Challenges with Developing WBL within Higher Education

A 1988 study identified three key barriers to industry-HEI collaboration, (Van Dierdonck and Debackere, 1988). The barriers, which can occur on both the industrial and university side of the collaboration, were:

 Cultural Barriers which are manifested by differences in reaction speeds, short or long-term approaches, reward systems which can lead to mutual incomprehension;

 Institutional Barriers which are manifested by unclear norms and policies leading to stagnation and inertia; and

 Operational Barriers which are manifested by problems during the implementation of the project as a result of rules, norms, etc.

Symes and McIntyre (2000) suggest that the adultification of universities threatens the academic identity of staff where staff are forced to acknowledge adult learners as producers of knowledge. Murphy (2008) maintains that this acknowledgement is central to existing delivery complexities and hampers the strategic positioning of HEIs in this regard.

Lester and Costley (2010) identify that problems with WBL originate in a ‘lack of fit’ with the popular division of HEI programmes into either taught or research- based. These issues mainly appear in the grey literature such as project reports and are often the topic of validation events in HEIs (Lester and Costley, 2010), and some of them are discussed in literature concerning issues of academic value.

Critiques of WBL courses in universities were not however, evident in much of the published literature even though tutor/researchers in the field are aware that there are reservations about the substance of WBL programmes and modules from some parties. The Education in Employment and Roadmap for Employer Academic Partnership project reports identified issues raised by academic managers (concerned about viability) and academics (concerned about legitimacy). These issues were:

 Labour intensive support is required from academic staff to deliver WBL;

 Work-based Learning is complicated and demanding for HEI systems;

 Uncertainties exist about the academic benefit;

 Work-based Learning is not cost effective;

 Over emphasis on process rather than academic content;

 Lack of subject discipline-specific content;

 Difficulty in codifying knowledge arising from experiential learning (although because of EU initiatives a certain percentage of experiential learning is now becoming more acceptable and being recognised by HEIs); and

 Absence of written exam assessment.

Concerns are expressed that the economic value of developing the workforce is being prioritised over the academic value of developing individual people. Other issues arise because of the paradigmatic shift involved in such programmes, where much of the learning is not based on disciplinary knowledge but broader and practice-based knowledge (this has been cited in the literature as an internal obstacle). Much of this learning can be outside the realm of what HEIs could reasonably be expected to

engage with as it is at too low a level or ephemeral in nature (Lester and Costley, 2010).

According to Fullan, ‘Education change is technically simple and socially complex’ (Fullan, 1991, p. 109). While it is obvious that change in education is not always technically simple, it can indeed be socially complex, involving multiple social interactions among hundreds of people. Fullan outlines that implementation of education change, following the decision on adoption, is a dynamic process involving interlocking variables with key success factors and themes. These factors, or themes, include the nature or characteristics of the change itself, the local situation or characteristics and external factors or pressures. Keep and Mayhew (1999) refers to the misplaced confidence in current lifelong learning policies and concepts in the UK and highlights the dwindling role that employers are afforded in strategies.

The HEA Academy (2011) ‘Learning from Experience in Employer Engagement’ report on recent experiences of delivery of WBL in the UK identifies the following barriers to developing academic staff interest in WBL:

 Competing priorities of teaching, research and administration which contend for time and esteem;

 Employer engagement may be seen as a threat to tradition through engaging new audiences with more vocational content rather than traditional perceptions of higher academic study; and

 Some academic disciplines are historically more abstract in nature, making immediate and specific employer relevance less apparent, and perhaps more of a challenge to core disciplinary values.

Drucquer, Thomas and Morrison (2011, p. 62) state in the report;

Some academic prejudice comes from reasonable concerns about preserving the quality of education. It may be that there is a perception that WBL is of lower quality than traditional learning, or it may be doubts over the possibility of ensuring appropriate learning outcomes and enabling a student experience of suitable quality. Clearly, of course, some problems arise because this is a relatively new area of practice, and requires different skills and infrastructure for delivery.

Therefore, according to Murphy (2008), staff need to be given time to struggle with the ambivalence of initiatives like WBL before sustainable practices and clear expressions through appropriate learning outcomes can be comprehensively adopted to accurately reflect student achievement. Used rigidly, some commentators feel that learning outcomes become the sole focus of any classroom interaction and stifle discussion, encouraging a reductionist approach to cover only the lecturer’s prior knowledge of the subject (Maher, 2004).

It is obvious, according to Reeve and Gallacher (2005), that regardless of the plethora of reports into the potential of WBL, there is little evidence to suggest the discipline has become a major form of provision in third level education, demand is limited and this is in part due to the problematic concept of public/private partnership. They note that over formalisation may place an administrative burden on employers, leading to ‘collaborative inertia’ and that employers needs might be much more diverse than

and Preece (2009) question the real extent that UK government and state agency WBL policy is translated into organisational practice in HEIs.

Garrison and Anderson (2003) outline that higher education places value on higher order learning outcomes, and the development of critical thinking processes required to achieve these outcomes through complex and sustained communication between and among the teacher and students. According to Lester and Costley (2010), although higher level skills and learning are relevant, a significant proportion of workplace learning is not considered appropriate for a HEI due to its low academic content or transient nature.

Roodhouse in Roodhouse and Mumford (2010) provide a rather practical explanation for lack of staff interest. They identify absence of strategy at local level, of an overall institutional strategy and lack of relative importance for these activities, compared with developing academic research and international standing.

Kelly (2010) also identifies an adversarial culture which exists between management and unions representing academic staff in the Institute of Technology sector. Presenting this culture as a barrier to change within the sector, he refers to the traditional tight control of teaching hours and duties, bound by taut management and union relationships.

However despite Workman (2008) conceptualisation of WBL as a field of learning rather than a recognised mode, there is no doubt that the theories and practices of WBL are developing legitimacy as a source of tertiary learning (Murphy, 2008). Lester and Costley (2010) support this observation and are positive regarding emergence of WBL, outlining that ‘evidence indicates that well-designed work-based programmes are both effective and robust’, calling for more sophisticated partnerships with more attention to individual learners stretching beyond the perspective of their current employment.

Smith and Preece (2009) also identify disjuncture between UK government policy and practice. Relating resistance to ‘non – converts’, or those academic staff not involved, and other local constraints, the introduction of WBL is stymied by other paradigmatic changes in higher education, including the advent of managerialism, quality assurance and changes in funding models. Resistance among academics to WBL, according to Smith and Preece (ibid.), is actually a form of self protection.

There are obvious emergent tensions between the theories described by Cunningham et al. (2007) and the schools of thought that require constructive alignment of WBL programmes in the manner proffered by Biggs (2003). In the context of the learning outcomes approach, and emphasis on accreditation adapted within Irish HEIs, these tensions are real and potentially detrimental to the emergence of WBL as a legitimate form of learning that crosses the cultural divide of industry and academia, from its position of ‘a bit of “cottage industry” supported by enthusiasts’ (HEA, 2006, p. 16).

Lester and Costley (2010) provocatively highlight suggestions that reliance on luke- warm university- employer partnerships may actually hinder the development of WBL and its conceptual role in workforce developments needs further critical analysis.

The extant literature outlined in this section indicates that Van Dierdonck and Debackere’s (1988) barriers to collaboration are still very relevant today. Although knowledge of the principles of collaboration has increased, there is little evidence in the literature of a response to Garrick, Chan and Lai’s (2003) challenge to HEIs to think beyond pre-set curricula and accreditation processes, to allow learning at work a place on their schemata.

2.9 Emergent Work-based Learning Scholarship within Human