Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

Work-based learning apprenticeships

In work-based learning, learners’ motivation is considered a relevant contributor to the learning process (Kersh and Evans 2010).

In career development and counselling individual perceptions of abilities (Lent et al. 1994) have been highlighted and standardised ability self-estimate measures have been developed (see Campbell et al. 1992; Harrington and Harrington 1996; Holland et al. 1994).

Learners’ personalities, backgrounds, and environments are significant factors related to learning environments at a workplace (Kersh and Evans 2010). In the developmental approach (see e.g., Super 1974, 1980) and during the early stage of career development, the focus is on educational and occupational decision-making (Kidd 2006).

 

Learners are engaged in processes when they pursue self-relevant goals in their daily lives (Dweck 2000; see also, Breckler and Greenwald 1986; Deci and Ryan 1991; Epstein 1990). In order to be able to influence and change belief systems and behavior patterns, data is needed from their structures and models. Earlier studies had linked Self-Direction (see Guglielmino and Guglielmino 1988; Brockett and Hiemstra 1991) to learning. Learning forms a path into changing intentions and behavior.

The three variables of Self-Direction in this research project were chosen to measure the hypothesized attitude domains of self-determination, self-regulation, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in relation to apprenticeship as a choice for a future education path.

 

Individuals interact with their environment and derive information from it.

Work-related attitudes, habits, and interpersonal skills serve as important predictors of job success and satisfaction (Fitzgerald 1986). Deci and Ryan (1985) have shown how choices initiate and regulate self-determined behaviour’s, and how a person chooses to behave in anticipation of achieving self-related goals and satisfying organismic needs.

Individual predictive behavioural models, designed and specifically selected for time, target, space, and location, are proposed to be used for both curriculum planning and person-based guidance counseling when supporting students during transitional periods to Work-based learning (WBL) apprenticeships.

Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

Pillars of Tertiary Student Engagement

Introduction

The notion of the ‘student experience’ in higher education has a long and rich history.

Systematic measuring of the student experience has historically focused on pedagogical approaches, educational practices, and student evaluations of teaching practice (Grebennikov and Shah 2013).

Measuring attribute level evaluations of the student experience has offered institutions the ability to quantify and monitor the extent to which students’ baseline expectations are being met by the institution. Student satisfaction is a key benchmark metric of institutional performance and it continues to be prioritized in government policy.

Student engagement has been linked to an array of traditional success factors such as increased retention (Khademi Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018); high impact and lifelong learning (Artess, Mellors-Bourne, and Hooley 2017); curricular relevance (Trowler 2010); enhanced institutional reputation (Kuh et al. 2006); increased citizenship behaviours (Zepke, Leach, and Butler 2014); student perseverance (Khademi Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018); and work-readiness (Krause and Coates 2008). Engagement has also been linked to more subjective and holistic outcomes for students themselves including; social and personal growth and development (Zwart 2009); transformative learning (Kahu 2013); enhanced pride, inclusiveness and belonging (Wentzel 2012); student wellbeing (Field 2009)

Behavioural engagement

The behavioural dimension of engagement is defined as the observable academic performance and participatory actions and activities (Dessart, Veloutsou, and Morgan-Thomas 2015; Schaufeli et al. 2002).

Positive behavioural engagement is measured through observable academic performance including: student’s positive conduct; attendance; effort to stay on task; contribution; participation in class discussions; involvement in academic and co-curricular activities; time spent on work; and perseverance and resiliency when faced with challenging tasks (Kahu et al. 2015; Klem and Connell 2004).

Therefore, behaviourally engaged students exhibit proactive participatory behaviours through their involvement and participation in university life and extracurricular citizenship activities (Ashkzari, Piryaei, and Kamelifar 2018). The behavioural dimension is the most frequently measured dimension within national barometers of the student experience (Kuh 2009; Zepke 2014).

Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

Work-based learning

The work by Zaki et al. (2019) suggests individual attitudes, self-efficacy and perceived control is a significant predictor towards behaviour intent and these actions are motivated by individual beliefs. Thurgate (2018) and Nevalainen et al. (2018) agree that incorporating the issue of self-efficacy in training programs leads to positive change towards development in the trainee. Considering that self-efficacy can directly impact self-regulation, research suggest self-regulatory processes present as an influence towards learners’ achievement, intended behaviour, and emotional state. (Muller and Seufert 2018, Schunk and Zimmerman 2013).

According to Billings et al. (2021) and Yau et al. (2021), the care sector has seen a shift to adopt a new purpose and revised focus towards learning and task-based practice., learning behaviour, and academic achievements of students (Du Rocher, 2020; Mazzetti et al., 2020; Zimmerman, 2000).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy and learning strategies constructs are closely interconnected and presents as an essential component learning outcomes in workplace performance. (Sinclair and Ferguson, 2009; Zimmerman 2000).) Self-effective learners usually recognise themselves as having appropriate skills and equipped to lead (Schweder, 2019; Zimmerman).

Learners’ experiences of work-based learning in the health sector

Self-efficacy is aligned with Theory of Planned Behaviour (Azjen 1985), a determinant of individual goal intention is perceived behavioural control, and behavioural intent (Bandura 1991). Conceptually, there is no difference between perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy. Care workers surveys have identified specific experiences; self-evaluation, addressing goal setting, motivation, (positive/negative), emotional state and focusing on competence tasks (Cetin and Askun 2018)

 

Williams (2010) suggests that the core of WBL is learning from experience, examining underpinning knowledge and competence (Kolb 1984, Schön 1991 and Fry et al., 2003)

Workplace experiences according to Lester and Costely (2010) suggests action strategies, e.g. action learning, and communities of practice to support the learning environment. 

This self-regulation (personal, behavioural and environmental) suggests that a self-directed learner who is capable and there is an expectation to self-regulate their own learning, but self-regulated learners may not have the capacity or motivation to self-direct.

(Colomer et al, 2021, Jossberger et al., 2010). 

 

The learning culture within the health care sector has become task orientated, resulting in work-based learning becoming subjective. (Attenborough et al. 2019; Nevalainen et al. 2018).  Arundell et al. (2018) qualitative study, examined the views of registered care workers and newly inducted care workers. It was found that registered staff were disappointed in new care workers’ lack of confidence, and a lack of underpinning knowledge and skill. Ferrandez – berrueco et al. (2016) reports of insufficient time and a lack of preparation for supporting WBL, suggesting there is difficulty ensuring the workplace environment met the conditions of WBL. This view is consistent with the findings of Kemp et al. (2016) whereas learners who were unable to focus on tasks set within the training delivery component, and experienced negative support from the learning environment and tutor.

How self-efficacy affects apprenticeships learning

Workplace experience increases self-efficacy by enabling the individual to view a model and complete the task successfully (Chan et al.2017). Care workers predominately work within groups, and see themselves judged against their peers. Öqvist and Malmström (2018) posit that learners with high self-efficacy pursue goals that present challenges, and are motivated to participate effectively in programs. Learners who possess low self-efficacy are reluctant to challenge themselves and do not engage in challenging tasks.

(Çetin, and Aşkun 2018, Schunk 1990).

 

On consideration of the importance of how self-effective learning behaviour is linked between learning objectives and previous knowledge, this participation has a linear relationship with self-efficacy (Schweder 2019). This study considers an apprenticeship program is seen challenging and therefore learners need support; self-efficacy is an influential source supporting individuals to participate actively in a task (De Simone et al.2018)

Key factors developing self-efficacy in health care sectors

Self-efficacy presents as a direct effect on learning goals and influences motivation and learning strategies in pursuit of performing tasks towards goals and achievements.

(Zimmerman et al.2017).

Studies reveal care workers expect guidance, confirmation, and also support from more experienced colleagues (Attenborough et al. 2019). The inexperienced care worker learns best when they receive responsible tasks under the guidance of experienced care workers, this presents as gradual learning and responsibility (Christensen et al. 2017). However, there is little emphasis on the inexperienced care worker who should be given challenging service users, but not without the support of an experienced colleague (Philips 2012).

There is limited research into health care workers’ experiences of developing self-efficacy during a UK WBL apprenticeship program. Each care service is governed by the UK Care Quality Commission (CQC) and is mandated by Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

 

Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

Work Efficacy

Self-efficacy is central to health behaviour theories due to its robust predictive
capabilities. In this paper, we present and review evidence for a self-efficacy-as motivation argument in which standard self-efficacy questionnaires – i.e., ratings of whether participants ‘can do’ the target behaviour – reflect motivation rather than perceived capability.

 

The potential implication is that associations between self-efficacy ratings (particularly
those that employ a ‘can do’ operationalisation) and health-related behaviours simply indicate that people are likely to do what they are motivated to do.
There is some empirical evidence for the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument, with three studies demonstrating causal effects of outcome expectancy on subsequent self-efficacy ratings. Three additional studies show that – consistent with the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument – controlling for motivation by adding the phrase ‘if you wanted to’ to the end of self-efficacy items decreases associations between self-efficacy ratings and motivation.
Likewise, a qualitative study using a thought-listing procedure demonstrates that self-efficacy ratings have motivational antecedents.

 

The available evidence suggests that the self-efficacy-as-motivation argument is viable,
although more research is needed. Meanwhile, we recommend that researchers look
beyond self-efficacy to identify the many and diverse sources of motivation for health-related behaviours.

 

 

Self-efficacy – defined as perceived capability to perform a target behaviour (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997, 2004) – is a robust predictor of various health behaviours
(Armitage & Conner, 2001; Godin & Kok, 1996), including physical activity
(Bauman et al., 2012), healthy eating (AbuSabha & Achterberg, 1997), smoking cessation (Gwaltney, Metrik, Kahler, & Shiffman, 2009), alcohol abstinence (Adamson, Sellman, & Frampton, 2009), health behaviour change among cancer survivors (Park & Gaffey, 2007) and general health outcomes (Holden, 1991). Self-efficacy is the primary explanatory construct in Bandura’s (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory – one of the most often used health behaviour theories (HBTs) (Glanz & Bishop, 2010) – and is included in several other often-used HBTs, including protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1983), the health belief model (Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988) and the transtheoretical model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983).

 

Additionally, perceived behavioural control in the theory of planned behaviour is defined and operationalised in ways that are similar to self-efficacy (Ajzen, 1991, 2002).
Thus, the concept of self-efficacy is pervasive in health behaviour science.
One of the purported strengths of self-efficacy is that it explains why people are (or are not) motivated to perform health-related behaviours, rather than merely predicting who is (or is not) motivated to perform health-related behaviours. Specifically, according to self-efficacy theory (a component of social cognitive theory that emphasises the role of self-efficacy; Bandura, 1997), self-efficacy is positioned early in a causal chain of factors that are posited to determine behaviour. Self-efficacy influences behaviour directly and
through its effects on expected outcomes of the behaviour, the setting of relevant and challenging goals, and perceived barriers to and facilitators of the target behaviour (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy, in turn, has four sources: mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective states at the time of the behavioural opportunity (Bandura, 1997). Thus, in self-efficacy theory, both the sources of self-efficacy and the mechanisms through which it influences behaviour are specified and can be used to design behavioural interventions.

Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

Work based learning

The concept of work-based learning can be approached from different perspectives (Fenwick, 2008). Nisbet et al. (2013) define work based learning as informal learning that occurs inside the work community in the interaction between employees. Work-based learning requires participation in work processes, collaborating with colleagues, taking challenging tasks and working with customers. Thus, learning occurs as a by-product of working (Eraut, 2007.).

 

Work-based learning can also include formal learning (Choi and Jacobs, 2011). For example, universities and other educational institutes can offer curriculums to organisations that the employees can carry out alongside their work without qualifications. This kind of learning can also be defined as a form of work-based learning, in which case the employee has responsibility to set the learning objectives, look for learning situations, search knowledge, and evaluate and reflect on their own learning (Stanley and Simmons, 2011.). The aim of this kind of work-based learning curriculum is to encourage employees to study independently and to take responsibility for their own learning and the continuous development of their professional skills and know-how (Chapman, 2006). In this review, work-based learning is defined as informal learning that occurs inside the work community in the interaction between employees by participation.

 

The traditional understanding of learning is that knowledge is offered to the employees without them actively seeking and processing that knowledge themselves (Jensen, 2007; Williams, 2010). However, knowledge never passes on from one person to another as it is; the new knowledge is always constructed via the thinking processes of the individual. The person’s preconceived assumptions and previous knowledge – as well as the prevailing culture – have an effect on this process of shaping knowledge (Billett, 2008.). People try to understand their experiences and give meanings to them. Because the experiences affect what kind of significance a person gives to their learning and professional development (MacKeracher, 2004), it is important to describe experiences of work-based learning by care worker staff.

Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

ACCREDITED TO THE MATRIX STANDARD

KYP Know Your Potential Consultancy a leading Levy training provider whose provision is delivering apprenticeships in Adult & CYP care homes.

KYP  has been accredited to the matrix Standard, demonstrating the high quality service delivery KYP provides impartial, responsive, friendly and enabling information, advice and guidance services to learners. Being accessible and visible to learners. Ensuring that KYP staff are professional and knowledgeable to address learners’ needs. Supporting learners to be aware of relevant IAG services. KYP ensures there are opportunities and directions for learners to explore the implications for both learning and work in their future career plans.

KYP head office is based in Worcestershire, IQA’s and Assessors are knowledgeable and upskill constantly. Service delivery staff are geographically based to support Contractors, with the utilisation of an e-portfolio learners and contractors have the opportunity to see progressions as it happens.

The matrix Standard is the international quality standard for organisations that deliver information, advice and/or guidance (IAG), either as their sole purpose or as part of their service offering.

Roger Chapman, Head of the matrix Service for The Growth Company said:

“This is a fantastic achievement for KYP Know Your Potential Consultancy and I would like to congratulate the team on their success. We believe that at the heart of high-quality advice and support services are strong leadership, excellent service and a focus on continuous improvement, all underpinned by effective use of the resources available.  The matrix Standard is designed to benchmark organisations against best practice in these areas. With their accreditation success, KYP Know Your Potential Consultancy is working to provide the best possible support to their clients.”

Commenting on the award, IQA lead quality assurer- Mrs V Hill said: “It fantastic to be recognised for the work KYP delivers, we believe we continue to support learners and mangers to understand their role in learning and our advice and guidance that is offered is deemed supportive.”

For more information about the matrix Standard please visit www.matrixStandard.com.

For more information, please contact admin@kyptraining.com on 03300564457

About the matrix Standard

  • The matrix Standard is the international quality standard for organisations that deliver information, advice and/or guidance (IAG). Either as their sole purpose or as part of their service offering.
  • Any organisation which manages, administers and delivers an information, advice and/or guidance service to support individuals in their choice of career, learning, work or life goals can become accredited to the matrix Standard. It does not matter whether the service or services are delivered face-to-face, through training, learning, remotely, or through a website.
  • Organisations that have benefited from working with the Standard include Training Providers, Universities, Further/Higher Education Colleges, Schools and Academies, Sole Traders, Next Step Providers, Voluntary and Community Organisations and Private Businesses.
  • The matrix Standard is owned by the Department for Education and is managed by The Growth Company on their behalf.
Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

Work-based learning in health care organisations

The lack of support from the management of the organisation and nurse managers is seen as the greatest obstacle to work-based learning of nursing staff (Govranos and Newton, 2014).

The support of management and awareness of the possibilities of work-based learning create a positive culture of lifelong learning (Wilson et al., 2006; Govranos and Newton, 2014).

However, nurse managers often tend to underestimate their influence on the development of a culture that supports learning. A nurse manager’s significance as a role model is remarkable, which is why it is important that the managers commit themselves to continuous learning practices (Bjørk et al., 2013.)

By participating in the implementation of learning strategies and adopting different studying techniques, a nurse manager becomes a positive role model and a motivator for the staff (Wilson et al., 2006). The manager can create the kind of functional models that promote and support these learning events (Bjørk et al., 2013). Employees also see it as important that managers encourage them to utilise new knowledge and permit experiment with new courses of action (Lundgren, 2011).

Work-based learning is an important part of professional development in which both the learner and the learning environment change and affect each other (Skår, 2010). The support of a nurse manager, a mentor or colleagues makes the learning process in a complex workplace environment possible (Ramage, 2014).

Wilson et al. (2006) see a positive changing in the learning culture of a workplace when learning and professional development are understood as a continuous process through life, which results to the employees beginning to take responsibility for learning and development themselves. The employee begin to want to look for learning opportunities and arrange time for learning. Those nurses who understand the significance of learning actively try to resolve problems related to being rushed and other obstacles of learning (Govranos and Newton, 2014.).

Professional education gives the basic skills for nursing, but learning is a process that continues throughout a nurse’s whole career in the everyday work of the organisation. The creation of a culture that supports work-based learning is the best way to ensure professional competence among nursing staff in the future, as well.

The results of this review challenge the management of health care organisations to be aware of the value and significance of work-based learning from the perspective of their organisation’s action and success, and to pay attention to the perspective of work-based learning in strategic plans.

 
 
Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

What is assessment?

The essential meaning of assessment is the act of making a judgement about the value of someone’s product or performance.

The actor or agent – the person who makes the judgement – is often an individual with responsibility for teaching the assesses, but might also be the assesses him or herself, a peer or group of peers, an assessor who has not been involved with teaching or even a piece of technology designed to recognise predetermined parameters of the performance.

The act of assessing might take place at one point or over time. The product or performance is generally a demonstration of some combination of knowledge, understanding, skill; sometimes of values and other personal attributes; and is very often taken to be a representative sample of the assesses ‘usual’ or normal’ performance: that is, it is assumed to represent some underlying and stable level of knowledge, skill or ability, or some consistent personal attribute.

Confusingly, assessment is also used to refer to the product/performance, or to that which is assessed. For example, the definition of assessment in the JISC e-Assessment Glossary (JISC 2006a) states that assessment is: ‘the instrument (e.g. on-screen examination) used to arrive at … an evaluation ‟and also “the process of evidencing and evaluating the extent to which a candidate has met or made progress towards the assessment criteria”.  

The terms ‘formative’ and ‘summative’ do not describe different types of assessment. They refer to the purpose of the assessment, the use to which it is put. The summative purpose of assessment is to identify educational achievement as a matter of public record, for use in selection (for employment or further study) and certification (for example, of fitness to practise a profession). The formative purpose is to provide information to the learner and others concerned with the process of learning about the learner’s progress, strengths and areas for improvement. Practitioners often refer to assessment used for formative purposes as ‘feedback’. The term ‘diagnostic assessment’ generally refers to assessment which takes place before a period of learning, to provide advance information to the tutor and learner about the learner’s prior knowledge and skills and what might be an appropriate starting point for new learning.

According to Rajasingham (2009) and Guri-Rosenblit (2009), eLearning has evolved from distance education and is still struggling to gain full recognition and accreditation within mainstream education as an approach for high quality provision. While developments in eLearning have been exciting and beneficial, finding ways of enhancing the quality of provision and effectiveness have posed a serious challenge. In response to this concern of legitimacy, value and quality of online programmes, Davieset al. (2011) develop a model that provides a comprehensive conceptual framework which identifies the factors that enhance the quality of fully-online degree programmes. Pillay & Kimber (2011) argue that globalisation, transnational provision of higher education, and the ‘use of market mechanisms’ have increased the complexity in issues of accountability, authority, and responsibility in quality assurance.

According to Rajasingham (2009) and Guri-Rosenblit (2009), eLearning has evolved from distance education and is still struggling to gain full recognition and accreditation within mainstream education as an approach for high quality provision.

While developments in eLearning have been exciting and beneficial, finding ways of enhancing the quality of provision and effectiveness have posed a serious challenge. In response to this concern of legitimacy, value and quality of online programmes, Davieset al. (2011) develop a model that provides a comprehensive conceptual framework which identifies the factors that enhance the quality of fully-online degree programmes. Pillay & Kimber (2011) argue that globalisation, transnational provision of higher education, and the ‘use of market mechanisms’ have increased the complexity in issues of accountability, authority, and responsibility in quality assurance.

Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

Developing a conceptual model for the effective assessment of individual student learning in team-based subjects

Assessment of student learning in team-based subjects can be challenging, as the inherent complexity in this learning environment can create ambiguity for academic staff and students alike. Research project gathered data from academic staff and students about their experiences with assessment in team-based settings, data which served as a support for the development of a conceptual model for effective assessment of individual student learning in this highly collaborative setting.

Assessment is a significant “driver” of student learning in that students may engage a subject’s activities in direct relation to the weighting that these activities are given in the assessment process (Wormald et al, 2009). Biggs & Tang (2007) suggested that student learning is maximised (and assessment is made more effective) by a “constructive alignment” of learning outcomes, the subject’s activities, and assessment methods. Experience suggests that a team-based learning context poses a unique challenge in terms of designing assessment for individual students that does not compromise the collaborative spirit of this learning and teaching approach.

Assessment must serve both the student and the institution. Assessment serves the institution when it gathers information about students’ engagement with and achievement of academic standards (assessment of learning or summative assessment). Assessment in team-based pedagogies such as project-based learning (PBL) can also include assessment activities that directly support and promote student learning (assessment for learning or formative assessment), with these activities often designed to help students explicate and reflect upon their own learning (Weimer, 2002). Learning outcomes can serve multiple purposes in a particular subject. It is argued that one important role these outcomes play is to demarcate the intellectual contract between students and staff in terms of the subject’s content.

Often this contract is framed in subject profiles by describing the learning outcomes with some variation on the following words: “By the end of this subject, you will be able to…”

The Learning Outcomes Process is designed to make this contract explicit and real for instructors and students by outlining the types of evidence that students will be required to produce for each learning outcome. The instructor supports students’ taking ownership of their own learning by engaging in on-going dialogue about the specific learning outcomes being engaged in a particular activity and, during assessment activities, quality standards for expected evidence at each grade level (ie. from fail to pass to high distinction). This level of transparency is especially critical complex learning environments for team-based project-driven subjects, where students must balance their project-wide learning focus (building broad understanding) while often “specialising” in a particular aspect of the project.

An integral aspect of co-creating learning intent for students is guidance in producing evidence of their own learning. In the Evidence Process, the instructor engages both individual students and student teams in an on-going dialogue about the requirements and indicators of quality for a particular activity. This guidance is framed in terms of building evidence of engagement with the learning outcomes involved. While learning outcomes can guide the design of an effective subject, staff and students may have limited ability to interpret the wording of these outcomes and to understand them in concrete and demonstrable ways. This Evidence Process is designed to concretise both instructors’ and students’ understanding of the learning outcomes across the term by positioning the learning outcomes at the heart of the assessment process (and students’ final grades.)

Categories
CYPW, HSC and Dementia Care Training

Healthcare settings – Work Based Learning

The ‘rites of passage’ according to Manokore et al.(2019) & Levett- Jones et al (2009) identified WBL HCA Nurse progress towards workplace competence and service delivery for a far more expanded and beneficial health care service (Baskerville, Liddy, & Hogg, 2012; Grumbach et al., 2012).

According to Thor et al. (2004) WBL Assessors can support critical reflection on practice and identify patterns that adopt alternate thinking strategies and behaviours. Assessor- learner working relationship supports Watling (2015) position that HCA staff are observed as person centred who develop new skills and knowledge.

This context for a recognised need for improvement identifies a progression towards the development on health and social care teams as discussed by Smith et al.(2018) & Manley and McCormick (2004). At the beginning of COVID 19 Kessler et.al (2019) identified there is a lack of research evidence to support the successful implementation of new training initiatives.

Furthering the discussion, Costley & Pizzolato (2018) knowledge in the context of WBL is often described as being ‘transdisciplinary’ however, the HCA experience within the workplace as a learning environment will need to demonstrate how they can actively participate in the creation of a new learning environment. This proposal sets out to identify if HSC learning is informed by theory and occurs as a by-product of work-based learning or from experience as highlighted by Eraut (2007) & Williams (2010). Experiences and collaboration of learning development and interaction and exchange of these experiences may identify tensions as Nevalainen et al. (2018: p27) highlights effectiveness towards staff development can be viewed as the ‘essential paradox of work-based learning’.

 

HSC staff may require a need for space, time and reflection for mutual interactions and exchange of experiences due to COVID 19 while recognising the impact on WBL outcomes.

Nevalainen et al’s (2018) & Christensen et al. (2017) qualitative review reporting on WBL in health care settings and highlighted the opportunities provided by WBL compared to the classroom setting. (practical competence, i.e. handling safe medication) Acknowledging Christensen et al. (2017) & Thurgate (2018) discussions, WBL learning practitioners identified effective and positive learning outcomes:

 

  • A culture of the workplace, learner behaviours- positive/negative
  • A workspace and how it is organised to promote (or inhibit) learning;
  • Managers – How effective they were in enabling and promoting WBL
  • How the Interpersonal relationships between the staff in the workplace are viewed.