• Home

• About the resources

• Mentoring

• ILPs

• In your organisation
• Models
• Resources
• ILP centres

• Blackpool and the Fylde College
• Canterbury Christ Church University
• Castle College Nottingham
• Chesterfield College
• City College Birmingham
• College of West Anglia
• Craven College
• Lewisham College
• Manchester Metropolitan University
• Newcastle College
• Nottingham Trent University
• Oxford Brookes University
• Sheffield Hallam University
• Thurrock and Basildon College
• Tower Hamlets College
• University of Brighton
• University of Central Lancashire
• University of Leicester
• University of Northumbria
• University of the West of England

• Teaching observation

• Models

• Pilot centres

 

 

University of Leicester with South Leicestershire College - Case study

Project Background

When the opportunity for this project arose, we were already looking ahead to the 2007 reforms of teacher training within the learning and skills (L&S) sector, and realising the central place that individual learning plans (ILPs) would have in the new scheme of things. The project was timely because it gave us the impetus to start tackling some of the practical issues of agreeing and, perhaps more importantly, implementing ILPs.

 

Key idea
"Our project set out to research, pilot and implement a holistic process of induction and initial assessment (IA) leading to the development of simple, effective and appropriate ILPs for all teachers and trainers working in the L&S sector.

 

We have realised that ILPs have no real meaning unless they are enacted through differentiated delivery. Our challenge, then, was to deliver a fully differentiated programme of learning for each individual without completely disrupting group cohesion, programming and staff resourcing.

 

This case study shows how we tackled this challenge."

 

The collaboration between a further education (FE) college and a university led to a more holistic perspective of implementation issues across a broader spectrum of delivery.

 

Introduction

As a first principle, the project recognised that initial assessment (IA) is in itself a learning process requiring an understanding of relevant programme outcomes, related national standards and emerging educational issues. We therefore considered that effective IA would require a structured programme of holistic support, recognising valid accreditation of prior (experiential) learning (AP(E)L) and exploiting current natural performance in order to ensure that ITT and continuing professional development are tailored to the individual teacher’s needs. We also considered the teacher’s employer to be a significant stakeholder in this respect and therefore highly important in the successful implementation of the ILP.

 

Our second principle was that ILPs must take account of the standards currently set for teachers and trainers in the L&S sector. The project was intended to be flexible and organic, with the capability to adapt to the revision of standards within the L&S sector and the emerging role of Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK).

 

We next considered that fully realising these two principles would most likely create several challenges for providers in general, and higher education (HE) validation partner in particular.

 

For providers, the challenge we foresaw was one of how to deliver a fully differentiated programme of learning for each individual without completely disrupting group cohesion, programming and staff resourcing. A logical analysis of the problem yields only two ways of achieving this, with each requiring ‘extra effort’.

 

A logical analysis of the problem yields only two ways of achieving this, with each requiring ‘extra effort’.

 

1. Differentiating within, and around, (fixed) sessions. This requires the ILP to be reviewed at each session to determine:
   
   • either self-directed and/or collaborative learning outcomes to be explored within a ‘workshop’ portion of the subsequent session
   • or work to be completed outside the session (e.g. practice and reflection or ‘jigsaw’ research activity).

 



 

 

 

2. Differentiating individual pathways through the programme (curriculum), where the ILP can be essentially determined at the start of the programme and reviewed at less frequent intervals. This form of ILP, however, introduces:
   
   • a need to track progress through (what is now) a non-linear pathway
   • variations in group composition and size, potentially at each session.

 

The challenges for HE, in particular, relate to the pronounced cultural shift from traditional, provider-led courses with end-of-module examinations to non-traditional learner-led programmes assessed in relation to professional standards. This shift brings in its wake the need for a more radical acceptance of AP(E)L and associated credit accumulation and transfer.

 

A more thorough analysis of these challenges can be found in the detailed introduction to this project (Individual Learning Plans and teacher training: the challenge for providers and employers).

 

This then sets the background context in which we set about devising holistic systems to support the implementation of IA and ILPs.