Co-genT and Employer Engagement

Kelly EdwardsCeri Jones

University of Wales, Newport

Work-based Learning in the Heads of the Valleys

• CCLL established WBL programme in 2007• Over 150 employers & over 400 WBL students • Cert HE (Combined Open Studies) ‘standalone’

10 credit Level 4 modules• Business & Management; IT subjects• Delivered at workplace or local venues

New ESF funded WBL projects

• Digital Economy in the Heads of the Valleys (DEHOV)

• Foundation Degree in Business Practice

• All part of the UHOVI curriculum offer (Universities Heads of the Valleys Institute)

Co-genT & employer engagement

• Initial email to employers to identify participants

• Meetings arranged with 3 employers• 2 employers participated:Employer 1 - Manufacturing SME based in

Blaenau GwentEmployer 2 - Global Manufacturing organisation

with a base in Merthyr Tydfil

‘spark of interest’

• Both employers were familiar but neither had previously engaged with the WBL programme

• ‘Spark of interest’ ?• Employer 1 – wanted a course “to tie-in more

with the business… to make it more relevant to the business”

• Employer 2 – to raise skills levels across the board, all at same qualification level

Types of training required

• Employer 1 – ‘Conflict Management’ to aid understanding between departments, bridge the divide

• Employer 2 – ‘Communication’ module to develop effective communication strategies for customer relations; overcoming cultural differences; internal and external communication

Introduction to Co-genT

• Co-genT software was demonstrated - brief rationale for its development

• Demonstrated List, Cloud and Bloom view with both employers – Cloud view preferred

• Employers asked what they wanted their staff to be able to do as a result of the training

• Vocabulary builder used in Cloud view to identify key words

Employer 1 (SME)Rachel

• Identified the following key terms:• ‘Communicate’; ‘manage’; ‘lead’;

‘responsibility’; ‘evaluate’• ‘Manage’ – none of the descriptions matched

her requirements• ‘Plan’ – most appropriate definition at Level 5• Employer surprised by definitions, higher level

descriptors were more relevant to her needs

Employer 2 (International)Neil

• Identified key word - ‘Communicate’ Level 4:• Uses interpersonal and communication skills

to clarify tasks and identify and rectify issues in a range of contexts (SEEC)

• Good match for their needs – to establish what we are trying to communicate; and what our customers are trying to communicate to us (internal and external communication)

‘Communicate’ at Level 5

• Identifies, analyses and communicates principles and concepts recognising competing perspectives SEEC

• Recognising cultural differences; • Responding to the issues, not the emotion• The communication becomes the issue, not

the issue itself

‘Communicate’ at Level 5

• Adapts interpersonal and communication skills to a range of situations, audiences and degrees of complexity SEEC

• Internal and external relationships; • Accepting different voices within the

organisation• Setting achievable expectations• Different modes of communication – email,

telephone

‘Evaluate’ at Level 4

• Evaluate information, using it to plan and develop investigative strategies NICATS

• Reflects what they have to do as a business, the investigative process, based on the evaluation of an issue

‘Autonomy’ at Level 4

• Exercise autonomy and judgement within broad but generally well-defined parameters (CQFW/QCF)

• Acts with limited autonomy, under direction or supervision, within defined guidelines. Takes responsibility for the nature and quality of outputs (SEEC)

• Exact match for what the employer is trying to achieve – “know your parameters for decisions but exercise autonomy within them”

‘Responsibility’

• Acts with limited autonomy, under direction or supervision, within defined guidelines. Takes responsibility for the nature and quality of outputs (SEEC)

• Direct link to ‘autonomy’, both needed together, where people have autonomy but don’t take responsibility, the output is not effective

Responses to Co-genT - Employer 1

• Described the process as “very wordy”• “I think it’s really long-winded, I would just

rather have a conversation with someone”

Responses to Co-genT - Employer 1

• Process was helpful to highlight problems, “to bring any misunderstandings to the beginning”

• Would help to “justify” training to management• Raised awareness of ‘level’ of training• She “would feel more comfortable if we had a

shared understanding from the outset”• It’s useful because “it’s going to raise differences

and hopefully then address them”

Responses to Co-genT - Employer 2

• Co-genT terms presented an accurate reflection of need

• Cloud view made it easier to link concepts, to analyse the objectives in front of you

• Useful to consider the appropriateness of level, different provision required for different individuals

• “This could be a fantastic opportunity!”

Conclusions

• Provided a useful framework to begin dialogue about learning outcomes

• Both employers could appreciate the rationale for introducing Co-genT

• Evident that negotiating new curriculum is a lengthy process, time is needed to fully utilise the Toolkit

• A further meeting is planned with Employer 2 to explore the ‘Outcome Builder’ to generate a new ‘Communication’ module

Implications

• Time is needed to arrange employer consultations

• Recognise that it is an ongoing process• Useful to allow employer to reflect on their

objectives, the level required• Must be used effectively for maximum benefit

Any questions?

Kelly EdwardsKelly.edwards@newport.ac.uk

Ceri JonesCeri.jones6@newport.ac.uk

University of Wales, Newport