Might I suggest that if we had generic outcomes for all induction/ new starters courses , movement of staff from one institution to another would be facilitated better? I know this may seem simplistic, but coming from a Nursing background where a Recognised Nurse Teacher status is equal wherever it is completed, I know that this is doable.The route taken may be different, but the final outcomes are still achieved either by taught units, distance , APL etc.Issues related to quality and monitoring then become transparent and the students will invariably be assessed by portfolio..no problem, thi sis already the practice. Why don't we make it work for us?
It would be useful for the ILT to be involved with this type of development, at least from my personal point of view. Cheers Val
Valerie Keating, Principal Lecturer
Discipline Leader in Nursing
Sheffield Hallam University
School of Health and Social care,
Collegiate Cres,
Sheffield S10 2BP
0114 225 2403
07831 635480 (mobile)
v.keating @shu.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Joelle Fanghanel [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 March 2002 16:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: apl and ilt accredited courses
Thanks for your views. I agree with Colin that where there exist a 'final'
portfolio there is likely to be a convergence of learning outcomes - on the
basis that the course is ILT accredited. This issue is more complex in the
case of colleagues who find themselves halfway through a course when moving
to other insitution. Is the practice of 'top-up' porfolio - to demonstrate
achievement of all learning outcomes for a specific module - acceptable? It
may seem pretty unfair to colleagues who have in effect already covered
much of the ground in a different way.
The issue of equivalence between SEDA and ILT accredited courses is less
crucial (in fact SEDA accredited courses are also recognised by ILT )
It would be useful to survey the sector to establish what practices prevail.
Joelle
|