What does the trial of short courses in higher education mean for the right to lifelong learning?

• This HEPI blog was written by Rose Stephenson, HEPI's Director of Policy and Advocacy.

Lifelong learning opportunities are an essential part of a happy, productive and educated society. In fact, the Lancet Public Health Journal published a report showing that an adult's risk of death decreases by 2% for every year spent in full-time education. Therefore, lifelong learning qualifications (LLEs), a new policy that provides access to loans for a more flexible approach to higher education, should be welcomed. However, there are some challenges in preparing for LLE deployment.

In 2021, the Office for Students (OfS) launched a trial of higher education short courses. The purpose of the trial is to:

1. Testing how higher education providers develop short courses that enable students to upskill and progress to full higher qualifications.
2. Evaluate the demand for short courses.
3. Testing the effect of loan availability on short course participation.
4. Find out more about short courses ahead of your Lifelong Learning Qualification (LLE) due in 2025.

plan:

• 22 providers have developed 100 new courses, with over 2,000 students expected to take part in these courses during 2022/23.

reality:

• 22 providers have jointly developed 96 new courses.

• However, only 10 providers started short courses with 125 students enrolled and a total of 17 courses.

• 41 of these students took advantage of the student loans provided to them to access the course.

The exam has been assessed by the Careers Research Advisory Center (CRAC) for the OfS and the full report can be accessed here.

What have you learned about the demand for short courses?

First, it is difficult to learn much from a national exam in which only 125 students participated. It's especially difficult to learn more about student loan offers when only 41 students took out loans. Therefore, the lessons learned from this group should be taken with a bucket of salt.

Second, and perhaps the more important lesson here, is why the courses offered were so poorly taken up.

Between short course trials and LLE discussions, there seems to be a lack of clarity about who the target audience should be.

• Are you an adult who has not previously pursued higher education and would prefer a more flexible approach to learning to accommodate your additional responsibilities in the future?
• Are you an employer looking to improve the skills of your current or future employees?
• Are you a graduate looking to expand your skill set and knowledge base?
• Or is it a combination of the above?

In addition to a lack of clear target audience, short course marketing was hampered by the following factors:

• There have been no communication campaigns to educate the public about the availability and value of short courses.
• There is no credit mechanism in place for these short courses, making it difficult for providers to add value to their modules through 'stackability' (multiple modules can be stacked to form a complete qualification) .
• The student loan system for short courses was completely new and untested, and students found the process cumbersome and time-consuming when applying for short courses.

What have we learned from our educational institutions?

Content development presented unexpected challenges. Developing a 30-credit course was not as simple as cutting modules from an existing degree. The developer was working with his employer to support his business needs, but it was difficult to get approval for courses outside of the traditional full qualification model. The materials needed to be adapted to be suitable for a level 4 or 5 course. The report outlines that “some content needed to be modernized to be trusted by employers” and that it was valuable to work with employers during curriculum development and ongoing review. This suggests that there may be a tension between the employer's immediate needs and the company's needs. Perhaps the more comprehensive benefits that higher education can bring.

There were also marketing challenges for educational institutions. Not all institutions anticipated the cost and effort required to promote these courses to first-time students. However, almost all providers expect to continue (and in some cases expand) course offerings in the future. It might be worth monitoring this to see how often this happens and the associated admissions rates.

Given the financial constraints facing higher education providers, if policymakers want LLE to be successful, how can they encourage institutions to deliver courses with high associated costs relative to revenue? It will be necessary to consider whether incentives can be provided.

What have we learned from our employers?

Employers were positive about the potential of short courses to upskill learners.

Concerns have been raised regarding LLE and Continuing Professional Development (CPD). These concerns focus on the issue of an individual paying for her CPD herself rather than having it covered by her employer, particularly if the module amounts to less than 30 credits. However, employers who took part in this trial made it clear that if an employer is considering short courses to upskill their employees, it is the employer who funds the course. Ta. Employers expected to be able to do this through mechanisms such as the apprenticeship levy. (Labour has announced that it is considering an “apprenticeship and skills tax” in case it comes to power.) Whether such a mechanism becomes policy or not, it will be based on the needs of employers. Providing short-term courses can be an additional source of income for universities.

What did we learn from our 125 students?

Students indicated they would like more flexibility. Participants also asked for shorter courses, with some questioning whether 13 weeks was a “short course.” Almost all of our students were already working full-time, so we had to be flexible with our jobs.

What does the short course trial tell me about LLE?

We are left with a chicken and egg scenario. To really test at scale whether there is a demand for standalone or stackable higher education modules, the Department of Education should:

1. We will invest millions of pounds in running an ongoing communication campaign about what short courses are.
2. Investing millions of pounds in building, testing and launching a credit transfer mechanism (LLE only applies to England, so how credit transfers across developing countries will work remains a mystery) Please note)
3. We will invest millions of pounds into reforming the student loan system, allowing students to access tuition fees and maintenance loans in units of 30 credits.

Without these three infrastructures in place, it is difficult to determine true demand. Without clear demand, it may be difficult to convince wallet owners to invest the necessary resources to test LLE's true potential.

I asked Stephan Fortier of Instructor, a leading edtech company and HEPI partner, for his thoughts on short course trials. Stefan said:

Despite the small sample size, we should not ignore the fact that most learners (80%) cited career prospects as their main motivation for pursuing the course. We believe this is the ethos of the program that resonates. It is also clear that with proper marketing of courses and adequate funding for course development, institutions have the opportunity to work closely with employers to ensure they deliver an outstanding and flexible learning experience. . This finding also aligns with what we hear when we speak to universities: there is a need for more flexible systems and turnkey solutions that support lifelong learning.

Flexibility is a key driver of participation, and that flexibility (for both students and employers) needs to go beyond the “minimum 30-credit module including face-to-face learning” model in the current LLE framework. (A discussion of increasing flexibility in LLE is detailed in my HEPI policy note): Does the lifetime loan entitlement serve its own purpose?).

Finally, there are unintended consequences. The first LLE courses (including “job-specific” technical qualifications at levels 4 and 5) could be funded through the modular LLE system from 2025. This will be followed by an expansion of modular student loans from levels 4 to 6 in 2027, which will be supported by the government. You can have confidence in your students' positive outcomes. If a fully developed, tested and implemented credit transfer mechanism is not in place within the next three years (or the next 20 months for tertiary technical qualifications), funding will be available for students to study individual modules. There are risks that may occur. , those modules cannot be stacked together. And what is the point in reforming the student loan system to a modular approach if there is no credit recognition mechanism in place?

The ambition to encourage lifelong learning is well placed for educational and economic reasons, but also because of the impact it has on personal development, well-being and social mobility. But if the impact of LLE is to be similar to the creation of the NHS on health in post-war Britain, as Michelle Donnellan announced in her role as Higher Education Secretary in 2021, then serious focus will need to be placed on this issue. . from a policy, especially in terms of implementation on the ground.

Instructural, the maker of the Canvas virtual learning environment (VLE), is a leading edtech company with a suite of tools to support learning at all levels. The Instructural Learning Platform makes learning more personal and student success more equitable by providing the solutions you need to support, enhance, and connect all aspects of teaching and learning. The Instructural Learning Platform includes Canvas VLE, ​​video engagement with Canvas Studio, a branded course catalog system with Canvas Catalog, digital badges with Canvas Credentials, and technology adoption tools with Impact by Instructor.