Research informed support and preparation for achievement of work-based learning outcomes

In her paper Jane Ching (Nottingham Trent University) presented the results of a project exploring support and preparation for the achievement of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s proposed work-based learning outcomes.

You can download Jane’s full paper (RTF file, 23 pages, 389 KB) at the bottom of the page. She presented a further paper on work-based learning, Enough to badger a man blue: what are ‘articles’ or professional apprenticeships for? (PDF file) at the Critical perspectives on professional learning conference, Leeds, 11 January 2010.

This interview-based study sought to explore and provide tentative conclusions as to:

• those aspects of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s work-based learning outcomes which might in practice require support, strengthening or, indeed, delivery by classroom-based activity for learners and/or their supervisors
• the place and practicability of reflective learning within the period of work-based learning and the methods of support which might be suitable for promoting it

It aimed to provide food for thought for those currently engaged in the provision of the Legal Practice Course (LPC) as to the learning skills it may be necessary for trainees to display in order to meet the challenges ahead.

The movement from the training contract as socialisation and exposure to the range of practice to the proposed period of workplace learning seated within a competence framework leading to summative assessment represents a major paradigm shift for the solicitors profession in England and Wales, and the most significant change in pre-qualification education since 1993.

Competence frameworks have been criticised as inhibiting (the very notion of a defined series of indicators suggesting exclusion of others), as mechanistically focused on minimum level performance of tasks, and that, given the diversity of professional work and the inchoateness of that work it would be impossible or impracticable to define meaningful competences (and/or to assess them) in any event.

In the political climate in which the profession currently finds itself, the move to assessment of competence seeks to address political objectives at both ends of the spectrum – “the one, because they form part of economic rationalism; the other because they demand accountability” (Gasteen, 1995:13) – and as a means of increasing public confidence in the profession.

The task of those designing the competence framework then is to seek to achieve what has been described in Australia as:

…a balance between the misguided extremes of fragmenting the occupation to such a degree that its character is destroyed by the analysis or adhering to a rigid, monistic holism that rules out all analysis

— Hager, Gonczi & Athanasov, 1994:5

whilst addressing the inhibiting and mechanistic criticisms by enfolding within it elements of the capability concept:

In its first sense capability has a present orientation and refers to the capacity to perform the work of the profession: capability is both necessary for current performance and enables that performance. In its second sense, capability can be said to provide a basis for developing future competence, including the possession of the knowledge and skills deemed necessary for future professional work.

— Eraut, 1994: 208

so as also to meet the political agenda.

References

• Eraut M (1994) Developing professional knowledge and competence London: Falmer
• Gasteen G (1995) ‘National competency standards: are they the answer for legal education and training?’ Journal of Professional Legal Education 13(1):1
• Hager P, Gonczi A & Athanasov J (1994) ‘General issues about assessment of competence’ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 19(1):3

Nick Johnson (University of Warwick) reports:

Jane asked penetrating questions about the interface between the LPC and the proposed new period of work-based learning (WBL) to replace the training contract. Her main aims were to examine what the LPC could do by way of preparation for the WBL period, particularly in respect of reflective learning.
 
She began by critically examining the outcomes for the period of WBL. What level were they meant to be at? Where did they intersect with the LPC? Her interviews with trainees had covered the topic of how they understood the outcomes, and the subjective meanings they attributed to them raised a variety of complex issues. There were divergences in interpretation, but the key issues were how and when the subjects of the WBL system would demonstrate the attainment of the outcomes. The ‘when’ would clearly be at the end of the period, although those with experience of trainees doubted whether they all move along a uniform trajectory towards fulfilment of the outcomes. A trainee might shine in one seat and not in another.
 
Some of the interviewees pointed out correctly that some of the outcomes could only be demonstrated negatively, ie regular instances where the behaviour contained in the outcome (for example, respect for others) had not been demonstrated. Interviewees raised particular issues in relation to those outcomes which presumed client contact, because of the limitations placed on trainees prior to qualification.
 
The next issue was reflection. There were different definitions and approaches amongst theorists, and predictably the interviewees had their own views on what it meant, however this was an issue where critical reflection on the LPC could assist the habit of reflective practice during WBL. There was concern that the demonstration of reflection should not be too onerous.
 
Jane’s conclusions on the role of the LPC in preparing students for WBL were understandably ambivalent. Clearly, LPC teachers needed to be aware that they are part of a continuum of training and that they should be cognisant of and use the language of WBL. However, one interviewee doubted whether, without actually having the actual experience of work-based training, LPC students were likely to appreciate in full measure the import of the regime and the outcomes.

About Jane
Jane Ching is Reader in Course Design and Curriculum Development at Nottingham Law School. She has worked in postgraduate legal education since 1993, first in the design and implementation of the civil litigation aspects of the Nottingham Law School Legal Practice Course. From 1997 she began to specialise in the design and delivery of simulation-based courses for trainees and qualified solicitors.
 
Jane is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010