Dr Anil Kumar

1
Employer Engagement in Engineering Foundation
Degrees

• Dr Anil Kumar
• Director - Education and Policy
• Engineering and Technology Board
• NFEC Conference
• East Midlands Airport
• 24th May 2007

2
What are Engineering Foundation Degrees?

• Intermediate HE Qualification
• Employer involvement
• Accessibility
• Progression
• Flexibility for institution, learner and employer
• Partnership between employers, HEIs, FE
  Colleges and SSCs

3
Why?

• The Engineering and Technology Board
• is a registered charity whose Mission is to
  improve recognition of the importance of
  engineering and technology, and to encourage the
  supply and professional development of
  appropriately skilled individuals
• Working in partnership
• Evidence based Action

4
Research Background

• Aims and Objectives
• Examination of the nature and reality of employer
  engagement in Engineering FDs
• Provision of best practice examples
• Examination of the barriers to employer
  engagement

• Methodology
• Provider Survey (29 detailed responses)
• Provider/Employer Case Studies (18 detailed
  responses).
• Employer Consultation (10 case studies)
• Key Stakeholder Consultation (FDF, SSCs)

5
Index of Engagement

• New tool developed with our colleagues at FDF
• Quantitative measure of the extent to which
  employers are engaged in the development and
  operation of EFDs
• Five specific components of engagement
• employer/supplier relationship
• design and delivery
• skills and knowledge relevant to employment
• integrating academic work-based learning
• satisfying the need of employers
• Could provide long term baseline data
• Engagement scores

6
Index of Engagement Example Questions
7
Components of Engagement
8
Index Scores - Providers
9
Index Scores - Employers
10
Engagement Issues

• What works well?
• Employer driven
• Flexibility
• Partnership approach
• Raising awareness amongst employers
• Emphasising the benefits to employers

• Difficulties experienced?
• Integrating academic and WBL
• Flexibility ability of provider to meet
  specific needs of employers
• Engaging SMEs

11
Barriers to Engagement

• Lack of awareness and understanding by both
  parties
• Over-emphasis by provider on the qualification
• Employer interested in skills
• Employer resource and capability
• Health and safety issues/insurance

12
Employer Illustration

• KLM UK Engineering
• Academic modules being delivered by KLM 14
  staff capable of delivery
• KLM staff undertake guest lecturing at Kingston
• 18 FD graduates now FT employees at KLM
• The Racing Partnership
• Taken FD students from Bridgewater College on
  placement
• Perception that FD students as technically
  proficient as FT mechanics
• Cost saving to the employer of 100/FD
  student/day
• National Grid
• Close collaboration between National Grid, Energy
  Utility Skills and Aston University modules
  driven by the employer
• Scottish and Southern interested in running the FD

13
Conclusions Large Employers

• Employer Engagement is variable in FD provision.
• That employers are unaware/uncertain about FDs
  (DfES national campaign required).
• Nevertheless Employers have provided evidence of
  commercial benefits from their involvement in
  ENGFDS e.g. costs-savings as a result of taking
  students undertaking work based learning.
• FD Frameworks need to be supported and
  strengthened by the appropriate SSCs to include
  practical help for providers for successful
  design and delivery of FDs.

14
Conclusions SMEs

• There is a lack of SME engagement in the design
  and delivery of Engineering Foundation Degrees.
• That SMEs may find the model of the FD
  unsustainable
• Further research is required with SMEs to
  understand their requirements and the barriers
  and feasibility of involving them in Foundation
  Degree design and development.
• Full Report Available
• www.etechb.co.uk/research.cfm