Dimensions for the monitoring and evaluation of work-based learning: Output

Have you read the two former posts of this blog, discussing the input and process dimension of monitoring and evaluating work-based learning (WBL)? If so, this one might just as well be of interest for you. This time, we’re looking at a further dimension, the output of WBL.

Generally, output can be understood as the immediate results in terms of produced goods or services. In the context of WBL, output mainly covers the knowledge, skills and competences which have been imparted on the learners. When monitoring and evaluating the output of WBL programmes, one would thus look at two aspects: the learning achievements and the productive work of the learners.

Learning achievements are closely interconnected with the learning objectives as defined by the relevant VET curriculum. To cut it short: if the learners successfully complete a WBL programme and acquire the desired qualification, the programme itself can be considered successful. Based on this, typical monitoring questions on learning achievements would be: How many students drop out from the WBL programme, and in which grade? What is the share of students who eventually pass the assessment? An evaluation question – which comes along with a judgement, as opposed to the neutral approach of monitoring – would be: why do drop-out rates and completion rates vary from profile to profile? 

Besides, enterprises have their own interest when investing in WBL: they want the work performed by the learners to contribute to their business operations. This, again, is also in the interest of the learners: their productive work is proof of a vocational competence which has been acquired through the medium of real work (as opposed to simulated work processes). A typical monitoring and evaluation (M&E) approach in this matter would be an estimation of the learners’ contribution as a percentage of the output generated by a skilled worker in a comparable position.

Are there any approaches you would particularly recommend for monitoring and evaluating the output of WBL programmes?