Summary of data from course documents

The data shows that there are three types of Fds as suggested by Pearson (2010) and a mixed picture as to who delivers which type of course. There also appears to be a number of different patterns as to how the curricula are delivered and over what time period. The wide choice of Fds in health and the interpretation of learning in the workplace means that the content of Fds are varied and draw on a range of disciplines. However the core content of all the curricula link to the QAA

benchmarks. This variety suggests that the different Fds meet the requirements of different employers, both in relation to those which develop students for entry to the workplace, and those already in the work setting and being developed. What this does show is that the expectations that Fds would be developed to meet the needs of employers is occurring, particularly for those Fds designed with employers. Further evidence of this is demonstrated by the research carried out by Spilsbury et al. (2011a) and the evaluations undertaken by Benson (2004) and Selfe et al. (2008) (Chapter three).The available documentation did not have sufficient detail to get a true picture of the academic content of the individual modules. The module guides, including lists of indicative content would be needed to make comparisons. However this would involve gaining permission from all the providers, as this level of data falls into intellectual property.

5.4 Questionnaire

This section looks at both the quantitative and qualitative data from the

questionnaire. The quantitative data was analysed using SPSS version 16 to provide descriptive statistics. The qualitative data used thematic analysis, guided by the questions asked. As stated previously in the methodology chapter, there were two

151

questionnaires used, one for CLs and one for CCs. The first part of the CLs questionnaire included the same questions asked of the CCs.

The resulting responses only reached a 15% return rate. Robson (2011) suggests there is no agreement as to an acceptable response rate, but cites Mangione (1995) who considers 60% as a minimum. The impact of the low response limits the ability to generalise and produce statistical significance (Robson 2011).

Quantitative data

The quantitative aspects of the questionnaire addressed a number of elements:

 Place of work

 The role of the respondents

 Length of time delivering foundation degrees

 If the foundation degree is related to a Band 4 role

 Personnel involved in curriculum design

 Mode of delivery

 Any changes to the foundation degree, including discontinuation

 Should a national curriculum be developed

The choiceof these factors was underpinned by a number of rationales. The first factor was needed to establish what role the respondent had as there were a number of potential roles. These included the CL, course developer, module leader, lecturer and clinical support. The variable also needed to include a category of other role and for more than one role. This was to establish the degree of involvement and the perspective the individual brought to answering the questionnaire. The next three

152

factors; length of time, place of work and mode of delivery, are descriptive statistics which aid understanding of the level of experience with Fds and what that experience is. The mode of delivery was included to establish the ways in which the Fd is

delivered and also allows cross correlation against the Band 4 role. The place of work was asked in order to enable responses to be sorted and enable comparison of responses from HEIs and FECs. The aim was to look at the experience of the respondents and years of involvement with delivering Fds to ascertain if experience equated to being asked to deliver the Fd. It was also hoped to examine who was involved in designing the Fds to draw out partnership aspects and degree of employer engagement.

Place of work

Thirty three responses were received and consisted of 14 CLs and 19 CCs. Seven of the CLs were based in HEIs and seven in FECs. The CCs were less evenly distributed with nine HEIs and four FECs represented. One of the HEIs had four respondents, another had two respondents. One of the FECs had three respondents and the rest only one respondent.

The role of the respondents

The findings showed that for the 14 course leaders the majority had multiple roles within their organisation. Only four of the respondents stated that their role was solely that of course leader. One of the respondents had five roles including course leader and programme manager (overseeing other Fds). One of the respondents stated they were involved with course development and oversaw all Fds in their faculty but was not a course leader. Across the CLs the role combinations were

153

mostly as CL and module leader, or CL and lecturer, or senior lecturer. Seven of the respondents had been part of course development including four from HEIs and three from FECs.

The roles for the CCs were mainly that of module leaders and lecturers/senior lecturers with 11 respondents ticking both. Fifteen CCs were module leaders and 15 stated they were lecturers/senior lecturers. Eight of the CCs stated that they had been involved in curriculum development with six working in HEIs and two within FECs. Only four of the respondents had been involved with the course development which suggests that the majority of CLs had either been excluded from the development, or taken on the role after the course had been established.

Length of time delivering Foundation degrees

CL’s years of involvement ranged from one year to over five years with an average of four years. CCs averaged two and a half years but were more evenly spread across the time frames. The chart below (5.2) presents the number of years of involvement for all the respondents. This suggests that those undertaking course leadership are more likely to remain with the award for longer periods, however the role of course leader is not static and changes over time. When reflecting on the questions, what was not asked was whether the CLs had previously been involved as CCs prior to managing the course.

154

Figure 5.2 Number of years involved with Foundation degrees

The Figure below (5.3) shows the number of years the respondents had been involved with the Fd correlated with the role identified. What is interesting is that those who were involved with course development had been working with Fds for less than four years. This could suggest that new Fds were still being developed or could also be linked to courses being revalidatedor changed. This would fit in with QAA policy of reviewing courses on a five yearly basis. The table also highlights that CLs are more likely to stay with the Fd for more than three years and were the main group who worked with Fds for five years or more.

Figure 5.3 also highlights that the majority of the respondents undertook other roles within their institution. What was not asked was whether these roles were related to the Fd in health or to other awards and activities within the institution.

0 1 2 3 4 5 under 1 year under 2 years under 3 years under 4 years under 5 years 5 years and over

Course Contributors course leaders

155

Figure 5.3 Role and years involved with Foundation degrees in health

Relation to Band 4 role.

Seven of the courses were aimed at Band 4 development and a further four courses were delivered with other employers. The chart below (Figure 5.4) shows the cross correlation between place of work and whether the Fd is aimed at creating Band 4 employees. This suggests that HEIs are more likely to run courses leading to Band 4 than FECs based on the sample. Conversely this suggests that FECs are more likely to deliver more generic Fds aimed at widening participation and preparation for work. The size of the sample does not allow for generalisability. However, the pattern is confirmed by the findings from the course documentation.

156

Figure 5.4 Place of delivery and Band 4 courses

Personnel involved in curriculum development

The data from the questionnaires demonstrated the inclusion of employers and staff from both HEIs and FECs in the development of the curricula. In addition three of the 13respondents who answered the question had included user groups as part of the design team. However three of the CLs stated that only academic staff (from both FECs and HEIs) had been involved with the curriculum development. Only two of the CLs had sought advice from fdf when designing the course. The chart below (5.5) shows the range of people/organisations involved in the development of the curricula for the 13 courses.

157

Figure 5.5 Involvement in curriculum development

In total eight of the courses had employers as part of the course development team. This included four courses which had both SHA and NHS Trust involvement and six courses that had links to other employers (local councils and social care

organisations).

Modes of course delivery

The modes of course delivery were predominantly face to face with 13of the 14 CLs stating this and the other course was delivered through blended learning. However the wording of the question caused some confusion with the respondents, as a

number stated they were both face to face and blended learning (six courses) and two CLs stated they used face to face, online and blended learning, suggesting that six of the courses use a variety of approaches when delivering the curriculum. No courses were stated as being delivered using distance learning.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Strategic Health Authority NHS Trust Other employers HEI staff FEC staff User groups fdf