The best practice in work-integrated pedagogy for degree apprenticeships in a post-viral future

Abstract

PurposeThis article draws on a study of best practices in work-integrated learning (WIL) identified in the Middlesex University Degree Apprenticeships Development Fund (DADF) Project, which examined their application for four public sector degree apprenticeships (DAs). The authors suggest that WIL pedagogical practices deployed to deliver DAs can bridge traditional pedagogical and occupational divisions while building institutional resilience in a post-viral world. The paper is intended to contribute to both practitioner and policy-level discourse regarding the best practice in WIL for DAs.Design/methodology/approachA literature review of key texts was used to identify “success characteristics” in WIL “signature” pedagogies, with potential applicability for DA design and delivery. These characteristics were used to frame interrogation of best pedagogical practices, using the best practice matrix developed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected expert practitioners to examine their matrix responses and to discuss the researcher's initial “read-across” analysis of best practices and possible implications for pedagogical practice in WIL for DAs across other sectors. This paper also draws on feedback from employer groups who were consulted on the project report recommendations and further feedback from a national project dissemination conference in 2018. The findings from the research project have also been re-evaluated with reference to further literature in the context of the challenges presented by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).FindingsThe findings from the study indicate that pedagogical best practices were to a significant degree transferable across professions and sectors; success characteristics in one pedagogical area (for example, mentoring/practice education) underpin success in another (recognition of prior learning [RPL] and practice-based assessment of achievement); success characteristics in WIL can also be applied and operated across professions and sectors to demonstrate how the best practice in WIL should be applied in the design of DAs more generally.Research limitations/implicationsThe original project research study focussed on WIL pedagogical practices in four specified professions across four public sectors within one institution. This approach, though limited, enabled the research study to focus on in-depth qualitative interactions with practitioners from different sectors rather than institutional differences. As a consequence, the research study was able to focus on in-depth and dynamic interrelationships in pedagogical practice from the perspective of the professions, which facilitated productive examination of similarities and differences across these professions.Originality/valueThe research study provided evidence of the potential value of a more explicit recognition of WIL practice in the higher education sector and how consistent approaches to WIL should inform programme design. This has potential to improve the quality of curriculum design and pedagogy across DA programmes and provide a valuable reference point for quality assuring this provision.

Testing ZELPH ['sɛlf] – a self-assessment instrument to surface intended and unintended outcomes of work-integrating pedagogies

“…Furthermore, in considering theories that were predominantly proffered by Western scholars, the authors accept that the discourse is rooted in Western paradigmatic conceptions of education, and thus fails to include the episteme of other, non-Eurocentric knowledge systems (Adebisi, 2016;Castro Romero and Capella Palacios, 2020). Lester et al (2016), Nottingham (2012) and Lillis and Bravenboer (2020), amongst others, offer empirical evidence for the considerable variety of work-integrating programmes in the UK alone, and demonstrate both commonalities and differences in underlying concepts as well as in the modes of delivery (Lillis and Bravenboer, 2020). While M€ orth et al's (2018) study had echoed the literature's findings relating to the variety of work-integrating educational offers and the range of delivery modes, it had also confirmed both Wall's (2013) observation regarding the variability of the integration of disciplinary knowledge in practice, and Edwards et al's (2015) findings concerning the different priorities set by institutions in terms of the integration of academic theory with professional practice.…”

“…Keeping in mind that ZELPH operationalises a shortlist of the theoretical building blocks of a pedagogy for work-integrating education, let us now turn our gaze to the theories proffered by the literature on HE work-integrating learning (see e.g. Lillis and Bravenboer, 2020; Wall and Hindley, 2019; Lester et al , 2016; Costley et al , 2010; Boud et al , 2001; Boud, 2001; Nottingham, 2012, Cooper et al , 2010; Billett, 2011). For the purposes of developing the ZELPH model, this study adopted the usefully broad conceptualisation proposed by Wall and Hindley (2019, p. 1), suggesting that “work-integrating education” is understood as a type of education that “broadly connects practice settings as a location or vehicle of learning”.…”

“…Notwithstanding the variety of approaches, they all have in common that work, paid or unpaid, is part of the curriculum and plays a role as a learning site (see e.g. Lillis and Bravenboer, 2020; Wall and Hindley, 2019; Lester et al , 2016; Edwards et al , 2015; Nottingham, 2012; Costley et al , 2010; Cooper et al , 2010). Accordingly, the model's category integration of professional practice into the study programme is designed to shed light on the ways in which work is integrated and valued as a learning site in a systematic manner.…”

“…In real life, it directs, for example, developments in negotiated curricular and learning shell frameworks, or in enabling access to HE for non-traditional and lifelong learners (see e.g. Talbot, 2017; Lester et al , 2016; Bravenboer and Lester, 2016; Lillis and Bravenboer, 2020; Wall, 2013; Boud, 2001; Costley et al , 2010). In an effort to operationalise the level of recognition that is afforded to practitioner knowledge, the ZELPH model includes the category entry admission/requirements , which is broad enough to also cater for those programmes that only require students to meet academic requirements.…”

“…While the literature agrees on the importance of defining learning outcomes relating to professional skills and competencies (see e.g. Lillis and Bravenboer, 2020, Lester et al , 2016; Bravenboer and Lester, 2016; Cooper et al , 2010; Boud, 2001), some scholars argue for the relevance of employment- or sector-specific learning (Bravenboer and Lester, 2016; Cooper et al ), while others, especially those discussing learner-centred provisions, make a case for generic learning in an effort to capture transdisciplinary learning that occurs when work is the frame of reference instead of academic disciplines (Boud, 2001; Costley et al , 2010). With a view to reflect the key points of this debate, ZELPH proffers the category approach to interdisciplinarity to reveal whether interdisciplinary learning is achieved, for example, by design (i.e.…”