees.

• Organisationofthework-basedlearningelementvaries.Itrangesfromworkelementscloselylinkedtothestudyprogramme, which also provide opportunities for skill development, through work-based elements that offer no opportunity for new development to disengaged periods of work unrelated to the study programme.

• Thereisconsiderablevariabilityinstudentexperienceandlevelsofsupportforwork-basedlearning.Successfulwork-based learning is characterised by the following:

• theFoundationdegreeisdeliveredinacollegewithastrongreputationforitsengagementwithemployersand a high degree of credibility in the sector

• thework-basedlearningelementisdelivered,inpart,ontheemployer’spremises,whichhelpstoensurethatwork-based learning and academic learning are integrated

• thecontentandassessmentisalignedwithbusinessneeds

• successful integration of theory and practice is enhanced by employers making explicit links betweenworkplace and classroom content

• thecollegeiscommittedtowork-basedlearningandtomeetingtheskillsneedsoflocalindustry

• theemployercontributestothedesignofthework-basedelementoftheprogramme

• theemployerprovidesreal‘live’projectsandassignmentstosupporttheassessmentoflearning

• company-basedmentoringsupportsandguidesstudentprogress

• stafffromthecollege,theuniversityandthecompanyworkasateamtoensurethequalityofthestudent’slearning experience

• thereislowstaffturnover;highturnovercanbedisruptiveandhaveamajoradverseimpactonthequalityoftheir work-based learning.

A key element of work-based learning is the support for learning in the workplace. Three types of mentor have been identified:the‘reactivementorwhoisavailableasandwhenneeded;the‘pastoralmentor’whoproactivelyofferspastoralsupport;the‘qualitycontrolmentor’whooverseesthequalityofthestudent’sworkand,atbest,ensuresthatassessment tasks are matched to the employee’s day-to-day work activities.

• Satisfactionwithmentorsisvariabledespitetheircrucialrole.Factorsthatimpactoneffectivenessare:

• clarityabouttheroleofthementor

• appropriatementortraining

• writteninformationexplainingtherole

• contactbetweenhighereducationinstitutionsandmentors

• timeavailabletomentorstospendsupportingstudents

• personalbenefitsthementorperceivesasaccruingfromundertakingtherole

• physicalproximityofmentorandstudent

• noroleconflict(e.g.,mentorisnotalsothelinemanager)

• relationshipwiththestudent.

Work-based learning

75

• Aminorityofinstitutionsappeartoprovideworkplacementortraining.Whereitdoesoccur,employerstendtobe more supportive and engaged in work-based learning.

• Manystudentsarenotnovicesbutareexperiencedandaredeepeningtheirknowledge,whichmentorsneedtoappreciate.

• Assessmentisaproblemforwork-basedlearning.Thereislittleresearchthathastackledthisissueindetail.

• Assessmentisamajordriverforstudents.

• Itisnotalwayseasytoidentifywhatitisthatistobeassessedintheworkplace.

• Academicswhosebackgroundhasbeeninformalteaching/lecturingoftenfinditdifficulttoeffectivelyassesswork-based learning.

• Employerstendnottogetinvolvedinsummative(academic)assessment.

• Employerinvolvementinassessmentisconstrainedbyexistingwork-placeassessmentrégimes,stafftrainingand the time to undertake assessment as part of their management role.

• Unlikeacademicassessment,assessmentintheworkplaceisnormallylinkedtoperformanceevaluationwithconsequent development and reward outcomes.

• Perceptionoftheoryandknowledgewithintheworkplacedoesnotnecessarilymatchacademicperspectives.Pragmatic knowledge may be seen as more useful and, therefore, preferred by work-based assessment systems. Learners may, in certain environments, be reluctant to demonstrate competence based on academic knowledge, leading to variable presentation of self.

• Assessmentinnovationssuchas‘thepatchworktext’havebeendemonstratedtobeusefulinsomesettings.

6


76

77

Student support and guidance

7

The 639 respondents on Jackson and Tunnah’s (2005) survey (see Section 5 for details) regarded information, advice and guidance as important. The most common source of information, advice and guidance were tutors (45%), who were highly rated, followed by the institution’s careers service (36%). Respondents preferred information, advice and guidance to be offered as part of their course (62%) with websites and printed material in equal second place, and the careers service fourth.

Sylvester et al. (2004) argued that it is vital to consider the learning and information support professionals when developing collaborations between further education and higher education. Such professionals, they state have an underpinning role in supporting the entire process of teaching and learning, and in ensuring a rich student experience.

Several practitioner studies and reflections reported in Forward reviewed support on specific programmes. They reinforced the need for flexible and tailored college-based support for learners.

Baker (2004, p. 11–12) reflected on experience at Thames Valley University and noted:

We have learnt through running the course [FdA Hospitality Management] that students need a support system that reflects their principal roles as an employee and as a student and is also responsive to life circumstances. We have realised that for this course, at present more than is required on traditional full time courses, Personal Tutors also need to be able to support career development plans through relevant industrial knowledge and experience…. Effective personal tutors have to be able to operate within academic systems and also have empathy and credibility within the employers’ environment.

Barber et al. (2006) noted that students need to be shown rather than just informed about support opportunities and learning resources. They seem to imply that this is particularly the case for Foundation degree students, although one


78

could infer that this is necessary for college-based students in general and/or mature returners. Barber et al. (2006) claimed that attitudinal factors discourage students ‘from seeking appropriate help until it is too late’. These factors include:

concernthataskingforsupportisatacitadmissionofacademicincompetence;afearthatafulldescriptionof individual anxieties or support needs will affect general perceptions of their competence, despite the College’spolicyonstudentconfidentiality;atendencytoignorepersonalmailingsandnotice-boards;and, in the case of information technology, what may be described as a fear of the unknown. For people returning to education in particular, the requirement to engage with ‘new’ technologies and online services such as e-mail and virtual learning environments can encourage a sense of dislocation and a tendency to feel marginalised. (Barber et al., 2006;p.32)

The authors argued that such anxieties are captured by the notion of being an ‘outsider in the academy’

This concept has profound relevance for many Foundation degree students who have the potential to create for themselves a vicious circle of underachievement if they persist in using the constructs of ‘academic’ or ‘non-academic’ to define themselves. (Barber et al., 2006;p.34).

In an attempt to demystify academia Bishop Grosseteste University College offered an Introduction to Higher Education session that introduced new students to the college’s learning support and e-learning co-ordinators, as well as course leaders. By showing rather than merely informing students, it was hoped they would be more likely to seek out appropriate help in a more timely fashion.

Sutcliffe’s (2005) approach to providing support was to analyse what the learners were going to have to do and the constraints experienced by the learner. Echoing Barber et al. (2006) Sutcliffe states:

A third important aspect to consider was how the learners would perceive the support provided and their experience of the support given. Support can be in place, however if the learners do not see this as useful or if they’ve had difficulty accessing this support, then the perceptions of support will be widely different between the learners and the providers. (Sutcliffe, 2005, p. 46)

Warner (2004) provided a detailed account of how Kingston College resource centre has developed approaches and liaisons with higher education partners to overcome the problem of resource access and availability for their Foundation degree students.

Wheeler et al. (2004) undertook a pilot study involving two tutors and 15 students on a distance education Foundation degree for classroom assistants. They argued that tutorial support is vital in distance education and that there is a need to reduce perceived distance between student and the course and that the tutor should facilitate transactional presence (Shin, 2003) if the online course is to be a success. The students were mainly mature females and the authors recognised that:

mature students returning to study after protracted absence tend to experience difficulties in readjusting. This is not merely a problem with academic study. The acquisition of new practical learning skills, particularly those related to the use of online materials, word processing, internet search, e-mail communication and presentational software, are also important for contemporary learners to acquire. (Wheeler et al., 2004, p. 4)

Tutorial support is a vital component of online study and it needs to be there when needed by the student. One student


79

commented: ’…the feedback being received quickly was a definite advantage and gave me the encouragement to start the next unit’ (Wheeler et al., 2004, p. 5).

The authors claimed that the pilot showed that tutorial support, offered sensitively, can reduce elements of transactional distance (Moore, 1973) ‘by providing a richness of dialogue that would otherwise be missing from the distance learning experience’. (Wheeler et al., 2004, p. 6)

Tutor support was not the only important type of support. Peer support was also a consideration and as one student commented:

It was suggested at the outset that we should ‘buddy up’ with another student. This proved invaluable. The fact that someone was out there to support (me) was important. At times, online learning can be very solitary. It made a difference that they were at the end of a telephone line. (Wheeler et al., 2004, p. 6)

Bold (2008) also reported a study of peer-support groups. Twenty part-time first year Foundation degree students and two tutors in an English higher education institutions engaged in an internally-funded collaborative action research project. This mini-project appeared to be successful as one tutor noted:

I do believe that the peer-support group process has encouraged student engagement with deeper learning approaches and therefore the students have remained on the programme. Students have also indicated in their reflective evaluation that they recognise a change in their attitude towards their studies; they need to prioritise, give time and reflect-on-practice retrospectively. One studentcommented that she now recognises that writing is not just for the course but also for her professional development. This was an important change in perspective. (Bold, 2008, p. 264)

However, this research seems to be more about peer support per se than about its efficacy for Foundation degree students. No conclusions are made specifically germane to Foundation degrees.

Walton et al. (2007) reported a small-scale project to introduce audio discussion tools into a Foundation degree programme, at Edge Hill University, designed for teaching support staff. The audio discussion tool allows the recording of messages from student or staff that can be played back at anytime, thus providing an asynchronous oral environment for support. The tools also have a facility for synchronous remote discussion.

Walton et al. (2007, p, 32) state:

An extremely important reason for developing the use of audio conferencing was to meet the needs of students who lacked the writing or typing skills required to fully collaborate with his or her peers on particular tasks. By effectively using an audio conferencing tool all students were able to participate fully and collaborate fluently. The students’ replies were longer and more detailed than on the message board, as no typing was required and this allowed for more continuity of any discussions taking place.

The implication, given this was used on a Foundation degree, is that part-time distance learners on such degrees lack writing ability not to mention typing proficiency. The authors provide no indication as to how they know about this lack. It may be that, as in many other cases, the use of written discussion sites does not encourage engagement from students rather than that the students are incapable of using it.

A majority of the 15 students who responded to the evaluation questionnaire indicated that the audio discussion tool was useful and would like to use it on other modules. There were some technological problems but these were

7


80

mostly overcome. They all appreciated the fact that messages could be re-recorded which removed the pressure of composing any verbal messages.

Most students, however, would like more opportunity for synchronous discussion and students appreciated the opportunity to use the audio chat facility to discuss assignment guidance and advice from the tutor. As one student said ‘I really preferred the real-time communication, rather than just using the message board. I like speaking to the tutor in relation to my work’ (Walton et al., 2007, p. 34).

None of the results about the underlying support preferences of distance learners is at all surprising as this reflects four decades of experience at the Open University. There seems to be an element of reinventing wheels. Distance learners may be remote but they do not want to be detached. Distance learners appreciate the opportunity to meet periodically to discuss the learning process, as much as course content. E-mail provides a very useful form of rapid asynchronous dialogue but distance learners have always wanted the opportunity for synchronous communication. In the past, it was telephone conversations with tutors and that is now complemented by various devices such as webinars, audio tools and social networks.

Summary

There is relatively little research on support and guidance for students.

• One review suggested that learning and information support professionals should be considered whendeveloping collaborations between further education and higher education.

• Studentsregardinformation,adviceandguidanceasimportant.However,therearemixedfeelingsabouthowand when it is available.

• Formanystudentsinformation,adviceandguidancecomesfromtutorsandcareersservices.Thereisapreferenceto have this rather more embedded in the course.

• Students need to be shown rather than just informed about support opportunities and learning resources.Students may consider seeking help to be an admission of failure.

• Studentsdonottendtorespondwelltoimpersonalcommunicationrelatedtosupport.Audiodiscussiontoolscan be effective in aiding asynchronous discussion but students prefer to talk directly to tutors.

• Supportcanbeinplacebutifthelearnersdonotseethisasusefulorifitisdifficulttoaccessthentheyarelesslikely to use of value it.

• Effective personal tutors have to be able to operate within academic systems and also have empathy andcredibility within the employers’ environment.

• Tutorial support isvital indistanceeducationandthat there isaneedto reduceperceiveddistancebetweenstudent and the course.

• Whatevidencethereis,suggeststhatpeersupportisregardedasvaluablebystudentsandeffectivebylecturers.

• Specificproblemsofaccessingsupportmayresult fromFoundationdegreestudentsregardingthemselvesas‘outsiders in the academy’ and using the constructs of ‘academic’ or ‘non-academic’ to define themselves.’


81

Programme design, development and pedagogy

8

There are lots of accounts of programme design and curriculum development on both specific courses and generic programmes but these do not contain much research content. The following gives a flavour of the types of documents relating to Foundation degrees and then addresses the few rather more research-based studies. In general, though, there is a paucity of substantive pedagogic research targeted at Foundation degrees.

On a generic level, the brief guide by Herde and Rohr (2005) provided an overview of the Foundation degree and advised on a framework for its development and delivery.

At a sector level there are, for example, various proposals in the health and social care area ranging from the generic to specific programmes. A review by Cullen and Mills (2005) led to a recommendation about what needed to be common across all Foundation degrees in health and social care, which included the development of an accreditation approach for work-based learning across the South West. This was paralleled in a report by Chaney et al. (2005) identifying a common core curriculum and accreditation framework for Foundation degrees in health and social care and the subsequent Skills for Health (2006) framework for Foundation degrees in the health sector. Conner and McKnight (2003) provided a description of the development of a Foundation degree in cardiothoracic health care. Priestly and Selfe (2003) reported on a pilot Foundation degree in health and social care at the University of Bradford, noting that it provides a structure for continuing professional development although arguing that funding might be better aligned to health funding. Chambers et al. (2005) described a two-stage consultative exercise used with health-care practitioners in the development of a Foundation degree in health and social care at the University of Central Lancashire. More recently, Pratt (2008) discussed how Newham University Hospital NHS Trust had successfully introduced the new role of clinical assistant practitioner.

There are a couple of rather more general analyses, for example, Johnston (2005) argued that curriculum development in vocational education, including Foundation degrees, as currently practiced, does not appear to have much in


82

common with the liberal and radical traditions in adult education. He asserted that the liberal tradition ‘stresses a commitment to a dialectical form of teaching, a negotiated curriculum and critical thinking (Taylor, 1996)’ and the radical tradition ‘embraces a problem-posing approach to education (Freire, 1972), an engagement with ‘really useful knowledge’, which is essentially political knowledge…and a commitment to listen actively to the ‘voices’ of a range of different, excluded groups’ (Johnston, 2005, p. 1). The idea of negotiating the curriculum and critique is central to both traditions but this appears to be lacking in the current higher education setting where provision is ‘increasingly geared to the needs of industry’ and knowledge is often defined by ‘specific vocational competences and linked to key (vocational) skills’. (Johnston, 2005, p. 1)

However, he argued that the Foundation degree, with its emphasis on widening participation, provides potential to accommodate a negotiated curriculum within the directive approach to vocational training. He described a case study of the development and negotiation of the curriculum of one particular Foundation degree in community development and concluded that Foundation degrees do offer scope for negotiating the curriculum. The development took two years, seemed initially to be overly concerned with skills but, in the case of community development, at least, where the ‘employers tended to be small, diverse and often non corporate, not very hierarchical organizations so the effect was that the distinction between employer and practitioner was relatively small’ (Johnston, 2005, p.2) it was possible to link the practical with the critical through the negotiation process. A key stage was the setting up of a curriculum development group that ‘met 6 times over about 6 months and provided for me an extended opportunity to negotiate the curriculum that was unique in my experience of Higher Education’ Indeed, Johnston (2005, p.4) noted:

In briefly reflecting back on this part of the negotiation process, it was perhaps the most creative and most productive part of the whole negotiation, engaging with and trying to accommodate the views of a wide range of practitioners and employers, working to achieve a common agreement about the relationship of practice to theory and having in-depth discussions about the curriculum.

For Johnston (2005, p.6), the negotiation process was effective in going beyond ‘non-participation’ and ‘manipulation’ albeit not hitting the heights of ‘citizen control or delegated power’. However,

somewhere in the middle there were clear elements, in ascending order, of informing, consultation, placation and even partnership with a range of different groups and individuals. Perhaps not a highly revolutionary process but still a longer-term and more participatory process of curriculum negotiation for a formal university award than the usual approach which could best be described as being based on normative, expertist ideas of need.

Madell (2006), drawing on his exploration of public- and private-sector focused Foundation degrees, argued that the type of industrial sector is not necessarily a factor influencing success of a Foundation degree. His recommendations for success include the following.

• Dolocaleducationalinstitutionsalreadyrunalowerqualificationinthepotentialsubjectofinterest?Ifso,theremay be a market for the programme as this will allow such students to develop their skills to a higher level.

• EnsurethattheFDhasaclearfocus,andcoversawell-definedemploymentarea.Atthesametime,ensurethatitis flexible enough to cater for emerging aims….

• Allowforthecostofcurriculumdevelopment….• EnsurethatadequateteachingstaffareavailabletodelivertheFD.Itmaybebesttokeeptuitiongroupssmall

so that FD students can receive adequate support and build good relationships with their tutors. This may be especially important as FD students may have been out of education for many years.


83

• Aswellassufficientteachingstaff,considerhowmanyothertypesofstaffwillneedtoberecruitedtosupporttheFD. Finances should allow for steering groups, administration staff and project officers.

• UseonlinedeliveryandstudysupportfortheFDwherepossible.Bearinmindthatsomestudentsmayneedextrasupport…

• ProvideadescriptionofthelearningoutcomesfortheFD,anduseassessmentmethodstoensurethattheseareachieved.

• EnsurethatthereisscopeforstudentstoprogresstoahigherqualificationoncetheyhavecompletedtheirFD.Ifthey cannot progress at the same institution, ensure availability for students to progress at a linked institution in the nearby area. (Madell, 2006, pp. 59–60)

This leads on to the relatively few studies that explore pedagogy specifically in relation to Foundation degrees.

Pedagogy and innovation

Sometimes Foundation degrees are just the site of pedagogical research. For example, Bold’s (2008) study of the extent to which peer support groups foster deeper approaches to learning. The encouragement of reflection was not specifically on work experience. Foundation degree students seem to be a convenient subject group for the research. There is no attempt, for example, to suggest that this kind of supported reflection is more or less apposite for Foundation degrees. Subsequent discussion of the advantages of peer support did not allude to the Foundation degree, which was only mentioned once near the start of the substantive article.

In similar vein, Doyle (2007) developed his analysis of learner-managed learning using a Foundation degree as fertile ground for research. He too was more concerned with the learning process, in this case a critique of ‘independent’ learning, than the applicability to Foundation degrees, despite the subtitle. However, the study is at least rooted in an aspect that defines Foundation degrees, that of work-based learning. The study concluded that the term ‘independent’ is misleading as the learning process is the result of reflective dialogues. However, it does draw on a case study and elaborated a curriculum model for a Foundation degree in community governance. Drawing on Dewey’s pragmatism and assertions about learning through work, Doyle suggested that peer learning and reflection could have a stronger role and as such linked the research rather more closely to work-based learning than does Bold (2008), albeit not welding it to Foundation degrees per se.

Similarly, Jackson (2008) explored the relationship between experiential learning and gestalt theory, using HND and Foundation degree students as the subjects of a study. The key relevance specifically to Foundation degrees is the argument that:

…learning by, through and from experience is not a measurable shift in physical output, although this may well come later, but is an internal shift in cognitive processes. An ultimate aim being that of transferring skills and knowledge learnt to solve problems of a similar nature. This emphasis on transferable skills is particularly relevant on a Higher National Diploma/Foundation Degree course in which extensive coursework demands, such as to achieve vocational integration, academic awareness and personal development skills, require a keen emphasis on self-initiation in order to succeed. (Jackson, 2008, p. 64)

Sheard and Golby (2006) also reported an innovative technique used with Foundation degree students. Their study examined the claim that outdoor adventure education develops desirable psychological characteristics in

8


84

participants. Fifty-two students (26 outdoor adventure education students, 26 controls on an unrelated course), aged 16–39 years, completed a battery of positive psychological questionnaires (at the start of their respective courses and three months later) measuring hardiness, mental toughness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, dispositional optimism, and positive affectivity. The outdoor adventure education curriculum activities included rock-climbing, navigation training, countryside leadership, and canoeing. Control students were enrolled on a classroom-based travel and tourism college course. Multivariate analysis showed no significant difference on most constructs except for hardiness. No significant gender differences were reported.

Most other accounts of the teaching and learning on Foundation degrees, as has been illustrated above, tends to be descriptions of aspects of the programme, be it the use of workshops, information technology innovations, peer assessment or whatever. There tends to be no pedagogic research attempted to show how these different teaching approaches may or may not be appropriate to Foundation degree students.

Summary

Although there are many accounts of programme design and curriculum development these have little research content. Sometimes Foundation degrees are just the site of pedagogical research.

• Curriculum development inwork-based learning appears to be geared to the needs of industry rather thanupholding critical traditions, however, the Foundation degree, with its emphasis on widening participation, provides potential to accommodate a negotiated curriculum within the directive approach to vocational training.

• Curriculumdevelopmentneeds tobeaparticipativeandnegotiatedprocess taking intoaccountallpartnersrather than being determined by ‘experts’ (usually located in the university).

• Curriculumdevelopmentneedstobeflexibleandallowforemergingaims.

• Resourcesandtimeshouldbemadeavailabletosupportcurriculumdevelopment.

• Peersupportandpeerlearningcouldhaveastrongerroleinwork-basedlearning.

• The emphasis on transferable skills on Foundation degrees and the integration of academic awareness andpersonal development skills place an emphasis on self-initiation, which needs to be aided by appropriate pedagogic models.


85

9

The review suggests various areas that would benefit from more systematic research. As has been demonstrated, research on Foundation degrees, like other areas of education research, is characterised by a proliferation of micro-studies, which although useful for practitioners do not aggregate well into general pictures and tend to provide localised aids to improvement. The following research agenda would benefit from substantive structured national-level research.

Suggested research areas

Withdrawal: Foundation degrees exhibit a wide variety of withdrawal rates. A national study that examines the factors that lead to different rates of withdrawal would seem appropriate.

Articulation: articulation to bachelor degrees also varies from programme to programme. Undertake a study that examines the factors that lead to different rates of articulation, taking into account intention to articulate and career possibilities. To what extent do Foundation degree graduates articulate to the linked bachelor programme or to another programme and what determines the choice?

Transition: the process of transition to bachelor’s degree has been shown to be difficult for some Foundation degree students. Four interrelated aspects of this warrant extra study.

• First,whattypesofstudentsinwhatcircumstancesfindthetransitiondifficult?Factorstoconsiderincludeage,gender, family responsibilities, work sector, mode of study, nature of work, location of Foundation degree and location of associated bachelors, articulation to expected or another bachelor programme.

• Second,whatare the intrinsic characteristicsof Foundationdegreesandofbachelordegrees thatmaymaketransition problematic and, hence, what can each learn from the other in relation to pedagogy, assessment and student support?

Research agenda


86

• Third,whateffectivepracticeisthereinFECsandHEIsthataidsasmoothtransitiontobachelordegrees?• Fourth,whathavebeentheoutcomesofarticulationtobachelordegreesforstudentsandhowdotheycompare

to standard bachelor degree students? What proportion has succeeded? What proportion has gone on to further study? What proportion has attained a graduate job and is this quicker or slower (by sector) than standard bachelor graduates.

Employer expectations: a systematic national study of the extent to which Foundation degrees meet employer expectations of skills development, by sector, would address some of the ambiguities in the statements by employers about the value of Foundation degrees.

Collaboration: building on the array of recommendations for effective collaboration in developing and implementing Foundation degree programmes, identify the factors that make for a successful three-way collaboration between HEIs, colleges and employers. Explore these issues in detail, not only by sector but also by size and type of higher education institution(s), number of college partners, size and number of companies involved. Pay attention to the involvement and commitment of employers and the role of professional bodies. In particular, aim to understand the specific mechanisms by which organisations learn to co-operate with one another.

Employer engagement: associated with this is a need to explore further how to encourage employers to make a contribution to the design of Foundation degrees. There are various suggestions in this review, including meeting local or regional needs and relating to professional body requirements. However, explore two things.

• First,whatarethedriversthatmotivateemployerstobeinvolved?Areemployersbeingcajoledintolessthanwholehearted involvement?

• Second,what are themechanisms for involvement that are employer friendly?Do institutions (colleges anduniversities) adopt development practices that encourage or enable employer involvement or are they tending to adopt established educational processes in designing programmes?

Subsidy: to what extent have Foundation degrees acted as a subsidy to employers (who would otherwise have funded workforce development) and to what extent have Foundation degrees enabled work-force development that would not have otherwise have occurred?

Workplace progression: a systematic study, by sector, of the impact on the work situation of successful completion of a Foundation degree, in both the short and the long-term, on change in responsibilities, status, salary and promotion would have a high priority. How else have students benefited from the Foundation degree?

Status of Foundation degree: perception of the value Foundation degree as a qualification. Explore the views of employers (by sector), university academics and admission officers (by type of institution), potential students (by type of school attended, socio-economic group, family history of engagement in higher education) and current students (by mode of study).

Student experience: build on the various accounts of the student experience (by programme area) to establish the key issues and potential areas of effective practice and improvement of institutional processes. Suggest appropriate and beneficial pedagogic and assessment practices, course organisational arrangements, student support and utilisation of information technology.

Assessing work-based learning: the assessment of work-based learning continues to be a tricky issue and one that research has had little impact on other than suggesting localised useful practices. An examination, by sector, of what is being assessed in work-based learning, how it is effectively assessed and how students present self in relation to college-based and work-based learning and the interrelationship between the two.

Research agenda

87

AbbreviationsAPEL Accreditation of prior experiential learningCHERI Centre for Higher Education Research and InformationCPD Continuing professional developmentDfEE Department for Education and EmploymentDfES Department for Education and SkillsDIUS Department for Innovation, Universities and SkillsEY Early yearsEYSEFD Early Years Sector Endorsed Foundation degreeFD/Fd Foundation degreefdf Foundation Degree ForwardFDHSC Foundation degree in Health and Social CareFEC/ /CFE Further education collegeFEDA Further Education Development AgencyGCE General Certificate of EducationHEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for EnglandHE Higher EducationHESA Higher Education Statistics AgencyHNC Higher National CertificateHND Higher National DiplomaNVQ National Vocational QualificationQAA Quality Assurance Agency for Higher EducationTA Teaching AssistantWBL Work-based learning


88

ReferencesPart 1: Items reviewed

Ainley, P., 2003. Towards a seamless web or a new tertiary tripartism? The emerging shape of post-14 education and training in England. British Journal of Educational Studies. 51(4), 290–407.

Appleton, L., 2006. Perceptions of electronic library resources in further education. The Electronic Library. 24(5), 619–34.

Bainbridge, A., 2005. Investigating the gender discourse for mature women on a Foundation degree programme. Paper presented at 5th Annual SCUTREA Conference, University of Sussex, England, July 5-7 2005.

Baker, S., 2004. An approach to embedding personal development within Foundation degrees: A discussion of the approach used on the FdA Hospitality Management at Thames Valley University. Forward. 1, 10–12. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal1.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Barber, D., Richardson, L. and Taylor, C., 2006. An introduction to higher education: Supporting the needs of Foundation degree students. Forward. 10, 32–34. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal10.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Beaney, P. (Ed.), 2006. Researching Foundation Degrees: Linking research and practice. Lichfield: fdf

Bedford, J. Goddard, G., Obadan, F. and Mowat, P., 2006. How gaining higher level teaching assistant status impacts on the teaching assistant’s role in English schools. Management in Education. 20, 6–10.

Benefer, R., 2007. Engaging with employers in work-based learning: A Foundation degree in applied technology. Education and Training. 49(3), 210–217.

Bennett, S. and Marsh, D., 2003. Widening participation and e-learning: Meeting the challenge within a Foundation degree. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning. 5(3), 7–9.

Besley, S., 2004. Foundation Degree Task Force Report to Ministers. Policy briefing. London: Edexcel.

Blom, A. and Snape, D., 2004a. Evaluation of the Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree: Report of the Baseline Student Survey. London: NatCen.

Blom, A. and Snape, D., 2004b. Evaluation of the Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree: Statistical Profile of Students and Institutions. London: NatCen.

Bold, C., 2004. Supporting Learning and Teaching: Foundation degree texts. London: David Fulton.

Bold, C. 2008. Peer support groups: fostering a deeper approach to learning through critical reflection on practice. Reflective Practice. 9(3), 257–267.

Bowers-Brown, T., 2006. Widening participation in higher education amongst students from disadvantaged socio-economic groups. Tertiary Education and Management. 12(1), 59–74.

Bowers-Brown, T and Harvey, L., 2004. Are there too many graduates in the UK? A literature review and an analysis of graduate employability. Industry and Higher Education. 18(4), 243–54.

Bowers-Brown, T. and Berry, D., 2005. Building pathways: apprenticeships as a route to higher education. Education and Training. 47 (4/5), 270ff.

Brain, K., Layer, G. and Reid, I., 2004. Solid bedrock or shifting sands? The risky business of laying foundations. Journal of Access Policy and Practice. 1(2), 134–150.

Brown, B.A., Harte, J. and Warnes A-M., 2007. Developing the health care workforce: a comparison of two work-based learning models. Education and Training, 49(3),193–200.

Burgess, H and Shelton Mayes, A., 2007. Supporting the professional development of teaching assistants: classroom teachers’ perspectives on their mentoring role. The Curriculum Journal. 18(3), 389–407.

Caller, T., 2005. What do local sixth form students think of Foundation degrees and vocational qualifications? Forward. 7, 16–18. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal10.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Canter, M., 2006. Foundation degrees: The development of best practice. CEBE Transactions. 3(1), 23–51.

Chambers, A., Cochrane, A., Duffy, A., Harrison, L., Ingman, E., Stewart, H. and Selfe, J., 2005. Development of a foundation degree in health and social care. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation. 12(6), 243–48.

89

Chaney, G., Callaghan, L., Moore, L., and Taylor, G., 2005. Building Common Foundations Full Report: Identifying a common core curriculum and accreditation framework for Foundation degrees in Health and Social Care. Exeter: HERDA-SW.

Conner, T. and McKnight, J., 2003. Workforce transformations: building firm foundations. Nursing Management – UK. 10(7), 24–26.

ConstructionSkills, 2008. Foundation Degrees in the Construction Sector: Analysis of the views of key stakeholders. Final Report, June 2008. Lichfield: fdf.

Coombs, S. and Denning, A.S., 2006. Designing work-based and distance learning policy for university professional learning programmes. Paper presented at the International Professional Development Association Annual Conference, Stirling Management Centre, University of Stirling, Scotland,1-2 December 2006.

Craig, J., 2004. Working with employers: making partnership a reality. Forward. 1, 13–14. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal1.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Cullen, J. and Mills, R., 2005. Building Common Foundations Full Report: identifying a common core curriculum and accreditation framework for Foundation degrees in health and social care. Exeter: HERDA-SW. Available at: www.herda-sw.ac.uk/whatwedo/PastProjects/NHSU/tabid/153/Default.aspx [accessed 25 June 2009].

Cullen, J. and Mills, R., undated. Widening Participation to Higher Education in the East of England: A review of recent regional and national research. Cambridge, Centre for Educational Research and Development, St Edmund’s College, Cambridge.

Dalrymple, R. and Smith, P., 2007. The choreographed assessment: an application of the Patchwork Text. In Fanghanel, J. and Warren, D. (Eds.) International Conference on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (2005 and 2006). London: CEAP, City University.

Dalrymple, R. and Smith, P., 2008. The Patchwork Text: enabling discursive writing and reflective practice on a foundation module in work-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 45(1), 47–54.

de Caestecker, S., 2008. Developing a Foundation degree in palliative and supportive care. Forward. 12, 35–37. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal12.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), 2000. Foundation Degrees. London: Department for Education and Employment.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2003a. The Future of Higher Education. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2003b. Meeting the Need FOR Higher Level Skills—Foundation Degrees. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Innovation Universties and Skills (DIUS), 2007. World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch review of skills in England. Available at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/skillsstrategy/uploads/documents/World%20Class%20Skills%20FINAL.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Dixon, J., Tripathi, S., Sanderson, A., Gray, C., Rosewall, I. and Sherriff, I., 2005. Accessible higher education: meeting the challenges of HE in FE. Forward. 6, 34–38. Available at: http://www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal6.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Dodgson, R. and Whitam, H., 2005. Learner Experience of Foundation Degrees in the North East of England: Access, support and progression.

Sunderland: Aimhigher North East/Universities for North East.

Doyle, M., 2003a. A reflexive critique of learner managed learning: an emerging curriculum model or a foundation degree. Available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002420.doc [accessed 25 June 2009].

Doyle, M., 2003b. Discourses of employability and empowerment: foundation degrees and ‘third way’ discursive repertoires. Discourse. 24(3), 275–288. Available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002421.htm [accessed 25 June 2009].

Doyle, M., 2006. Foundation degree and partnership approaches to curriculum development and delivery. In: Beaney, P. (Ed.), 2006. Researching Foundation Degrees: Linking research and practice. Lichfield: fdf

Doyle, M., 2007. A reflexive critique of learner-managed learning: An emerging curriculum model for a foundation degree. Reflective Practice. 8(2), 193–207.

Doyle, M. and O’Doherty, E., 2006. Foundation degrees and widening participation: earning, learning and public sector modernisation. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning. 8(1), 4–13.

Dunne, L., Goddard, G. and Woodhouse, C., 2008a. Mapping the changes: a critical exploration into the career trajectories of teaching assistants who undertake a foundation degree. Journal of Vocational Education and Training. 60(1), 49–59.

Dunne, L., Goddard, G. and Woodhouse, C., 2008b. Starting a Foundation degree: teaching assistants self-perceptions of their personal and professional identities. Paper presented at SCUTREA 2008, 38th Annual Conference. In: Crowther, J., Edwards, V., Galloway, V., Shaw M. and Tett, T. (Eds.), 2008. SCUTREA 2008, 38th Annual Conference, Whither Adult Education in the Learning Paradigm? 2–4 July 2008 Conference Proceedings. Edinburgh: Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh in co-operation with The Standing Conference of University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults (SCUTREA).

Edge Foundation, 2008. The VQ Landscape 2008: A review of vocational qualification achievements in the UK 23 July 2008. Available at: www.edge.co.uk [accessed 12 January 2009].

Edmond, N., Gill, M., Hurley, L., and Price, M., 2005. Foundation degrees for CPD: an emerging model. Paper presented at University of Brighton CLT Conference, July 2005.

Edmond, N., Hillier, Y. and Price, M., 2007, Between a rock and a hard place: the role of HE and foundation degrees in workforce development. Education + Training. 49(3), 170–81.

Evans, K., Guile, D. and Harris, J., 2009. Putting Knowledge to Work: Integrating work-based and subject-based knowledge in intermediate level qualifications and work upskilling. London: WLE Centre, Institute of Education.

fdf, undated. Good Practice in the Marketing of Foundation Degrees: A research-based guide for practitioners. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/fdf_publications/publications_for_providerscourse_developers [accessed 25 June 2009].

Foreman-Peck, L. and Middlewood, D, 2005. Moving Forward with Foundation Degrees: Researching employer demand for Foundation degrees in the East Midlands. Loughborough: East Midlands Universities Association.


90

Foskett, R., 2003. Employer and needs-led curriculum planning in higher education: A cross-sector case study of foundation degree development Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11–13 September 2003. Available at www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003182.doc [accessed 25 June 2009].

Foskett, R., 2005a. Collaborative partnership in the higher education curriculum: A cross sector study of Foundation degree development. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 10(3), 351¬–72.

Foskett, R., 2005b. Collaborative partnership between HE and an employer: a case study of workforce development for guide dog mobility instructors. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 16-18 September 2004. Available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003677.htm [accessed 12 January 2009].

Foundation Degree Support Team, 2002. Types of Foundation Degree: A case study approach. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Foundation Degree Task Force, 2002. Foundation Degree National Event. No publication details.

Foundation Degree Task Force/Department for Education and Skills, 2004. Foundation Degree Task Force Report to Ministers. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.

Foundation Direct (2008). The Impact of Foundation Degrees: The student experience, Final Report. Foundation Direct University of Portsmouth for fdf. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.

Fuller A., 2001. Credentialism, adults and part-time higher education in the United Kingdom: an account of rising take up and some implications for policy. Journal of Education Policy. 16(3), 233–248.

Gibbs, P., 2001. Is the market ready for foundation degrees? Higher Education Review, 34(1), 19–32.

Gibbs, P., 2002a. Marketing Issues for non-degree United Kingdom higher education: The case of foundation degrees. Journal of Vocational Education and Training. 54(2), 237–48.

Gibbs, P., 2002b. Who deserves foundation degrees? Journal of Further and Higher Education. 26(3), 197–206.

Gittus, B. and Hemsworth, D., 2006. Differing National Models of Short Cycle, Work-related Higher Education Provision in Scotland and England. Glasgow: Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning Glasgow Caledonian University/ Centre for Educational Policy, Leadership and Lifelong Learning, Open University.

Goddard, G. and Penketh, C., 2007. Students in transition: foundation degree to honours level 6, a narrative journey of development. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5–8 September 2007.

Graves, S., 2006. Working partnerships: Developing a Foundation degree consortium at Liverpool John Moores University. Forward. 9, 43–46. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal10.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Graves, S. and Jones, M., 2006. Evaluating the use of action learning set to develop reflection on a Foundation degree. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6–9 September 2006.

Green, C., 2006. The perceived benefit of work-based learning —capturing the views of students, staff and employers. Forward. 9, 27–30. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal9.pdf [accessed 10 January 2009].

Greenbank, P., 2007. From foundation to honours degree: the student experience. Education + Training, 49(2), 91–102.

Greenwood, M., Mager, C. and Morris, A., 2000. Foundation Degrees. FEDA Responds. Available at: www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED442969 [accessed 25 June 2009].

Greenwood, M. and Little, B. with Burch, E., Collins, C., Kimura, M. and Yarrow, K., 2008. Report to Foundation Degree Forward on the Impact of Foundation Degrees on Students and the Workplace. London: Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, The Open University and the Learning and Skills Network.

Hampton, D. and Blythman, M., 2006. Recovering the student voice: retention and achievement on foundation degrees. In: Beaney, P. (Ed.), 2006, Researching Foundation Degrees: Linking research and practice. Lichfield: fdf

Harwood, J. and Harwood, D., 2004. Higher education in further education: delivering higher education in a further education context—a study of five South West colleges. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 28, (2) 153–64.

Herde,D.&Rohr,M.,2005.A Guide to Foundation Degrees. London: SEEC.

Herrera, H., 2007. Foundation degrees-building on the foundation of experience. Hospital Pharmacist. 14, 311–12.

Heslop, R., 2007. Them and us: emerging findings from a case study of police recruits trained in partnership with a local university. Paper presented at the 37th Annual SCUTREA Conference, 3–5 July 2007, Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2007.

Hicks, H., Lintern, M., Dismore, H. and Saxton, H., 2008. What Do Foundation Degree Graduates Do? Early career progression of Foundation degree graduates completing courses in University of Plymouth Colleges. Plymouth: University of Plymouth HELP CETL.

Higher Education Academy, 2008. Work-Based Learning: Impact study. York: Higher Education Academy.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2000a. Invitation: Foundation Degree Prospectus. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2000b. Diversity in Higher Education: HEFCE policy statement. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2001. Foundation Degrees: Report on funded projects. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2003. Foundation Degrees: Invitation to bid for additional places and development funds 2004–05. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Hillier, Y., 2004. Foundation degree in public service management. Forward. 1. 15–17. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal1.pdf [accessed 10 January 2009].

References

91

Hillier, Y. and Rawnsley, T., 2006. Education, education, education or employers, education and equity: managing employer and employee expectations of foundation degrees. Paper presented at the Higher Education Close-Up Conference, University of Lancaster, 24–26 July.

Hyland, T., 2002. On the upgrading of vocational studies: analysing prejudice and subordination in English education. Educational Review. 54(1), 287–96.

Jackson, I., 2008. Gestalt-A Learning Theory for Graphic Design Education. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 27(1), 63–69.

Jackson, C. and Tunnah, E., 2005. The Information, Advice and Guidance Needs of Foundation Degree Students—report of an AGCAS survey. Sheffield: Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Service. Available at: www.agcas.org.uk/publications/other_publications/fd/docs/fdsurvey_report_complete.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Jones, I., 2003. Transitions and transformations: ways of conceptualising specific contributions by learners in higher education to the development of active citizenship through ‘communities of practice. Paper presented at SCUTREA, 33rd annual conference, University of Wales, Bangor, 1–3 July, 2003.

Johnston, R., 2005. Negotiation with strangers: developing a different curriculum, for a Foundation degree in community development. Paper presented at the 35th Annual SCUTREA Conference 5–7 July 5 2005, University of Sussex, England, UK, 2005. Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/142035.htm [accessed 25 June 2008].

Kademo, E., 2008. The complex case of positioning the foundation degree: making sense of a degree that is not a degree’. International Education Studies. 1(3), 14–20.

Knight, T., Tennant, R., Dillon, L. and Weddell, E., 2006. Evaluating the Early Years Sector Endorsed Foundation Degree: A qualitative study of students’ views and experiences. Nottingham: Department of Education and Skills. Available at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR751.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA), 2003. The Future of Higher Education. LSDA Responds. London: LSDA.

Learning and Skills Development Agency in association with the University of Sheffield, School of Education, 2002, (October 2002) Progression from HNC/Ds to Honours Degrees: Diversity, complexity and change. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/RDreports/2002/rd12_02/rd12_02.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Little, B., 2005. Policies towards work-focused higher education: Are they meeting employers’ needs? Tertiary Education and Management. 11(2), 131–46.

Little,B.,Connor,H.,Lebeau,Y.,Pierce,D.,Sinclair,E.,Thomas,L.&Yarrow, K., 2003. Vocational Higher Education, Does it meet Employers’ Needs? London: Learning and Skills Development Agency/Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, Open University. Available at: www.lsneducation.org.uk/user/login.aspx?code=041538&P=041538PD&action=pdfdl&src=XOWEB [accessed 25 June 2009].

Loftus, L., 2007. Feasibility Study into Work Based ‘Top-Ups’ from Foundation Degree to Honours Degree. Brighton: Collaborative Training Centre, University of Brighton.

Lyle, J. and Robertson, K., 2003. A higher education perspective on foundation degrees: implications for staff development and quality enhancement. LINK 7, Learning and Teaching Support Network: Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism. 7, 8–10.

Madell, D., 2006. Foundation Degree Forward: A comparative study of Foundation degree development and experience in the public and private sectors. Norwich, The Research Centre, City College Norwich.

Mason, P., 2004. A success story and case study of Foundation degree development at Kingston University. Forward. 1, 7–9. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal1.pdf [accessed 10 January 2009].

Matthews, H., Maynard, M. and Kraftl, P., 2007. Sustainable Foundation Degrees: a case study of Northamptonshire. Bristol: HEFCE.

McBride, A., Mustchin, S., Hyde, P., Antonacopoulou, E., Cox, A. and Walshe, K., 2004. Mapping the Progress of Skills Escalator Activity: Early results from a survey of learning account and NVQ managers in strategic health authorities. Manchester: Manchester School of Management, UMIST.

Moodie, G.F, 2003. The missing link in Australian tertiary education: short-cycle higher education. International Journal of Training Research. 1(1), 44–63.

Morgan,A.,Jones,N.&Fitzgibbon,K.,2004.Criticalreflectionsonthedevelopment of a foundation degree. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 9(3), 353–70.

Mowlam, A. and Snape, D., 2004. Qualitative Mapping of Delivery Strategies Amongst EYSEFD Providers. Second Report in Series of EYSEFD Evaluation. London: NatCen.

Mowlam, A., Murphy, J. and Arthur, S., 2003. Evaluating the Introduction of the Early Years Foundation Degree: First report in the series of EYFD Evaluation. London: NatCen.

Mullen, C. and Kilgannon, H., 2007. Foundation Degrees: Developing the workforce of the future in the health and social care sector: Work, earn and learn—turning care into a career. Lichfield: fdf

Nelson, A., 2006. Provision and participation: Using quantitative research to explore foundation degree provision. In: Beaney, P. (Ed.), 2006. Researching Foundation Degrees: Linking research and practice. Lichfield: fdf

Northrop, M. and Jones, S., 2006. Implementation of a blended learning approach: milestones, tractors and crossroads. Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education. 2006, 1719–23.

O’Doherty, E., 2006a. Foundation Degrees: Foundation for what? Skills needs, lifelong learning and widening participation. Paper at Education in a Changing Environment conference, University of Salford. Available at: www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/eo_06.rtf [accessed 25 June 2009].

O’Doherty, E., 2006b. Foundation degrees and widening participation: public sector employees’ work-based learning and Foundation degrees. Journal of Access Policy and Practice. 3(2), 142–61.

O’Keefe,J.&Tait,K.,2004.AnexaminationoftheUKearlyyearsfoundation degree and the evolution of senior practitioners—enhancing work-based practice by engaging in reflective and critical thinking. International Journal of Early Years Education. 12(1), 25–41.

Parry, G., 2003. Mass higher education and the English: wherein the colleges? Higher Education Quarterly. 57(4), 308–37.

Parry, G., 2006. Policy-participation trajectories in English higher education. Higher Education Quarterly. 60(4), 392–412.

Pratt, G., 2008. Implementing the assistant practitioner foundation degree. British Journal of Healthcare Assistants. 2(1), 37–41.


92

PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2002. Foundation Degrees Baseline Information Returns. London: PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Priestley, J. and Selfe, J., 2003. The foundation degree: an education framework for rehabilitation assistants? International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation. 10(11), 504–10.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2003a. Foundation Degree Qualification: Report of a survey. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2003b. Overview Report on Foundation Degree Reviews. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2004a. Handbook for the Review of Foundation Degrees in England: 2004-05. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2004b. Foundation Degree Qualification Benchmark. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2005a. Learning From Reviews of Foundation Degrees Carried Out in England in 2004–05: Sharing good practice. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2005b. Report of a Survey Of Foundation Degrees Converted From Existing Higher National Diplomas Since 2001. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2005c. Report of a Survey to Follow Up Foundation Degree Reviews Carried Out in 2002–2003. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Raddon, A. and Quinn, M. with Braham, J. and Smoothly, L., 2007. Demand for Foundation Degrees and Engaging Employers in the East Midlands. Report to HEFCE by the Centre for Labour Market Studies, University of Leicester and University of Derby. Leicester: Centre for Labour Market Studies, University of Leicester.

Reeve, F. and Gallacher, J., 2005. Employer-university ‘partnership’: a key problem for work-based learning programmes? Journal of Education and Work. 18(2), 219–33.

Reeve, F. and Gallacher, J. and Ingram, R., 2007. A comparative study of work-based learning within Higher Nationals in Scotland and Foundation Degrees in England: contrast, complexity, continuity. Journal of Education and Work. 20(4), 305–18.

Reeve, F., Ingram, R. and Gallacher, J., 2008. The role of employers and college staff within work-based and work-related learning programmes in Scotland and England: change and continuity. Paper presented at SCUTREA 2008, 38th Annual Conference. In: Crowther, J., Edwards, V., Galloway, V., Shaw M. and Tett, T. (Eds.), 2008, SCUTREA 2008, 38th Annual Conference, Whither Adult Education in the Learning Paradigm? 2–4 July 2008 Conference Proceedings. Edinburgh: Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh in co-operation with The Standing Conference of University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults (SCUTREA).

Rhodes, C. and Ellis, S., 2008. Foundation Degree Market Assessment 2007, prepared for Foundation Degree Forward, February 2008. Manchester: Heist. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/key_documents_for_providers [accessed 25 June 2009]

Roantree, B., 2003. Associate degrees: what next! Campus Review. 30 April–6 May, 13(16).

Robertson, D., 2002. Intermediate-level Qualifications in Higher Education: An international assessment. Available at: www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/rdreports/2002/rd10_02/ [accessed 25 June 2009].

Roodhouse, S., 2007, Foundation Degrees and Widening Participation. London, Kogan Page.

Rowley, J., 2005. Foundation degrees: a risky business? Quality Assurance in Education. 13(1), 6–16.

Ryan, A., 2005. New Labour and higher education. Oxford Review of Education. 31(1), 87–100.

Sastry, T. and Bekhradnia, B., undated. Higher Education, Skills and Employer Engagement. Available at www.emua.ac.uk/downloads/hepileitchresponse.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Sheard, M. and Golby, J., 2006. The efficacy of an outdoor adventure education curriculum on selected aspects of positive psychological development. Journal of Experiential Education. 29(2), 187–209.

Sheldon, L., Gillow, J and Humphris, D., 2003. Bringing together health and education: the foundation degree in health care. Nursing Management. 10(3), 17–21.

Skills for Health, 2006. The Foundation Degree Framework for the Health Sector. London: Skills for Health.

Smith, C., Akhtar, Y., Reynolds, R., Tatton, A. and Tucker, S., 2005. A research-led approach to establishing foundation degrees. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 10(1), 27–38.

Smith, R. and Betts, M., 2000. Learning as partners: realising the potential of work-based learning. Journal of Vocational Education and Training. 52(4), 589–604.

Smith, R. and Betts, M., 2003. Partnerships and the consortia approach to United Kingdom foundation degrees: a case study of benefits and pitfalls. Journal of Vocational Education and Training. 55(2), 223–38.

Smoothy, L., 2006. Cutting edge: The student experience. Forward. 8, 26–28. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal8.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Snape, D. and Finch, S., 2006. Evaluation of the Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree: Report of the follow up student survey. London:DepartmentforEducation&Skills.

Snape, D., Parfrement, J. and Finch, S., 2007. Evaluation of the Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree: Findings from the final student survey. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Snape, D., Tanner, E., and MacKenzie, H., 2006. Evaluation of the Early Years Sector-Endorsed Foundation Degree: Statistical profile of students and institutions (Report of the Wave 2 Survey). Nottingham: DepartmentforEducation&Skills.

Solkin, L., 2006. Work-based learning and foundation degrees: exploring assessment as an active process of student choice and engagement. In: Beaney, P. (Ed.), 2006, Researching Foundation Degrees: Linking research and practice. Lichfield: fdf

Step Ahead Research Ltd and RCU Ltd, 2004. Foundation Degrees: Supply and demand in North-East England. Newcastle upon Tyne: One NorthEast.

References

93

Stickland, H., 2005. Foundation Degree Research Report. Bournemouth, Partnership Access and Community Education, Bournemouth University. Available at: www.bournemouth.ac.uk/cpd/pdf/Foundation_Degree_Research.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Stinton, J., 2007. Employer engagement in the design, development and delivery of foundation degrees in the Eastern Region. The Research and Development Bulletin. 5 (2). Norwich: City College Norwich.

Stinton, J and Chittenden, S., 2006. Employer Engagement in the Design, Development and Delivery of Foundation Degrees in the Eastern Region. Phase 1 Report. RS5806. Norwich: The Research Centre, City College Norwich.

Stoney,C.&Hudson,J.,2004.Workingwithemployers:anevolutionaryapproach. Forward. 1, 4–6, available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal1.pdf [accessed 9 January 2009].

Stuart-Hoyle, M., 2007. A foundation degree uncovered: packaging a realistic programme in response to the widening participation Agenda. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education. 6(2), 83–91.

Sutcliffe, J., 2005. Developing a flexible delivery method for the foundation degree in teaching and learning support: a case study of Edge Hill. Forward. 6, 44–48. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal6.pdf [accessed 9 January 2009].

Sylvester, K., Luger, J., Crompton, C. and Aitkins, J., 2004. FE/HE partnerships: the Librarians Working Group of the Colleges-University of Leicester Network. Education Libraries Journal. 47(2).

Talbot, J., 2007. Delivering distance education for modern government: the F4Gov programme. Education and Training. 49(3), 250–60.

Taylor, J., Brown, R., and Dickens, S., 2006. Evaluating The Early Years Sector Endorsed Foundation Degree: A qualitative study of employers’ and mentors’ experiences. London: Department for Education and Skills. Available at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR752.pdf [accessed 25 June 2008].

Thurgate, C. and MacGregor, J., 2008. Collaboration in foundation degree provision: a case study in Kent. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 32(1), 27–35.

Thurgate, C., MacGregor, J., and Brett, H., 2007. The lived experience: delivering a foundation degree in health and social care. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 31(3), 215–23.

Tierney, S. and Slack, K., 2005. Learning journeys: the experiences of students working towards a foundation degree. Journal of Vocational Education and Training. 57(3), 375–88.

Tynan, J., 2006. Access and participation: rethinking work-based learning on the foundation degree in art and design. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education. 5(1).

University of Northampton, 2002. A formative evaluation of the Foundation degree in learning and teaching (schools). Northampton: The University of Northampton.

University Vocational Awards Council, 2008. Features of Apprenticeship Programmes That Support Progression To Higher Education. Lichfield: fdf

Wagner L., 2001. Will foundation degrees widen participation? Perspectives. 5(1), 3–5.

Walsh, A., 2007. An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in the context of work-based learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 32(1), 79–87.

Walsh, A., 2006. Will increasing academic recognition of workplace learning in the UK reinforce existing gender divisions in the labour market? Journal of Vocational Education and Training. 58(4), 551–62.

Walton, A., Sutcliffe J., and Duvall, P., 2007. The use of audio tools to support distance learners. Forward. 12, 31–34. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal12.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Wareing, M., 2008. Foundation degree students as workbased learners: the mentor’s role. British Journal of Nursing. 17(8), 532–37.

Warner, J., 2004. Providing learning resource support to foundation degree students. Forward. 3, 31–33, Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal3.pdf [accessed 14 January 2009].

Weatherald, C and Moseley, R., 2003. Higher education in further education colleges: researching and developing good practice. Paper presented to the 2003 FACE Conference. Available at: http://www.face.stir.ac.uk/Weatheraldp52.htm [accessed 25 June 2009]

Webb, S., Brine, J. and Jackson, S., 2006. Gender, foundation degrees and the knowledge-driven economy. Journal of Vocational Education and Training. 58(4), 563–76.

Wheelahan, 2002. TAFE and higher education unmet demand. Education Review. February/March, 25.

Wheeler, S., Townsend, M., and Horton, G., 2004. In cyberspace no-one can hear you scream: supporting online learners. Paper presented at the EDEN 2004 Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 16–19 June, 2004.

Wilson, J. P., Blewitt, J. and Moody, D, 2005. Reconfiguring higher education: the case of foundation degrees. Education + Training. 47(2), 112–23.

York Consulting, 2004. Evaluation of Foundation Degrees: Final report. Leeds: York Consulting. Available at: www.yorkconsulting.co.uk/Publications [accessed 25 June 2009].


94

ReferencesPart 2: Items referred to in the reviewed material

Boud, D. and Symes, C., 2000. Learning for real: work-based education in universities. In: Symes, C. and McIntyre, J. (Eds.), 2000. Working Knowledge: The new vocationalism and higher education. Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press.

Brennan, L. and Gosling, D., 2004. Making Foundation Degrees Work. London: SEEC.

Butt, G. and Lance, A., 2005. Modernising the roles of support staff in primary schools: changing focus, changing function. Educational Review. 57(2), 131–7.

Clutterbuck, D. and Megginson, D., 2005. Techniques for Coaching and Mentoring. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Foster-Turner, J., 2006. Coaching and Mentoring in Health and Social Care. The essentials of practice for professionals and organisations. Oxford: Radcliffe.

Freire P., 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Middlesex: Penguin.

Gleeson, D. and Keep, E., 2004. Voice without accountability: the changing relationship between employers, the State and education in England. Oxford Review of Education. 30(1), 37–63.

Harvey, L. and Drew, S. with Smith, M., 2006. The First-Year Experience: Review of the research literature. York: Higher Education Academy.

Harvey, L., 1996. The Nature and Role of Quality in the Federal Omniversity. Conference paper, Dilemmas in Mass Higher Education, Staffordshire University, 10–12 April, 1996.

Harvey, L., Locke, W. and Morey, A., 2002. Enhancing employability, recognising diversity. Making links between higher education and the world of work. London: Universities UK.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2007. Foundation Degrees. Key statistics 2001–02 to 2006-07. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2008, Foundation Degrees. Key statistics 2001–02 to 2007–08. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), 1997. Assessment in Higher Education and the Role of ‘Graduateness’. Available at: www.qaa.ac.uk/search/publications/archive/DQE238_AssessmentRoleGraduateness.asp [accessed 25 June 2009].

Longhurst, D., 2009. The future of higher education. Forward. 17, 4–10. Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/files/journal17.pdf [accessed 25 June 2009].

Marks, A., 2002. ‘2+2=’Access’: working towards a higher education and further education overlap to facilitate greater adult participation. Teaching in Higher Education. 7(1), 113–16.

Melville, D., 1999. A place for everyone in a joined-up lifelong learning sector. Times Higher Educational Supplement, 20th August.

Milbourne, L., Macrae, S. and Maguire, M., 2003. Collaborative solutions or new policy problems: exploring multi-agency partnerships in education and health work. Journal of Education Policy. 18(1), 19–35.

Moore, M. G., 1973. Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education. 44(12), 661–79.

Reay, D., Davies, J., David, M. and Ball, S., 2001. Choice of degree or degrees of choice? Class, ‘race’ and the higher education choice process. Sociology. 35(4) 855–74.

Reay D, 2003. A risky business? Mature working-class women students and access to higher education. Gender and Education. 15(3), 301–17.

Roberts, K., 2001. Class in Modern Britain. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Rustin, M., 2002. The dynamics of class and the radical right. Editorial, Soundings. 20, 7–17.

Seabrook, J., 2002. Class, Caste and Hierarchies. London and Oxford: Verso and New Internationalist.

Shin, N., 2003. Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning’, Distance Education. 24(1), 69–86.

Smith, D. and Bocock, J., 1999. Participation and progression in mass higher education: policy and the FHE interface. Journal of Education Policy. 14(1), 283–99.

Taylor R., 1996. Preserving the liberal tradition in “New Times”. In: Wallis, J. (Ed.), 1996. Liberal Adult Education: The end of an era? Nottingham: Continuing Education Press, University of Nottingham.

I began this research review with no preconceived ideas about foundation degrees. If anything, I was a hint sceptical that they could deliver their widening-participation aim. I now appreciate the excellent nature of the foundation degree both as concept and in practice. It has been a struggle to establish the new qualification and I have enormous admiration for the higher college and university staff and employers who have faith in it and have produced such excellent programmes. Most of all I have the highest regard for the students who have graduated from foundation degreecourses;manyofthemhavehadtobalancestudywithworkandextensivefamilyresponsibilities.

My thanks to the support offered by Derek Longhurst in enabling this review, Penny Blackie and Russell Moseley for providing useful advice and guidance and reading early drafts and to Esther Lockley for additional statistical material and a final careful edit of the report.

July 2009

Author’s personal postscript

Documents

Review of research literature focussed on … of research literature focussed on Foundation degrees 2 Contents 1. Introduction to the literature review 3 2. Foundation degree policy,