NMMU Facilitating VCET-HE articulation at - Professor Heather Nel Senior Director: Institutional Planning 5 March 2013
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Facilitating VCET-HE articulation at
NMMU
Professor Heather Nel
Senior Director: Institutional Planning
5 March 2013
Overview of presentation
VET-HE articulation at NMMU
Vision for an integrated PSET landscape
Rooted in and serving the needs of
their communities by providing first-
Provide regulatory framework for choice vocational education and
funding, quality assurance, training.
standards setting, programme
accreditation, & articulation
arrangements.
Creators of knowledge providing
high quality university education
for increasing numbers.
Enhance opportunities for
workplace learning & graduate
employability.Centre for Integrated Post-School Education and Training (CIPSET)
VCET-HE articulation at NMMU
• What are we exploring?
- Admissions requirements for VET learners into NMMU
qualifications
- Bridging programmes (e.g. in Science and
Mathematics) offered in partnership with colleges
- Research into transitions of NCV students into NMMU
qualifications – tracking and monitoring
- Curriculum mapping to design articulation pathways in
cognate fields of study
- Level 5 and 6 qualifications offered jointly with
collegesBarriers to VET-HE articulation
Features of articulation pathways
Conceptual model for VET-HE
articulationKnowledge typologies
Procedural knowledge Conceptual knowledge
Principled Proceduralised
Procedural Conceptual
Procedural Conceptual
Knowledge Knowledge
Knowledge Knowledge
Everyday Codified Applied Pure
Practice Practice Theory Theory
Source: Adapted from Gamble 2009Equal but different knowledge types
Source: Biggs, 2003
Source: Biggs, 2003Occupational fields and knowledge
Particular General Professions Research
occupations occupations based work
Labour Eg. Travel agents, Eg. Engineering Eg. Engineers, Academics,
market hospitality workers trades (fitters, lawyers, researchers, new
boilermakers), HR architects, HR white collar
operators managers, welfare and
doctors, teachers, service workers
social workers
Knowledge Largely practical Practical Applied theory Largely theoretical
Knowledge knowledge plus plus practical progression of the
some applied experience discipline
theory
Induction On-the-job- Apprenticeship External internship Internal internship
training, some (eg. pupilage, (eg. postdoctoral
apprenticeship housemanship) work, tenure)
Regulation Moderate to weak Moderate sectoral Strong sectoral Moderate to strong
sectoral regulation regulation (eg regulation (eg disciplinary
(eg hairdresser’s trade test) board exams.) regulation (peer
practical test) review)Principles of curriculum coherence
+ Contextual + Conceptual
(-conceptual (-contextual
coherence) coherence)
Logic: external Logic: conceptual
purposes of the building blocks of
curriculum the discipline
Source: Muller 2009Curriculum typologies
+ contextual/ + conceptual/
- conceptual - contextual
coherence coherence
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Contextual Contextual Contextual Conceptual Conceptual
Coherence Coherence Coherence Coherence Coherence
w/ w/ w/ w/ w/
procedural principled procedural procedural conceptual
knowledge procedural conceptual conceptual knowledge
knowledge knowledge knowledgeLevels of cognitive complexity (Gamble) LOW: LOW Factual Recall / Rote 1. Simple (recall simple law or equation) 2: Medium (recall complex content) MEDIUM: MEDIUM Understanding of concept / principle 1: Simple (simple relationships; simple explanations) 2: Medium (counter-intuitive relationships; more complex relationships) 3:Challenging (identify principles which apply in a novel context) HIGH: HIGH Problem-solving 1: Simple (simple procedure; known or practiced content) 2: Medium (construction or interpretation of diagrams; problems with two or more steps; interpretation of data tables) 3: Challenging (complex abstract representation; complex problems involving insight & logic leaps; formulating new equations; problem solving in a novel context)
Knowledge Types/Cognitive Complexity
COMBINED MATRIX KEY
Curriculum logic & knowledge type Cognitive complexity
C2 Contextual coherence with principled procedural Low
knowledge
C3 Contextual coherence with proceduralised Medium
conceptual knowledge
C4 Conceptual coherence with proceduralised
High
conceptual knowledge
C5 Conceptual coherence with conceptual
knowledge
Articulation requires increasing levels of cognitive complexity in the
dominant curriculum (core) type.Curriculum mapping methodology
Collaborative curriculum mapping To go fast, go alone. To go farther, go together. - African proverb
Curriculum mapping methodology
Source:
Source: Uchiyama &
Uchiyama & Radin,
Radin, 2008
2008Curriculum mapping: Process • Unit of analysis: subject/module • Each module was coded C1-5. • Across each year, modules were aggregated according to credit weighting; e.g. all the credits for the modules coded C3 within a particular year were added & divided by 120. • Each of these weighted curriculum types were coded for level of cognitive complexity using Bloom’s taxonomy. • Analysed levels of cognitive complexity across the years to assess ease of progression. • All conclusions from the analyses confirmed by the subject/module coordinators.
Curriculum mapping case study:
Mechanical EngineeringCurriculum mapping: Mechanical Engineering
Detailed analysis of:Curriculum mapping: Mechanical Engineering
NC
NC(V)(V)
Mechatronics
Mechatronics
Yr 3 C3
100%
M-H
Yr 2 C2 C3
25% 75%
L-M L-M
Yr 1 C2 C3
50% 50%
L-M L-M
N Dip (Mechanical Engineering)
N Dip (Mechanical Engineering)
Yr 3 C3
100%
L-M
Yr 2 C2 C3 C4
4% 64% 32%
M M-H M-H
Yr 1 C2 C3 C4
30% 44% 26%
L-M M MCurriculum mapping: Mechanical Engineering
BEng (Mechatronics)
Yr 4 C2 C3 C4
28% 63% 9%
M H H
Yr 3 C3 C4
89% 11%
H H
Yr 2 C3 C4 C5
58% 14% 28%
M-H M-H M-H
Yr 1 C2 C3 C4 C5
12% 32% 24% 32%
M M M MCurriculum mapping: Mechanical Engineering
NCV (Mechatronics) ND (Mech Eng) BEng Mechatronics
Selection C2 & C3 core C2, C3 & C4 core Strong C3 & C4 core;
weaker C2 & C5
Sequence C2: no increase in cognitive complexity C2: slight increase in Increase in cognitive
from Yr 1 to Yr 2; cognitive complexity cognitive complexity complexity from Yr 1
increases from Yr 2 to Yr 3. to Yr 4
C3: slight increase in
C3: no increase in cognitive complexity cognitive complexity
from Yr 1 to Yr 2; cognitive complexity
C4: slight increase in
increases from Yr 2 to Yr 3.
cognitive complexity
Progression & Progression to ND (Mech Eng) would Progression to B Tech Progression should
articulation need some bridging due to the strong (Yr 4) could be be unproblematic
conceptual emphasis in C4 knowledge. problematic
Progression to BEng (Mechatronics)
would need bridging due to the strong
conceptual emphasis in C4 & C5
knowledge.Findings: Mechanical Engineering Progression from NCV Mechatronics to N Dip (Mech Eng) would need some bridging in respect of conceptual (C4) knowledge in Year 1 – slight shift in emphasis from contextual to conceptual coherence. Progression from NCV Mechatronics to BEng (Mechatronics) difficult – more than half of the curriculum has strong conceptual emphasis in C4 & C5 in Year 1. Barrier to VET-HE articulation: Physical Science is an elective in the NCV Mechatronics – this fundamental is a core requirement for both N Dip and B Eng.
Concluding remarks • NCV curriculum review and HEQSF alignment processes present ideal opportunity to calibrate VET and HE curricula in cognate fields of study to facilitate articulation and progression. • Successful articulation requires a range of orientation and transition programmes to support students (Young, 2005). • Articulating VET students cannot simply be “dropped into” HE qualifications – need for targeted and accessible career advice. • Need for more varied post-school (NQF Level 5&6) qualifications at FET colleges initially offered in partnership with universities.
What is required to make articulation work?
References Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 2nd ed. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Maidenhead. Gabb, R. & Glaisher, S. (2006) Models of Cross-Sectoral Curricula: TAFE and HE, Victoria University. Gamble, J. 2009. Knowledge and Practice in Curriculum and Assessment. Concept paper commissioned by Umalusi (Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training). Muller, J. 2009. Higher Education Qualifications and Standard Setting: A Briefing Paper prepared for the CHE. Muller, J. 2008. In Search of Coherence: A Conceptual Guide to Curriculum Planning for Comprehensive Universities. Report prepared for the SANTED project, published in Muller, J. 2009 Forms of Knowledge and Curriculum Coherence, Journal of Education and Work, 22: 3, 203 – 224. Uchiyama, K.P and Radin, J.L. (2008) Curriculum Mapping in Higher Education: A Vehicle for Collaboration, Innovative Higher Education, 33: 271–280. Young, I. (2005) Intersectoral in our Approach, Paper presented at BHERT 'Bridging the Gap' Symposium, Melbourne.
THANK YOU! heather.nel@nmmu.ac.za
You can also read
