Employer-responsive provision survey: a reflective report
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Employer engagement is an area of increasing importance to the strategic development of higher education institutions (hereafter referred to as 'institutions').The skills required of the future workforce and the predicted demographic changes are encouraging institutions to become more fl exible in the types of learner they recruit, the range of learning opportunities they make available and the modes of study they offer.There is a growth in the number of learners accessing higher education while being employed and using their workplace as a site of learning.Where provision is developed for and in conjunction with particular employers, this may be termed employerresponsive provision.There are many positive aspects to the growth of this activity, but it is recognised that it can be considered as more complex and potentially present different challenges compared to more traditional provision.2During spring 2009, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) undertook a project through its Institutional and Subject Centre Liaison Schemes to explore the extent and perceptions of employer-responsive provision among institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.The aim of the project was to demonstrate the various approaches institutions are adopting to the quality assurance of such provision, and to inform QAA as to what additional support, information and guidance might be necessary to ensure that both internal and external quality assurance arrangements are appropriate and effective for this kind of provision. 3The project involved collecting and analysing data from two main sources: semi-structured interviews with institutional representatives involved in the quality assurance and delivery of work-based learning and employer engagement, and similar discussions with relevant staff of the Higher Education Academy's Subject Centre Network (see Appendices, p 37). Sixty institutions and 11 Subject Centres participated in the survey and the project also drew on discussions which took place at a QAA conference hosted in July 2009. 1 The project was informed by the reference points published by QAA to support institutions in the management of quality and standards, collectively known as the Academic Infrastructure. 2 These consist of: The framework for higher education qualifi cations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ) the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice) subject benchmark statements programme specifi cations. 4A number of reports were considered in this project, including a statement published by QAA in July 2008 on 'Quality assurance and the HEFCE priority for higher education learning linked to employer engagement and workforce development' (hereafter referred to as the QAA Statement) 3 and a range of publications by other organisations.Through this project, QAA has gained a better understanding of: how institutions see their position regarding employer engagement and work-based learning: 20 institutional respondents stated that they had changed their mission statement in order to become more business-facing and responsive to employers the range of approaches being adopted by institutions for the quality assurance of work-based learning and employer-responsive provision the quality assurance matters faced by institutions with respect to this provision 1 1 More details can be found at: www.qaa.ac.uk/events/liaisonconference09.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,016 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».