1. The Jisc WBL Maturity Toolkit: some observations
This paper presents some brief observations about the WBL Maturity Toolkit arising from the
Swansea Metropolitan contribution to the Jisc Dewi project. The paper is critical, in the sense that it
comments on areas of the toolkit still needing completion and refinement, and its purpose is to
assist discussions about improvement, consistency and optimisation.
The Swansea Met contribution focussed on four specific sections of the WBL Maturity Toolkit that
were relevant to the proposed online distance learning delivery of courses for the armed forces
overseas. The sections were: Institutional Readiness; Faculty Readiness; Programme Design; and
Quality Enhancement.
1. Institutional Readiness
1-1 WBL strategy and plans
The WBL Toolkit gives the impression that WBL is viewed as something separate to other learning
formats. In practice, of course, WBL is integrated with the other learning formats that combine in
the overall programme. It might be questioned whether a 'specific WBL strategic plan' is desirable
rather than just promoting WBL in the institutional strategy as a key component of applied, work-
focussed training.
1-8 WBL processes and procedures for programme validation
The guidelines here seem to promote 'fast tracking', 'shell frameworks' and other features as being
essential, rather than just options if appropriate. It may be helpful if they were presented as such
and that the 'further info and examples' addition to this particular criterion (not a feature of most
other criteria) included as part of an appendix of useful resources/evidence of effective practice.
1-9 QA for WBL
As noted in other comments, the QA processes and processes supporting WBL planning,
development and implementation are covered more than once in the WBL Toolkit. The distinction
between the contexts of each QA criterion needs to be made clear (or a separate area of the toolkit
be created dealing with all aspects of QA). Also, the main statement for this particular criterion is
expressed as a question rather than as a statement and this may need to be revised.
1-12 Business, commercial and financial approaches
There are no self assessment guidelines or evidence suggestions given for this aspect in the current
version of the WBL Toolkit. An assessment of added value for this criterion is therefore not possible
at present. Some possible toolkit guidelines and evidence are offered for consideration on the
Swansea Met project wiki1.
2. Faculty/School/Departmental Readiness
2-1 WBL strategy and implementation plan
The WBL Toolkit currently has no guidelines or evidence entered for this criterion. As a result added
value cannot be assessed. Some possible toolkit guidelines and evidence are offered for
consideration2.
2-4 Training and support for external staff and employers
The self assessment guidelines are brief and reasonably self evident. No evidence suggestions are
currently included in the toolkit and some are offered.
1
http://swanseametwbl.pbworks.com/w/page/61323796/WBL%20Institutional%20Readiness
2
http://swanseametwbl.pbworks.com/w/page/61323794/WBL%20Faculty%20Readiness

2. 3. Programme Design for WBL
3-3 Development and planning for WBL
The statement and guidelines are very general for this criterion and it's not clear how they
contribute specifically to work based learning design beyond the need for flexibility and meeting
stakeholder needs
3-4 Alignment with professional standards
No particular recommendations here. The guidance is brief but to the point.
3-8 Integration of ICT/e-Learning into curriculum design
The phrase that is missing here is 'where appropriate'. The main statement and guidance imply that
e-learning tools, e-portfolios, etc are suitable components for all types of WBL, which may not be
the case.
3-11 Learning materials and resources
The WBL Toolkit guidance is incomplete for this criterion, so added value cannot currently be judged.
Some suggestions are offered3.
6. Quality Enhancement
6-3 Programme design, review and quality enhancement
Two aspects of the WBL Toolkit design are highlighted by the detail included with this criterion. The
first is the fact that both programme design and quality enhancement are covered, perhaps in a
different context, elsewhere in the toolkit. If there is some level of repetition, then a rationalisation
of the criteria involved is recommended. If they are each addressing different aspects of programme
design and quality enhancement then this needs to be made explicit.
The second issue is the obvious contrast between the large number of guidelines and evidence
recommendations for this criterion compared with the much smaller number for other areas and
criteria in the toolkit. The reason for the difference, if intended, needs to be made clear to the user.
On the one hand, it might indicate greater priority for the more detailed criteria. On the other hand
it may be that the less detailed criteria are still in development. The general expectation would
either be consistency across all criteria or some indication of the reasons for the difference.
6-4 Programme delivery and support
The same comment regarding consistency across the toolkit criteria applies here (there are over four
times as many guidelines here compared with some other criteria. Some, as identified, have no
guidelines at all).
There are a number of entirely appropriate references to time and cost efficiencies, flexibility, choice
and control etc. However, there is an implicit assumption in the guidelines that the chosen delivery
and support system actually works. This is particularly relevant for the CILT programme as online
distance learning has not been used before by the University as a delivery method.
An additional self assessment guideline relating to evidence of learning effectiveness using the
proposed delivery method might be appropriate.
Conclusions
The mapping of the WBL Maturity Toolkit to the needs of Swansea Metropolitan in its plans for the
online distance learning delivery of courses revealed a number of opportunities for improvement of
the Toolkit itself. It was concluded that these improvements needed to be implemented before the
toolkit would really be useful in assisting WBL design and delivery.
3
http://swanseametwbl.pbworks.com/w/page/61323792/WBL%20Programme%20Design

3. It might be expected that guidance for practitioners in the form of a ‘toolkit’ should represent a
synthesis of established good practice that has been tried, tested and shown to work successfully.
The guidance would be clear, consistent and authoritative, backed by convincing examples of how it
has assisted previous developments (and hence how new users will benefit from its use).
For the WBL Maturity Toolkit to fulfil its purpose, the following issues need to be addressed:
The toolkit needs to be complete. There are several criteria where guidelines and/or
evidence suggestions are missing;
The toolkit needs to be consistent. The guidelines given for criteria (ignoring those that don’t
have any) range from 3 to 13. If there is a reason for this (ie: different levels of
priority/importance in the design process) then this needs to be made clear to the user;
The toolkit needs to be authoritative. Each area of focus, criterion and guideline must have a
clear reason for its inclusion, convincing benefits from being addressed and backed by
evidence of successful implementation.
It is obvious that the toolkit is still in a state of development and cannot currently meet these
requirements. An outcome of the Dewi project will hopefully be a positive contribution to making
progress in that direction.
Tony Toole
January 2013