Models for organising foundation programmes

A programme is an instrument for education. Through educational programmes we help shape our society. Programme design includes decisions on what society finds valuable for people to learn, and how this should be structured and organised. In this way it influences teaching and learning.

(Govers, 2011a, p. iii)

This section outlines models for organising foundation programmes with particular reference to how these programmes are organised within the ITP sector in New Zealand. Govers (2011a), in her doctoral research, notes a dearth of research on understanding programme design in this sector, particularly from the perspective of decision making. Her research, which consisted of an interpretive case study of certificate and diploma programmes within a regional polytechnic, is of value in understanding the basis of decision making for programme design decisions (see

84

Chapter Three). As noted in section 2.3 and Table 2.22, research has indicated that centralised developmental programmes have consistently been found to be more successful that decentralised ones. This was recognised by Coltman (2004) in his research on models of bridging education in New Zealand in particular with reference to Boylan’s (2002) description of the characterisation of centralised and decentralised structures for programmes. Centralisation refers to the institutional arrangement in which foundation courses and services are highly co-ordinated, housed in a single department or programme area and are led by a senior manager.

Centralised programmes are characterised by:

 several developmental subject areas coordinated under a single unit;

 a clearly articulated philosophy to guide programmes;

 combining support services within the laboratories; and

 a single individual responsible for coordinating the campus wide developmental education effort. (Coltman, 2004, p. 24)

Coltman (2004) argues that a decentralised programme structure can be effective in that this model “can result in high levels of integration and communication across courses and services.” (p. 24). However, he stipulates that in order for this integration and communication to occur there needs to be an administrator with responsibilities for institute-wide coordination of foundation education activities. The decentralised model, when considered effective, is characterised by:

 regular meetings of all those involved in the delivery of courses and services;

 articulation of common goals and objectives for all developmental courses and subjects;

 integration of academic courses and academic support services;

 co-ordination of developmental courses and service by an administrator with primary responsibility for institute-wide bridging education; and

 encouragement of team meetings across the organisation to discuss programme problems, outcomes and professional development. (Coltman, 2004, p. 24)

More recently, Govers (2011b) conducted research into the models that are used across the ITP sector for organising foundation education, which was defined by her in this context as “all educational programmes taught in tertiary education

85

organisations that lead to qualifications at Levels 1 to 4 the New Zealand Qualifications Framework” (p. 1). Her research, which involved interviews of Academic Managers/Directors and a survey across 17 ITPs, indicated that foundation education is organised in diverse ways within these institutions. Some ITPs have a centralised structure with a specific school or department for foundation education which usually specialises in teaching generic foundation programmes. Other ITPs teach foundation programmes (both generic and specialised in nature) within the disciple-oriented structure of the organisation. This can be considered to be a decentralised structure. This research assumes that NorthTec would have been one of the five ITPs surveyed in Govers’ research that had a specific foundation education ‘department’ or programme area. Govers (2011b) describes a range programme features in terms of length, level and focus. In terms of length, the generic programmes were of either one semester or one year duration. Most included LLN skills alongside a combination of academic skills, life skills, employment or vocational skills appropriate to the outcomes of the particular programme. The degree pathway programmes were situated at Level Four of the NZQF.

All ITPs surveyed offered specialised foundation programmes which focussed on a particular discipline and were targeted at a specific vocational pathway. However, as Govers (2011b) notes, not all ITPs label them as foundation programmes and in some cases these programmes contain one or more generic foundation courses.

Alongside the generic and specialised programmes, Govers (2011b) classifies two other categories of programmes. First, ‘orientation’ programmes that enable students to have a ‘taste’ of specialised areas while also teaching generic foundation skills which represent “a midway between generic and specialised foundation programmes” (p. 6). Second, there are programmes offered to specific target groups such as students who need intensive support, women and young mothers. These programmes are taught in a separate cohort or are stand-alone and do not have a specific pathway purpose. Govers (2011b) further outlines the strengths and challenges of both generic and specialised foundation programme organisational structures as described by the interviewees involved in her research. These perspectives are summarised in Tables 2.18 and 2.19.

86 Table 2.18

Foundation Education Programme Structures in Organisations: Strengths and Challenges of Generic Programmes

Area Strengths Challenges

Organisation and

management

 Highlights the ITP as a place of foundation learning, and can put energy into establishing good connections with community and university, instead of each department doing this by themselves.

 The FE department is a hub for expertise about learning. It houses foundation education support and knowledge to service other departments (e.g. literacy and numeracy, teaching communication skills, ESOL), and has a strong relationship with other departments.

 Creates an FE profile in the organisation.

 Staff teaching in the generic FE programmes also teach in the specialist programmes, and are therefore part of a larger teaching team, which stimulates sharing of expertise across the organisation.

 There is no longer a competition for students in the organisation. There are explicit pathways to other programmes and the rest of the organisation can see the benefit.

 There is one streamlined and efficient admissions process across the organisation. programme that is owned by the institution and has no ‘home’ in a School, as it lacks an underpinning structure to support it.

 Ongoing communication with other departments; this requires a dedicated person. develop confidence, a commitment to learning, to explore different areas before they fully commit to a particular area of study, and as a result to make informed choices.

 Can offer clear pathways for students who still need to choose a specialisation.

 Can provide a transparent pathway to degree study and targeted assistance with applying for degree study.

 Offers a large range of pathways that remain open for students.

 Offers a clear referral structure if students do not meet entry requirements in specialised programmes.

 Allows the organisation to better control the levels of programmes to help students get ready for the next level.

 Encourages students to continue studying.

 Allows the teachers or FE department to engage with the local community and support their enculturation in tertiary study.

 Prepares students well for higher level study. Students are moving on to other departments, and the departments can see the benefits of the FE programmes.

 To develop a pathway from

87 Table 2.18

Foundation Education Programme Structures in Organisations: Strengths and Challenges of Generic Programmes (continued)

Area Strengths Challenges

Teaching and learning practices

 Have teachers who are specialised in and dedicated to engaging and

reconnecting students with formal education, study and learning skills, literacy, numeracy.

 Do not take out time to teach a subject area.

 Allow flexibility to accommodate the programme to meet student needs and for the learning context to be negotiated.

 Allow one enrolment process (e.g.

including diagnostic assessment and interview) resulting in level placement.

 Can be underpinned by a strong philosophy of good, experiential and culturally responsive teaching and learning.

 Integrate pastoral care into the programme.

 To find the fine balance between nurturing of students and preparing them for further study.

 To make students feel part of the rest of the institution.

 Where NCEA achievement standards are becoming part of a programme, for teachers to integrate these standards and assess against them in their programmes.

 To keep students engaged; having the right teacher is very important

 The concentration of demanding students in one programme or one department.

 Completion in distance learning through the lowest funding category, and because of the target student group often a deliberate choice is made to have low across the organisation, and distribute the cost accordingly.

 Students can pathway anywhere, including outside the institution. These are good outcomes, but do not serve a financial benefit for the organisation.

 Staff is expensive and highly qualified

 Performance pay does not work for these programmes if the resources are missing to do the job well

 Contract conditions where programmes are contracted from other tertiary organisations; and

 Attracting enough students to be viable, when similar programmes are offered by high schools with no fees

88 Table 2.19

Foundation Education Programme Structures in Organisations: Strengths and Challenges of Specialised Programmes

Area Strengths Challenges

Organisation one department creates synergy and communality across the teams.

 It is clear for staff members who are in charge of what and who to go to.

 This model has worked for some time, so there is no need to change.

 These programmes are not always programmes to identify with the ITP and for the organisation to monitor apprenticeship or employment, and sometimes to diplomas and degrees.

 Give students the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the staff and the school, which makes

 There is an assumption that students know what they want to study; there is very little opportunity to explore alternatives.

Teaching and learning practices

 Are contextualised and therefore more motivating for students. development that meets student needs.

 Teach specialised hands-on skills that require specialist teachers.

 Have teachers who share their passion about the subject area with students.

 Allow materials development that is aligned along the study pathway.

 To integrate deliberate and non-marginalised foundation learning activities in the programmes, as the students still have foundation learning needs. Embedding literacy and numeracy, including professional development for teachers, has partly addressed this challenge.

 The high level of foundation learning support that is needed is not always acknowledged in the teacher workload.

 Where student learning occurs partly in the workplace, the engagement of students relies heavily on the employer, who does not necessarily have a student learning focus.

89 Table 2.19

Foundation Education Programme Structures in Organisations: Strengths and Challenges of Specialised Programmes (continued)

Area Strengths Challenges

Financial

 Zero-fee programmes for relatively small groups impact on the viability of the programme and also of regional campuses which often offer only a limited number of programmes.

 Small numbers per programme, raising ongoing concern to get enough students to retain the programme. This may tempt staff to accept students who are not ready for the programme and should be referred elsewhere.

Note: Adapted from Govers (2011b)