FINAL TRANSFERABILITY REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2007

PROJECT NUMBER 174/02

COMPLETION DATE: September 2007

WEBSITE: www.practicebasedlearning.org

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The FDTL 4 Project “Making Practice Based Learning Work,” was funded by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) Northern Ireland in conjunction with the Higher Education Funding Council England (HEFCE). The project commenced in January 2003 The main aim of the project was to make practitioners more effective at supporting and supervising students in the workplace across a range of health care disciplines.

The project team successfully bid for additional transferability money to demonstrate the generic value of the resource through their suitability to be used and transferred to another subject area. This report relates to the transferability period of the project from September 2006 until August 2007. The transferability phase has involved collaboration with the three original institutions plus a further seven new institutions, Coventry, Middlesex, Plymouth, Portsmouth Sheffield Hallam, Southampton and Westminster Universities in various non health subject area including business studies, sport sciences and social care.

The University of Ulster was the lead institution of a consortium comprising the Universities of Bournemouth and Northumbria. The original project’s Project Evaluator, David Pierce, had his appointment continued for the transferability phase with defined role and responsibilities.

2. THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE TRANSFERABILITY STAGE

2.1 Aims and Objectives

The aim of the transferability phase was to transfer an existing resource for development of work based educators to other disciplines across new partner institutions.

The objectives were to: Identify current methods and resources used for preparing and supporting

work based educators in other degrees in new partner institutions. Compare the resources and requirements for other courses against resources

developed within the original FDTL Phase 4 project. Facilitate the contextualising of resources to other disciplines and make

appropriate changes to existing web-based resources. Liaise with subject centres to explore embedding of principles and resources

to the wider academic community. Disseminate and facilitate use of web-based resources for developing and

supporting work based educators Evaluate effectiveness of transferring web-based resources designed for

Health Care Professionals to other disciplines. Produce recommendations on good practice in the preparation of persons

involved in work based education.

2.2. Project Plan

The next page contains the project plan for this additional activity, with an outline of key tasks, timescale for each task, critical dates / milestones, responsibility for completion of each task and the task outcome. The tasks have been tabled in relation to each of the objectives listed above.

1

.Key Task Outcome1. Identify current methods and resources used for preparing and supporting work based educators in degrees in new partner institutionsWorking Group and Steering Group membership reviewed Reconfigured membership of Working and Steering Groups to reflect new

partner institutionsContract new partner institutions and agree work Partners contacted and interest expressed Project plan finalised and agree work planned Project Plan agreed and actioned (Appendix 1)Brief partner institutions on project and resources Meetings with in partner institution Identify current preparation methods for work based educators Questionnaires sent to partner institutions , poor returns 2. Compare the resources and requirements for other courses against resources developed within the original FDTL Phase 4 project.Map resources for Work-based learning against existing project resources Partner institutions considered resources within their disciplines Develop tool –kit for the use of all work based teachers Tool-kit developed and published by Kingsham Press 3. Facilitate the contextualising of resources to other disciplines and make appropriate changes to existing web-based resourcesDeliver workshops in conjunction with partner institutions to publicise resources and seek users views on their appropriateness to there discipline

Workshops held in Belfast, Edinburgh , Bournemouth and Southampton Feedback from workshops very positive, tool-kit well received. London and Coventry cancelled due to poor numbers

Adapt web portal to accommodate resources suitable for other subject areas Web portal reviewed and adapted and new web-site created www.learningintheworkplace.org

4. Liaise with subject centres to explore embedding of principles and resources to the wider academic community. Liaise with subject centre and employers regarding resources Feedback on application of resources to work based educators from

workshops and meetings. Subject Centre for Health to provide continuity for Health website, JORUM to provide continuity for learning resources and materials

5. Disseminate and facilitate use of web-based resources for developing and supporting work based educators Work with subject teams in Partner Institutions for the development and support of work based educators Teaching team have used the resources and adapted as necessary. The

learning materials are featured on the website of CELT in work-based learning. Materials used Nationally and internationally, Australia, Canada, USA and throughout UK and Ireland. Interest expressed by Trade Unions in UK and Scotland

Work based educators use resources Evaluation report on the use of the resources. Questionnaires collated and responses very positive (Appendix 3)

6. Evaluate effectiveness of transferring web-based resources designed for Health Care Professionals to other disciplinesOngoing evaluation of subject discipline and processes in the transferability of resourcesAdminister questionnaire to academic users of web portal Questionnaires administered. All work-shops evaluated

Administer questionnaire to work based educator using web portal On –line evaluations available

7. Produce recommendations on good practice in the preparation of persons involved in work based education Recommend to subject centre and HEI resources to support good practice in work based learning Presentation to HEA in October on outcomes

2

3

2.3 Dissemination

A dissemination strategy was agreed at the beginning of the transferability phase to ensure the most effective and efficient use of time and resources. The strategy included the use of a range of medium to give optimal exposure of the toolkit, learning resources and materials to as many individuals as possible. The use of the project’s web sites to advertise the workshops proved invaluable so widening the audience beyond the mailing data base held by the project. Flyers were published and distributed and all subject centres committed to disseminating information on the projects developments. The development of the sister web site www.learniingintheworkplace.org required slight changes to the project logo but exposed the resources to a non health audience. The workshops proved to be very successful, despite two venues, London and Coventry being cancelled due to poor numbers. This was attributed to poor timing as both were planned for Easter week when university venues were available. Those who had registered for these events were accommodated at other venues and were happy enough with this arrangement.

The workshops were launched in Belfast in March at Government Buildings by the Permanent Secretary for Health Andrew McCormack to an audience of eighty. This prestigious event gave the project and toolkit excellent press coverage and drew the attention of health and non health employers who were interested in disseminating the materials to hospitals, trusts and work-based teachers across a wide range of disciplines. In May a workshop for 120 was held with the Department of Health Scotland for all their practice educators for professions allied to medicine. Interest was also expressed by TUC Scotland were work is ongoing. Workshops in Bournemouth in May and Newcastle in June also proved to be successful, with excellent feedback and evaluation. A keynote speaker from partner institutions contributed to each of the venues to ensure inclusion and ownership by the new partnerships.

Dissemination has also occurred by the delivery of workshops and conference papers at a wide range of venues including, Coventry, Harrogate, Krakow, London, Middlesex, Nottingham, and Vancouver. When it was not possible to attend to deliver a paper at a conference materials and CDs were included in delegate packs to further disseminate project outputs and outcomes.

2.4 Evaluation

The transferability phase of the project was evaluated by a range of different methods including questionnaires; web based evaluations, workshop feedback, e-mails and continued employment of the project evaluator, David Pierce. The general impression, based on evaluations received, was very favourable. Web site navigation site was on area of concern to the project team. Therefore it was redesigned to ensure it became more users friendly. The contextualising of materials from health to other subject areas has been undertaken by some partners especially the Portsmouth University CETL, Foundation Direct. The project’s materials have also been adopted by health professions in British Columbia, Canada and CDP in the University of Stirling. The external evaluator’s report also accompanies this report, see Appendix 2.

4

3. STAFF DELIVERING TRANSFERABILITY PHASE

Project Director:

Joan Mulholland Jordanstown CampusShore RoadNewtownabbeyCo. AntrimBT37 0QBTelephone: 028 90 366595Mobile: 07074 531251E-mail: J.Mulholland@ulster.ac.uk

   

Project Managers:      

Bournemouth University:Janet ScammellRoyal London HouseChristchurch RoadBournemouthDorsetTelephone: 01202 464725E-mail: Jscammell@bournemouth.ac..uk

   

Northumbria University:Chris TurnockPrincipal LecturerSchool of Health, Community and Education StudiesRoom 308 Ellison Terrace NewcastleNE1 8STTelephone: 0191 243 7257E-mail: chris.turnock@unn.ac.uk

   

4. APPROACH TAKEN FOR THE TRANSFERABILITY PHASE

The main phase of the project had utilised a collaborative approach to project work, which the members of the project team believed should be maintained for the transferability phase as it had been an effective approach to the project. However, the nature of the project managers’ involvement altered from a dedicated part of their workload to being engaged on a consultancy basis to collaborate on specific activities negotiated with the project director. The project team also had limited administrative support, which meant that all members of the project team, particularly the Project Director, had to perform a greater number of administrative tasks than they had during the main project.

The focus of the transferability phase would be on dissemination of work completed in the main project and seeking partners to meet the aims of the transferability phase. The project team were aware that this focus would necessitate greater engagement with the non-health academic community, particularly in relation to work-based learning. Therefore the project team undertook active engagement with HEA Subject Centres & Work-based Learning CETLs.

This included direct communication with Subject Centres, which resulted in the project team being invited to present the project team’s work to a number of Subject

5

Centre events. In addition, the project team invited all the Work-based Learning CETLs to a meeting to present an overview of the project and explore potential areas of collaboration. These events resulted in the project team working with small groups/individuals in specific departments.

This work involved engaging with partners to explore the usefulness of the project’s resources for non-health contexts and to explore how the resources would need customisation to meet local need. Feedback from various dissemination and collaboration activity highlighted the need to develop a non-health orientation to the project’s online resources. Therefore, the project team created a sister web site, which complemented the original project web site that had a health orientation, by publishing one of similar design and content with a non-health orientation.

A different focus was taken for dissemination activity of the project’s outputs during the transferability phase, which involved actively seeking opportunities to present the work to non-health audiences. Therefore, the project team focused on submitting abstracts to generic, non-health conferences as well as deliberately targeting non-health disciplines when publicising the project’s own dissemination events.

The project team was also aware that the budget for development of new resources during the transferability phase was limited. Therefore, the project team sought additional support for a major new output by approaching a publisher. This resulted in the production of a book designed for a generic audience as well as obtaining administrative support from the publisher for the organisation of the project’s dissemination events delivered in the later stages of the transferability phase.

5. ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE TRANSFERABILITY PERIOD

The previous section, in providing an indication of the approach taken to the transferability phase, gives an indication of some of the achievements during this phase. The project team believe there were two main types of achievement, collaboration and dissemination.

5.1 Collaborative achievements

The main collaborative achievement was the liaison with staff from seven British universities (Coventry, Middlesex, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheffield Hallam, Southampton and Westminster), a number of HEA Subject Centres, especially Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism and four CETLs (Centre for Excellence in Work Based Learning, CETL4Health North East, Centre for InterProfessional e-Learning and Foundation Direct). These collaborations have resulted in the project’s materials being adapted for use by a number of organisations, including the aforementioned universities and CETLs, to support the role of the work-based supervisor.

The project team also collaborated with the HEA Health Subject Centre to explore mechanism for maintaining the project web site following completion of the transferability phase once the period of external funding expires. These discussions have resulted in agreement to maintain the health oriented site for at least two further years. Whilst this version of the project’s web sites can be used by non-health persons, feedback from non health disciplines suggests it would be desirable to also maintain a non-health web site.

6

5.2 Dissemination Achievements

The project team had a number of dissemination achievements. These included the publication of a paper based toolkit for use by all disciplines involved in work-based learning to prepare and support work-based supervisors. In addition, the creation of the non-health oriented web site, enabled the project team to engage with a wider, i.e. non-health, audience. This web site was used to publish online open learning materials, include links to a number of relevant web sites. The project team have also made their online resources available to JORUM.

The project team have organised and delivered four regional workshops to enable people from a non-health audience consider the usefulness of the project’s resources for supporting work-based supervisors. Members of the project team have presented project related papers at ten national or international conferences. A consequence of this activity has been that it would appear the project’s resources are now being used by colleagues in Australia, Europe and North America.

6. UNANTICIPATED OUTCOMES DURING THE TRANSFERABILITY PERIOD

Section 2.2 of this report gives an indication of the anticipation outcomes for the transferability phase of the project. However, there were a number of unanticipated outcomes. These included the decision to make the project’s resources available to JORUM, the use of the resources by non UK colleagues, the discussions with the HEA Health Subject Centre to fund post-project hosting of the project web site and collaboration with various CETLs to use the project’s online resources.

7. LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE TRANSFERABILITY PROCESS

A number of lessons have been learnt from the transferability process at both disciplinary and institutional level.

7.1 Disciplinary Level

To introduce new institutes into an existing process for the final year of a project bring with it its own strengths and challenges. Advantages in that it brings to the project a range of new perspectives and interests and challenges in that time and resources are limited and group cohesion is difficult to develop and maintain. All the new partners were helpful and interested but all were involved in setting up their own internal organisation structures and processes limiting the time available to support our outcomes and outputs. This was particularly evident with the CETLs who were in their infancy at the time of the partnerships.

The project engaged with seven new partnerships across a range of disciplines. This created its own difficulties of working with numerous external partners. It would have been more effective had we limited the partnerships to two or three and been more focused.

The commitment of new partners takes time to establish so making development of good relationships difficult in a one year time period.

7

7.2 Institutional Level

The greatest constraint during this phase was the limited budget, making greater demands on the project team with non-project work responsibilities. Project team members needed to be creative to balance normal work with project work. The project team was employed as consultants during this phase, losing the team cohesion that previously existed. Administrative support was limited, with the consequence that communications were, at times, not as effective or as efficient as they had been in the main phase of the project.

Engagement with Steering Group members, particularly maintaining their interest within members’ busy work schedules, was problematic and required flexibility in communication strategy. The use of videoconferencing for meetings helped overcome problems of cost and time.

8. MODES OF DELIVERY TO HELP ACHIEVE YOUR OBJECTIVES

A range of modes of delivery were adopted to achieve the objectives of the transferability phase of the project. The greater use of electronic communication methods assisted in managing the limited financial resources with the aid of videoconferencing, e-mails and web based materials so ensuring effective use of limited face to face meeting time.

Whereas in the past the project was able to finance its own publications, the limited budget required the team to go to an external publisher for the publication of the toolkit. The team was also reliant upon the external publisher to facilitate workshop delivery and help to meet associated costs. feel that having to charge for the workshops influenced the numbers attending and the cancellation of two of the workshops.

To make optimal use of the finances available, a consultancy model to buy out project team members from normal work commitments was used. This was not without problems, as some team members were more available than others. Furthermore, heavy work commitments limited their availability. This inequality of time availability was not good for team dynamics and cohesiveness.

9. PARTICULAR DIFFICULTIES OR FRUSTRATIONS

The project team experienced a number of difficulties during the transferability phase. Several of these have already been discussed in the report, both in terms of the nature of the difficulty and how it was managed. Therefore, to avoid repetition, these will only be listed in this section:

Maintaining good relationships and effective communication with existing team and new partners

Co-ordinating diaries for Steering Group meetings Cancellation of regional workshops due to low attendance Hosting non-health web site after project completion

One difficulty not previously discussed was being able to ensure links in the project’s online resources web site links to externally hosted resources remain available. The time required to both monitor and then ascertain whether a ‘dead’ external link had

8

been assigned a new web address or was no longer available was beyond the resources available to the project team. This meant both project team and individuals browsing the project’s externally hosted web resources would be frustrated when encountering unavailable resources, especially if the browser had previously used the external web site. Attempts were made to move the resources to a data base but technical problems have caused some difficulties in achieving this.

10. ADVICE TO A PROJECT STARTING ITS TRANSFERABILITY PHASE

The project team has a small number of important pieces of advice to offer a project team commencing the transferability phase. First of all, they should take account of the constraints imposed by the limited time and budget available to them, particularly in comparison to the main project that they have completed. This means they should develop new working practices, especially in communication strategy and to avoid being over ambitious. There is a risk of agreeing to collaborate with partners who are keen to work with the project team. It may be a good idea to limit the number of new partners so that the transferability phase remains manageable with effective communication between the project team and partners.

There are also three fundamental aspects of transferability work that project teams need to acknowledge. Firstly, the constraints that a team works within means resources need to be used effectively and efficiently. Secondly, projects are normally concerned with implementing change to current practice. Achieving significant change within a one year timescale is probably going to be over ambitious. Therefore, project teams should be realistic in their expectations of project impact and acknowledge that change may take several years to be embedded into practice.

Finally, it may be difficult to maintain any project outputs following project completion. In particular, the use of a project web site as a strategy for post-project dissemination has minimal cost in relation to keeping the project address and hosting the site on a server. However, any active maintenance work, e.g. updating external links, adding new material/links, will be expensive as such work requires time and expertise. Project teams need to consider the most cost-effective way to maintain project web site availability with limited funds for any further development of the project web site.

11. CONCLUSION

The project team believe there is substantial evidence to demonstrate that the objectives specified for the transferability phase of the project have been achieved. A number of significant outputs have resulted from the work undertaken. These include:

Preparation and publication of additional on-line and paper based materials designed for use by any discipline engaging in work-based learning

Dissemination of these materials to national and international audiences Development of collaborative relationships with several CETLS, HEA Subject

Centres, and other British and North American institutions Commitment by the HEA Health Subject Centre to ensure that the project’s

web site will be made available for at least another two years Discussions with National Centres of Excellence Networks and a range of

work-based audiences e.g. Trade Unions, to further dissemination of the project outputs.

9

In conclusion the project team would like to take this opportunity to thank the steering group members for all their help and support, to the senior managers of all the universities involved for the encouragement and resources released to the project. To all the partners, writers, contributors, referees, web and graphic designers, evaluator and project team a very big thank you without the involvement of all these people the project could not have produced such high quality outputs, which it is hoped will be of use to many now and in the future.

10

Declaration

I certify on behalf of the lead institution that the attached progress and financial report, and the information contained therein is correct, and that the funds allocated have been applied to the purpose for which they were made available.

Project Name: Making Practice Based Learning Work

Project Number: 174/09

Head of Institution or Nominated Deputy

Name (print)

Signed Date

Project Director

Name (print)

Signed Date

11

Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) – Expenditure Statement Project no. 174/09Name: Making Practice Based Learning Work FDTL4

Actual expenditure for Transferability phaseIncome for year Allocation from the HEFCE: £25000

Total budget for period

Actual expenditure

Projected expenditure

Variance Underspend –Overspend +

Reasons for variance and action taken/intended

Staff 16036 11938.81 2000 -2097.19 Bournemouth outstanding to be paid Under spend due to delay in recruitment of replacement administrative support

Travel & subsistence 2000(*7145.36)

8184.84 2500 + 1539.48 Over spend due particularly to flight prices and need to travel for dissemination , Greater number of partner resulted in greater number of visits, Unexpected demand for attendance ant meetings and conferences (* moneys under spend from main project ) Costs relate to three members of project staff travel

Dissemination (*11740)2000

15440.17 + 700.17 Overspend from purchase of tool-kits for key personnel in HEI’s (*NHS Scotland payment for workshop and tool-kits)

Evaluation 2000 2000 To be paid to External Evaluator Web-site 1000 1000 0 0Consumables 1000 857.54 -142.46Total 43921.36 37421.36 6500 0

12

APPENDIX 1

PROJECT PLAN

13

2006 2007Action Jul

yAug

Sep

Oct Nov

Dec

Jan Feb

Mar

Apr May

Jun July

Aug

Comments Responsibility

Outcome

06.06Outline of Tool Kit and Contract

10th/11th

31st Contract signed 31st October deadline

ChrisJoan

Tool Kit commenced and chapters allocated

06.07Contacted Paula Moran regarding Activities

14th Paula agreed £500.

ChrisPaula

Activities produced

06.08Reconfigure website

31st Agree restructure of website

JoanChrisDave

Agreed terms with Dave Second website developed

06.09Presented at IPED conference/met CETL

8th/11th

Contracts with conferencing

Joan Chris Meeting Transferability Partners

06.10Regional work based education conference

15th Disseminate Chris Learning Materials

06.11Meeting Middlesex

26th Disseminate, negotiate and re-

ChrisJoan

Transferability

14

2006 2007Action Jul

yAug

Sep

Oct Nov

Dec

Jan Feb

Mar

Apr May

Jun July

Aug

Comments Responsibility

Outcome

06.12Meeting with Plymouth

25th Disseminate Joan Transferability

06.13Learning Resources created on Database

29th 30th Generic and Health separated

Martin

06.14New URL for Generic site

Learning in the workplace.org

DaveChrisJoan

URL to be purchased

06.15Writing Tool Kit and Activities

11th/12th26th/27th

Tool Kit submitted to publisher

ChrisJoanPaula

Submitted on time. Hard copy and disc to be sent.

06.16Web to be designed for Generic Audience

Meet Steve regarding logo

ChrisJoanSteveDave

Ongoing

06.17Disseminate Report and Learning Resources and

Sent to all Transferability Partners

KylaJoan

Ongoing

15

Materials06.18Questionnaire designed and circulated

Sent to all partners and HEA subject centres

KylaJoanChris

Ongoing

16

2006 2007Action Jul

yAug

Sep

Oct Nov

Dec

Jan Feb

Mar

Apr May

Jun July

Aug

Comments Responsibility

Outcome

06.19Complete report from questionnaire

Collate Results

ChrisJoan

Ongoing

06.20Make amendments to Tool Kit

Awaiting response

JoanChrisPaula

Ongoing

06.21Steering Group meeting

February

N/A 29th

Membership agreed (see minutes). Virtual meeting to be arranged by teleconferencing

JoanKyla

Ongoing

06.22Working Group Meeting

12th/26th

12th 9th 15th 18th 6th Later dates to agree

JoanChrisJanet

Ongoing

06.23Meeting with Scottish rep Paul Lambert

29th Confirm meeting and prepare agenda

JoanChris

Ongoing

06.24Meet with

To be agreed ChrisJoan

Ongoing

17

Publisher to agree changes to copy write

18

2006 2007Action Jul

yAug

Sep

Oct Nov

Dec

Jan Feb

Mar

Apr May

Jun July

Aug

Comments Responsibility

Outcome

06.25Arrange to meet partners

To be arranged

ChrisJoanJanet

Ongoing

06.26Meet with CETLs

To be arranged at January meeting

ChrisJoanJanet

Ongoing

06.27Regional Workshops

To be arranged at January meeting

ChrisJoanJanet

Ongoing

06.28Contact HEA and ask to include materials

E-mail to be sent

Ongoing

06.29Skills Councils to be sent materials

Identify relevant skills councils

KylaJoan

Ongoing

06.30Meeting with evaluator. Agree strategy and report

15th Report to Steering Group

JoanChrisDavid

Ongoing

19

APPENDIX 2

PROJECT EVALUATORS REPORT

20

MAKING PRACTICE BASED LEARNING WORK

A HEFCE FDTL TRANSFERABILITY PROJECT

EVALUATION REPORTAUGUST 2007

by

DAVID PIERCE

David Pierce 96 Montgomery Road, Nether Edge, Sheffield. S7 1LRTel: 0114 281 9414 e-mail: davidpierce@blueyonder.co.uk

21

INTRODUCTION

Following the successful completion of the Making Practice Based Learning project a bid for funding to transfer the outcomes of the project’s work and findings into other areas was made to HEFCE. The original bid emphasised work to transfer the project’s developed resources into the specific subject centre areas of Hospitality, Sport, Leisure and Tourism and Health Science and Practice. Later the subject areas within which the resources would be tested were expanded and partners were identified in the universities of Plymouth, Portsmouth, Westminster, Middlesex, Coventry, Sheffield Hallam as well as Bournemouth and Northumbria which were partners in the main project. Consequently a wider range of disciplines became involved but the project aim, ‘to transfer existing resources for the development of work based educators’ remained the same.

Originally, the work was planned to commence shortly after the completion of the main project’s work early in 2006 but the development and implementation of the project suffered from a number of delays and problems. Coincident with the development of the transferability work the small team remaining from the original PBL project was still engaged with some outstanding activity from it. Furthermore, they had been able to establish a relationship with an academic publishing house to develop a toolkit for relevant staff entitled Learning in the Workplace. This support strongly complements the HEFCE funding for the project but it also creates some areas of overlapping activity which presents problems for project evaluation. Consequently, the project evaluator proposed an evaluation strategy (appendix 1) and following the cancellation of a steering committee, in discussion with the project director this was further amended

EVALUATION ACTIVITY

In the evaluation proposal recognition was given to the movement that the original project had made in adopting the language of work-based learning as opposed to practice-based learning. It went on to refer to the transferability project’s objective to explore how far relatively specific subject based resources can be of value in other areas and opinions about more generic material. It also repeated the questions which remained as important and outstanding ones from the main project and expressed the hope that these could be pursued further in this phase of the activity.

There then followed three suggested ways in which the evaluator might offer assistance ‘First, as a continuation of the earlier formative emphasis, offer comment about the developing processes for implementing the project. Second, comment upon the outputs from the partners’ activities and if agreed, the workshops. Third, support the project with the extra resource available by looking closely at the processes engaged in within the partner institutions and offering feedback and comment upon them. These were soon realised to be over-ambitious for a project of this nature. The idea of engaging in formative

22

inputs to the project proved to be impractical due to the brevity and structure of the project. The opportunity to comment upon the workshops and partner activity was very limited and consequently it was agreed that time should be spent in contacting partners directly to find out more about their trialling activities. This report therefore concentrates on those explorations and offers further comment on the project as a whole.

The Partners

The basic aim of the project was to transfer the outcomes of the parent project into other areas beyond that of health care specialisms. Initially, the intention was to work with relevant subject centres to engage colleagues in undergraduate sports degrees in three partner institutions. This plan did not develop beyond early discussions and the project decided to search for volunteer partners across a range of institutions and disciplines. As a result the list of partner institutions was as follows:

Plymouth UniversitySouthampton UniversityMiddlesex UniversityWestminster UniversityNorthumbria UniversityPortsmouth UniversitySheffield Hallam UniversityCoventry UniversityNHS Scotland

The link person named in documentation sometimes turned out not to be the appropriate person with knowledge of the work and in many cases making contact proved to be time consuming and, in some cases, so far, unproductive. However, as a result, direct contact has been made with seven of the nine relevant people. The nine partners themselves form a very disparate group. Three of them come from health care, two from sports and one from art and design. One is involved with Foundation Degrees, another is a work-based learning CETL and perhaps the most significant one is the NHS Scotland.

What they have been doing?

What then appears to have been happening at the partner level? As already mentioned, in two cases no contact has yet been made. In two other cases it appears that no trial of materials has taken place. For one of those, early discussions with members of the team were promising but work associated with an important course review led to a decision not to proceed with the project’s request at the moment. For the other, it appears that in spite of attempts to generate interest amongst colleagues, none of them has come forward to assist with the trial of material. For the remainder, a variety of formal or informal ways of engaging their interest and support appears to have been used. There was no money available within the project to support any partner activity and so they were all operating on a voluntary basis.

23

Nevertheless, the understanding between the partner and the project appears to vary and in only two cases has any written feedback been given.

Institution A

In this institution the information pack and the CD-Rom were distributed to a number of colleagues with a request that the material might be used. Interest was aroused mostly in mentorship, reflection and dyslexia resources and when a couple of workshops were held for staff to test out material the reflective practice and T & L strategy material was found to be useful. But there has not been much feedback generated. The respondent thought that the material was now being used to help to prepare students for placement in a Diploma in Employability Studies and some of the generic material had been useful in a housing degree. Little more information was available and there has not been a formal report prepared for the project.

Institution B

In this institutional health faculty the materials have been used in a specific module entitled Mentoring and Facilitating Your Own and Other Professions. Students on the module have been directed to the project’s website and in particular it has been suggested to them that they should work through the Managing Failing Students in Practice workbook. They are also referred to the materials concerning reflection. No feedback has been obtained thus far from the students because a broader evaluation of the first year group is ongoing. However a short report has been submitted to the project team which includes some critical comments gathered anecdotally.

Institution C

This institution appears to be rather more organised than some others and although no report about their activities was requested one is expected to be produced in August. The institution is using materials in its mentor development programmes. They offer about ten foundation degrees and all require able mentors. Currently there are about 80 students registered on the programme of which half are involved in their own courses. The project’s website is one of those for which links have been established and the use of materials on Reflection, Mentoring and Communication Skills is being encouraged. An e-survey will shortly be conducted amongst a range of users to obtain feedback from them.

Institution D

Here, work was done to adapt the materials for use by sports students and their supervisors within the university and in the workplace. About 100 students have been involved and the materials included those on Reflection, Assessment and Working with Others. Each section was adapted for each of the three groups of people and then made available on-line. A workshop was held for university supervisors and for students prior to their placement. Informal feedback from staff has been positive and an on-line questionnaire is

24

being distributed to students. Their comments will be available late this year. This partner has reported in writing to the project team.

Institution E, the NHS Scotland

Potentially this partner seemed to offer the most scope for trialling the resources as it was able to distribute them to three Regional Co-ordinators across Scotland and thence to many workplace facilitators. This has been done and the toolkits have been distributed to all the Trusts in the country. There is a strong desire to obtain feedback from users but no specific plan to do this. This partner would welcome help from the project in devising an evaluation method.

DISCUSSION

Transferability projects can be difficult to evaluate and to manage. They contrast with the more substantial projects that precede them both in terms of the resource available and in their scale and purpose. They can sometimes appear to be an afterthought or even a superfluous add-on to the main project. Their purpose is ‘to allow project outcomes to be transferred to either different discipline areas or different departments/institutions that were not part of the original project.’ All the partners qualify under this description although it is not clear why the original aim to transfer just to Sports was later discarded. It may be that a more focussed approach to work with just one discipline would have been more successful. As has been noted, some of the partners have not really delivered anything whilst amongst the six described above there has been mixed success and monitoring of activity so far. It is certainly true that to obtain clear results from a group of volunteers (as these partners were) is more difficult than if they are receiving payment for their work but it is not impossible. Where there is a financial interest there is usually also a written understanding of what is to be done and this is undoubtedly helpful to all concerned. On the other hand to win the support and interest of one contact in an institution is one thing; to find willing help amongst that partner’s colleagues is quite another. Nevertheless, in the majority of the cases above it does appear that students and others have been enlisted to try out some of the materials. However, it does seem that approaches to the generation of feedback are somewhat mixed and perhaps the project could have done more to ensure better evaluation. Nevertheless more useful information may yet be gathered from those partners. This is particularly true of NHS Scotland.

The project was fortunate in having established a good and close relationship with this partner. It has itself been engaged in activities to promote practice-based learning and was an ideal environment within which to work. The project was able to exploit the recent conference in Edinburgh to promote its work and it generated a lot of interest amongst those present. It appears that as a result a number of toolkits have been distributed and if the use and value of these is properly monitored then much more useful feedback may be obtained.

25

Bearing in mind that what has already been said about the comparative scarcity of feedback one matter prompts comment. The main project concentrated upon the development of a website and printed material was only a minor part of the project. It placed great faith in the new technology and the appropriateness of offering resources on-line. Now, whilst some of the partners have promoted the use of the on-line resources, more attention appears to have been paid to the toolkit, a well produced and flexible paper-based resource. Some of the feedback obtained during the main project about the website was favourable whilst there has been some criticism of it from the current partners. On the other hand, at least one of the partners has translated the content of the toolkit into an on-line resource in order to make it more accessible to students, particularly when they are out on placement. These few indicators suggest that the ongoing debate about how best to publish material is not yet concluded. Questions remain about whether one form of delivery is more appropriate for particular groups of people in particular environments than it is for others elsewhere. Perhaps the project might address these issues in its final report of its work.

Finally, a word about process matters. In the final evaluation report to the main project the writer commented, ‘Like many projects before it this one suffered from problems of in attendance at steering committee meetings and indeed cancellations’. Unfortunately this problem continued during the transferability project. The writer strongly believes that an interested and active steering committee can considerably enhance the value and impact of a development project. Alternatively, a project may suffer considerably from the absence of a continuing and informed forum to monitor and advise the project team.

CONCLUSION

This has been a difficult project for which to offer any evaluation input. The nature of the planned work and the process by which it has been done has created problems. Useful formative evaluation requires a continuing opportunity to interact with the project; its team, partners and steering committee, and a more substantial work period in which to act. Whilst obtaining extra support and resource from other sources to engage in complementary work has strengthened the outputs of the team more broadly, it has created problems in describing the boundaries of the project and consequently what should be the focus of attention. The lack of perceived clarity about the expectations of partners may affect the value of the work they have done by not generating sufficient feedback but there is time to recover the situation.

It would be foolish to summarise the impact and effectiveness of this transferability project without reference to the main Practice Based Learning project. This project would not exist without the other. The original project set out a number of aims and objectives. At its heart was a desire to improve the quality of learning acquired in work placements in the health sector. Implicit in

26

the project was a recognition that it was working in only one corner of a much bigger canvas. Any materials it produced would only be able to make a modest contribution to improving the overall situation. Dissemination of them to other professions was recognised as important and so to transfer them through a project such as this or by other means was a natural extension of its activity. That project also underwent a learning journey of its own, not least as it began to use the language of work-based learning or learning in the workplace as opposed to practice-based learning. At its end there were inevitable questions unanswered and some of these have been highlighted again during this phase of its work.

What continues to surprise most of all is that there is a genuine and continuing demand for the kinds of materials for which the project has been developing. There may well be many in higher education (whether it is delivered in a university or in a workplace) for whom the materials are not novel and for whom the issues are familiar; for example about generic versus specialist resources. And yet there are many, many members of academic staff, teaching support specialists, supervisors in the workplace and of course students themselves who would find them new and valuable. The problem of how to engage such people remains. HEFCE, other agencies and those who work with and for them must try harder to develop effective interventions that maximise the impact of scarce resources.

DAVID PIERCEAugust 2007

27

APPENDIX ONE

MAKING PRACTICE BASED LEARNING WORK

A PROPOSAL FOR THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE HEFCE FDTL TRANSFERABILITY PROJECT BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER AND NORTHUMBRIA

SUBMITTED BYDAVID PIERCE

BACKGROUND

Following the successful completion of the Making Practice Based Learning project a bid for funding to transfer the outcomes of the project’s work and findings into other areas was made to HEFCE. The original bid emphasised work to transfer the project’s developed resources into the specific subject centre areas of Hospitality, Sport, Leisure and Tourism and Health Science and Practice. Since then the subject areas within which the resources will be tested have been expanded and there are partners in the universities of Plymouth, Portsmouth, Westminster, Middlesex, Coventry, Sheffield Hallam as well as Bournemouth and Northumbria which were partners in the main project. Consequently there is now a wide range of disciplines involved but the project aim, ‘to transfer existing resources for the development of work based educators’ remains the same.

EVALUATION METHOD

The evaluation reports on the main project recognised the successes of its work. They also raised questions about the value of its comparatively narrow focus on practice-based learning. These questions were discussed by the team throughout the life of the project and it was clear that many of the questions that the project sought to address remained unanswered and just as difficult at its end. The final evaluation report re-stated some of them.

28

Some of these are relevant to the transferability project and include for example, the following. Given the reluctance of professionals to develop themselves formally as practice educators what use might they make of available resources? Can successful and effective work-based learning activity be stimulated from without by universities and professional bodies or does it need to be developed and driven from within an organisation? ‘The direction that the project took during its two years was encouraging in this respect. From the tightly defined FDTL statement and its focus on the comparatively restricted area of practice based learning in the health sector it began to use the language of work based learning and its application to many sectors. The transferability project will further explore these questions and in particular the relative value of specific subject based resources compared with more generic ones.

The evaluation method for the original project tried to establish an effective balance between formative and summative purposes. The approach in this transferability project is constrained by the nature of the work and the time available. Essentially the work involves working with the range of partners who will use a variety of processes to test out and obtain feedback about the relevance and usefulness of the materials to work based educators in their areas. However, in tandem with this core activity the project will be organising a series of open workshops to describe and present the resources to an even wider audience. These workshops, being funded from another source, are not strictly a part of this project but as they are being used partly as a vehicle to pursue the aims of the project their contribution must be acknowledged.

The evaluator can offer assistance in three ways. First, as a continuation of the earlier formative emphasis, offer comment about the developing processes for implementing the project. Second, comment upon the outputs from the partners’ activities and if agreed, the workshops. Third, support the project with the extra resource available by looking closely at the processes engaged in within the partner institutions and offering feedback and comment upon them.

As with the approach in the main project the evaluation strategy is for discussion and agreement between the evaluator and the project team.

David Pierce07.02.07

29