3.5 Using the IDeA Model to map differences in curriculum across systems

I’m happy to try this out and then … so coming from a research lens, trying it out and documenting it, and figuring out what worked and what didn’t work, I think it becomes very valuable to IAL and to us as well.

In summary, this section has laid out the possible applications of the IDeA Model at the levels of the individual (professional reflection, profiling and training), team (curriculum design, development, profiling, quality measurement), organisation (communication and alignment, and research) and CET sector (review of national frameworks). These applications seem quite wide-ranging when put together and are likely to be adopted based on the needs on the ground. Remembering the original intent of the Model, as a tool to drive professional reflection and development, is critical to ensure that we keep to the spirit of the Model, and this will prevent abuse of the Model for purposes other than its intended ones. At this point in time, more studies are needed to ascertain if the IDeA Model is sufficiently robust for all the potential different applications suggested by participants. The degree of robustness can only be determined after years of trialling and use by the industry. In any case, these suggestions by the practitioners reflect well on the Model and the potential that it displays, even at this nascent stage of development and implementation.

As part of the process of gathering participants’ feedback, data were collected on how they perceived their own curricula using the IDeA Model, as described in the first chapter. Many also commented on the framework that their organisation operated in (e.g. WSQ, Pre-employment Training [PET]). As these frameworks are governed by different government regulatory bodies (e.g. WDA and Council for Private Education [CPE]), the requirements and approaches adopted to accredit and audit the training programmes differ. It was these comments and the suggestions in the section above that had the research team thinking it would be interesting to explore differences and similarities across different governing frameworks. We need to bear in mind that numbers are small and thus conclusions are pertinent only to the sample. The value of this exercise is that it starts to explore the extent to which the tool is or is not useful in undertaking such activities.

Do note that the heuristics shown will look slightly different, as the IDeA Model underwent changes during the research study, so participants would have completed the most up-to-date heuristic at the point of the interview. In any case, the dimensions remained the same throughout the study and we expect the general perception of the participants towards their own curricula would likewise remain similar.

3.5.1 Mapping differences between WSQ and non-WSQ curricula

It was very telling that many participants have a good sense of what their curriculum philosophy is, especially practitioners with many years of experience. For example, Richard, director of a learning and development unit in a listed company, cited his dilemma when operating in the WSQ environment with regard to how he would expect his eventual curricula to look like under the WSQ framework:

So when I was looking at this framework I was also torn because if I talk about WSQ then pretty much a lot of things on the right-hand side [instrumental]. If I look at nonWSQ … Then, I’m already starting on the left-hand side [interpretive] of the spectrum.

This feeling of being “torn” was especially acute for Richard and possibly for other training organisations or departments that have just started their journey as new approved training organisations (ATOs) under the WSQ framework. They would have to align their current curricula to