David Hall and Carlo Raffo

Work related learning: Rethinking notions of motivational and attainment transfer between schools and the workplace for young people

David Hall and Carlo Raffo

Post-16 Studies Unit, Faculty of Education, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

Tel: +44 (0)161 275 6946/3282

Fax: +44 (0)161 275 6819

Email: /

Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, 13-15 September 2001

Introduction

Recent government policy initiatives have sought to utilise the perceived advantages of work related learning to enrich and enhance the curriculum of 14-16 year olds. This can be seen in David Blunkett's Mansion House speech in January, 2001 (DfEE, 2001a) where he extolled the virtues of a work related learning curriculum, in references to work related learning in the Green Paper 'Building on Success' (DfEE, 2001b) and, more latterly, in the latest White Paper ‘Schools achieving success’ (DfES 2001) which refers to:

‘a £38 million programme of work related learning placements to benefit up to 40,000 14-16 year olds from 2002. In most cases the young people will study at a college or with a training provider for one or two days a week throughout Key Stage 4. The placements will need to be of high quality and provide opportunities to gain worthwhile qualifications. Early pilots have shown real benefits, including improved attainment and motivation.’ (page 32, paragraph 4.7, DfES 2001)

Within the policy statements and documents referred to above it is possible to detect a number of significant assumptions about work related learning. First, an important element of work related learning is the shifting of learning experiences from school and classroom based contexts to out of school contexts. This view of work related learning fits within standard notions of the concept (see, for example, Saunders et al,1997), but nevertheless is a particular interpretation of the concept and by adopting this position can be clearly distinguished from other initiatives stressing other aspects of work related learning that, for example, have sought to enrich and enhance the curriculum by bringing work related learning into schools and classrooms. Second, that work related learning will be particularly valuable to young people viewed by teachers and other adults as disengaged from their existing curriculum or disaffected with their schooling in general. This is in line with a variety of initiatives that have sought to reengage young people via the development of vocational routes. Third, that the advantages for young people of positive work related learning experiences in out of school contexts will transfer back to school with corresponding positive and measurable benefits.

It is the purpose of this paper to examine the third of these assumptions in the light of research evidence. The evidence was collected over a two year period on a work related learning programme specifically designed to address non participation, truancy and underachievement amongst 14-16 year olds based in Greater Manchester.

The work related learning programme itself was devised by the local Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) in tandem with representatives of four local education authorities in the early 1990s. The programme took place over a maximum of six school terms beginning at the start of the Autumn Term of Year 10 and normally finishing at the end of the Summer Term in Year 11. During this period young people spent one day per week working in a particular occupational area. In total this involved approximately 72 days on the programme. Young people were offered a choice of occupational areas from construction, engineering, manufacturing/distribution, motor vehicle maintenance, business administration, retailing, hospitality and catering, hair and beauty, care and sport and leisure. The three broad aims of the programme were:

'To increase participation in education pre-16

To improve achievement of recognised qualifications at 16

To increase participation in structured learning post-16'

In addition, the programme sought to 'help in raising the motivation and therefore the achievement of a number of young people across the Manchester TEC area.' (Manchester TEC, 1997).

Research Methods

The research into this programme involved the collection of a range of data relating to 110 participating young people. Attendance and attainment data on the 110 young people was collected at the beginning and end of the two year research programme. The same attendance and attainment data was also collected for a comparator group of 110 young people selected in the same proportions from the same schools as those in the research group. Structured questioning of young people in the research groups about their general perceptions and experiences of the programme was carried out throughout the two years and this was accompanied by a number of focus groups of between eight and ten young people to develop themes that were emerging from the structured interviews. Detailed eighteen month longitudinal shadowing and interviewing of ten pupils were also conducted. This involved interviews and observations of these young people in a variety of contexts including school, workplace, peer groupings and home environments. In addition, interviews were conducted with parents and other relevant stakeholders involved with each of the ten individual young people selected for the longitudinal study. Each researcher took responsibility for the whole network that belonged to one individual young person; his/her teachers, parents/guardians, training providers, employers and so on. The research was financed by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) as part of its local evaluation strategy for work related learning projects.

Research findings

As stated above one of the main and formal aims of the work related learning programme researched was to re-motivate ‘at risk’ young people in order to improve school attendance. It was anticipated that one of the consequences of this would be improved school attendance and subsequently Key Stage Four (KS4) attainment. Tables 1, 2 and 3 below show the findings in relation to these two key areas:

Table 1: Authorised absence for the Project and Comparator groups

Key

Columns marked P are the project group

Columns marked C are the comparator group

Table 2 Unauthorised absence for the Project and Comparator groups

Key

Columns marked P are the project group

Columns marked C are the comparator group

Tables 1 and 2 indicate limited variances between project and comparator groups in terms of authorised and unauthorised absences. Given the very low levels of recorded unauthorised absences, it is appropriate to focus upon authorised absences. For the project group there is a noticeable drop in authorised absences during the first year (Year 10) of the programme. Although the project group had a higher level of authorised absences during their year 9, this figure was lower than for the comparator group in Year 10. A similar decline in the proportion of authorised absences in Year 10 is not apparent for the comparator group. In year 11 there is a reverse of the situation with project group authorised absences greater than for the comparator group. In essence, therefore, there appears from the data to be little evidence at the aggregate level to suggest any motivational transfer from the work related learning programme to normal schooling in terms of attendance.

The attainment data in Table 3 provides a further insight into how the work related learning programme might transfer more generally to the school environment in terms of influencing the KS4 performance of the project group. In order to generate this data KS3 mean scores across the three standard level test results in Math, English and Science were initially calculated at the beginning of year 10 for both the project and comparator groups. At the end of year 11, KS4 results were also collected, collated and analysed for both the project group and comparator groups in the same cohorts. This was accomplished by taking all GCSE grades for both the project group and comparator group. Numbers were then apportioned using a scoring system which allocated 8 points for a grade A*, 7 points for a grade A, 6 points for a grade B through to 1 point for a grade G. The average point score was then calculated by dividing the total number of points achieved in both project group and comparator groups by the number of candidates in each group.

Table 3: KS3 and KS4 attainment for the Project and Comparator groups

Key

Columns marked P are the project group

Columns marked C are the comparator group

It can be seen from Table 3 above that the level of attainment at KS4 in terms of GCSE points score is lower for the project group than for the comparator group. This may have been anticipated given the higher mean score of the comparator group at KS3 relative to the project group. However, the relative levels of performance have diverged even further at KS4 than was the case at KS3 with the comparator group continuing to score significantly higher.

It is possible to interpret this data as suggesting that benefits arising from the work related learning programme have not transferred to the young people's schooling in terms of improved attendance and attainment. This is a finding broadly in line with recently published research findings examining thirty five 'demonstration' work related learning projects throughout England (Watson et al, 2000). Interestingly, such an interpretation was at odds with the Secretary of State for Education's assertions (DfEE, 2001a) which referred to the effectiveness of the 35 work related learning demonstration projects in terms of raising standards at GCSE. This was later adapted in the Green Paper ‘Building on Success’ (DfEE 2001b) to:

‘Evaluation work shows clearly that, when placements are of good quality and meet the aspirations of those undertaking them, standards of attainment rise as do levels of attendance at school.’ (paragraph 4.47, DfEEb)

Closer scrutiny of the research evidence and data collection process reveals a more complex picture. There is, for example, no necessary causal relationship between the attendance and attainment data for the project group and their participation in the work related learning programme. A range of factors beyond the work related learning programme may have contributed to these findings and any changes in performance and attendance may be attributable to these factors. The problems of establishing comparator groups in schools compound the problem of drawing firm conclusions about the impact of the work related learning programme on attendance and attainment. The principal means of identifying the comparator groups was in terms of the young peoples' KS3 attainment and previous attendance, yet in many of the schools studied as part of the research the lowest achieving in terms of KS3 and the least frequent attenders had been selected for the work related learning programme. This meant that it was not possible in those same schools to select comparator groups with similar attendance records and attainment profiles at KS3. Consequently, the comparator groups within the schools researched were selected on a 'best fit' basis with on occasion significant differences in prior attendance and attainment at KS3. It also emerged in interviews with teachers after the selection of project and comparator groups that in some schools the young people chosen for the work related learning programme were generally viewed in more negative terms in relation to their academic potential than their peers in the comparator group.

Regardless of the interpretation of the quantitative findings it was clear from our research that the issue of motivational and attainment transfer from workplace based experiences to schools was complex and multifaceted.

One explanation for this can be located in the nature of the work related programme itself. The programme, although intending to improve attainment at KS4, was not focused upon improvements in attainment at General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) level. Instead the focus was upon allowing programme participants to acquire NVQ, key skill and GNVQ units. There was clear evidence throughout our research of significant levels of attainment with regard to these qualifications, but it was not possible to gather reliable data at the level of the project as a whole because of the inability of the majority of schools to provide data on vocational qualifications. This was indicative of a general tendency amongst schools not to recognise vocational qualifications acquired during the work related learning programme. One school, for example, which was not atypical of those studied failed to recognise through any established means either formal or informal the acquisition of whole and part NVQ qualifications by participating young people.