Course documentation

The examination of course documents was designed to ascertain what the content of Fds in health are, what is being provided, by whom and if there are any differences between HEI and FEC provision. The curricula documents were examined for delivery patterns drawing on Pearson’s (2010) three types of Fds (Chapter two) and content of the curricula was used to compare similarities and differences. Underpinning the analysis was the degree to which the documents demonstrated adherence to the QAA benchmarks and HEFCE tenets, particularly life-long learning, employability, widening participation, flexibility, employer engagement and WBL agendas.

The collection consisted of searching the HEI and FEC websites for curricula documents for the 2012/13 academic year. These ranged from full pathway specification documents to information from course overviews for applicants via online prospectuses. The level of material provided mostly consists of names of modules rather than descriptions of module content. The course materials, accessible online, differed between the organisations. The majority had, as a minimum, an overview of the course which included a list of

modules, but lacked detail in relation to content within the modules. Others provided the module content and one organisation published the full course description.

Delivery of Foundation degrees

The data collected lists a total of 88different courses (including named pathways). The most common title was Health and Social Care and other course titles reflected

142

specialist input. Some courses were excluded from the list as, although they stated health and social care, they were focussed towards management and leadership or were predominantly social care. Thirty-nine universities had validated Fds in health and of these 24also delivered a curriculum within the university setting. The Fd appears to be delivered within British universities with only one Welsh university validating a course and no Scottish universities. Nine of the providers had courses that were delivered both in the university and through partner colleges. Two of the universities, Plymouth and UCLAN, appear to have delivered an Fd devised with local NHS providers themselves and franchised the entry level Fd to local colleges. Others, for example Bolton, ran the course for employers and franchised this to a local college. For those courses that were aimed at students already employed, a number of the titles reflected the work setting. These were either as specific courses i.e. Cornwall College Camborne (validated by Plymouth University) has an Fd entitled working with older people, or by adding a specialism to a generic degree for example Brighton University provides an FdSc Health and Social Care (Acute and Critical Care) and an FdSc Health and Social Care (Children, Family and Public Health).

Of the 39universities, 17 clearly stated that the course was designed with specific employers and students were drawn from those organisations only. The mode of delivery for those courses is predominantly two years full-time with one day a week face to face learning and a minimum of 16 hours in a work setting. The notable exception to this is Greenwich’s Primary Care Assistant Practitioner Course where teaching is two or three days per week and a minimum of one day in the Trust. The majority of the other courses did

143

not state if the courses were developed with set employers or at whom they were specifically aimed. One of the courses at Cornwall College: Long term Conditions, stated that their course was for both those currently employed and those wanting to be employed. For those courses that did not state they were designed for a specific employer, or include the wordsassistant

practitioner in the title, attendance is spread from one to three days a week. A small number of courses (Derby and Hertfordshire) were stated as being part- time over two years with the same pattern of attendance as other full-time courses.

Types of Foundation degrees and patterns of delivery

When looking at the available courses, it was interesting to discover how many of the courses were aimed at the different target groups as described by Pearson (2010) (chapter two). Counting the number of institutions who deliver courses: seven FECs provided courses aimed at preparing people for work but none of the HEIs and 11 FECs delivered courses for specific employers compared to 23HEIs. These courses tended to be delivered by both the validating HEI and the college franchises. In comparison FECs were more likely to deliver courses aimed at both employability and those in employment with 31courses compared to only nine HEIs. This suggests that HEIs were more likely to deliver the course in partnership with employers than FECs, however FECs were predominantly involved with preparing individuals for work and in work.

144

There is a mixture of how curricula are designed across the Fds (Diagram 5.1). The Fd consists of 120 credits at both level 4 and level 5. The credit levels for individual modules influenced the number of modules on the

course and therefore the number of assessments. Some universities had 10, 20 and 30 credit modules whilst others had 30 and 45 credit modules. This is influenced by the validating university, with some universities preferring larger modules encompassing a range of themes, whilst others favour shorter focussed modules.

The overall design of Fds showed a number of variations. A number of courses consisted of core modules which all students completed. This tended to apply to entry level Fd courses, but did include some of the courses designed for employers, particularly for one employer. Other Fds also stated core modules, but allowed for individualisation within some of the modules to reflect different practice settings. This was usually within WBL modules on courses delivered across NHS provision to provide Band 4 practitioners. Other curricula offered a mixture of core modules that all students undertake and option modules that reflected the work setting. Some of the universities had validated a range of named awards to address the specialist nature of different work settings within health care delivery. These usually consisted of common learning with shared modules that addressed underpinning aspects of healthcare i.e. ethics, evidence based practice and anatomy and

physiology, and specialist modules to address niche areas of work. Six of the curricula had modules that stated negotiated learning was incorporated into the design of the course. Common named awards differentiated between

145

mental health, adult hospital or community care and allied health roles including Physiotherapy and Occupational therapy.

Diagram 5.1 Curricula design of Foundation degrees in health