Admission Procedures to Award-Bearing Courses in Adult Education

Admission procedures to award-bearing courses in adult education

7402

Admission procedures to award-bearing courses in adult education

Derrick Fielden and Derek Legge

University of Nottingham and University of Manchester

Introduction

Having reviewed the documentation issued by the universities which run adult education courses, D. Fielden asserted that, whilst many differences were apparent in course content and the objectives of the course organisers and in consequent admission procedures, there was nevertheless much in common between courses. In order to explore the significance of these differences, much of the session was to be taken up by syndicates reviewing the factors used, or claimed, by most course selectors as criteria for admission to their Diploma courses. It was felt that admission to higher degree courses posed more varied problems and the speakers urged that they should be discussed on another occasion.

The session was concerned with the whole process of admitting students, not merely with those of selection by interview. It was noted that some of the constraints on selectors were unlikely to be expressed in published documentation; for example, precise interpretation of the regulations about qualifications with a possible limit on the proportion of non-graduates.

The commonly used criteria for admission to Diploma in Adult Education courses were found to be :

1. Academic ability2. Development potential
3. Motivation
4. Degree of awareness of demands of course5. Career intention6. Likely contribution to courseThree groups were asked to discuss pairs of factors and their tasks were to suggest: (a) methods of obtaining evidence about them; (b) a strategy for implementing these methods; (c) the weighting of the various factors and (d) proposals for additional factors.

Reports from the syndicate

Group A

This group was asked to report on the criteria of (1) academic ability and (2) development potential.

Members felt that academic ability was hard to assess and that details about qualifications - the usually requested information - proved very little. They therefore asked what qualities were being sought and decided that at the lowest level these could be stated as the ability to read intelligently, think clearly and write with a fair degree of skill. In more sophisticated terms this might be stated as the ability to articulate and to handle concepts.

On the whole the group thought that graduates were better than non-graduates in these skills but did not wish to place great emphasis on formal graduate qualifications. Instead each student should be considered on his or her merits. Everyone could cite examples of plumbers, electricians and technicians who possessed the required skills to a high degree.

The group considered the setting of essays as a means of assessing the ability of those who lack academic qualifications, but was not favourably inclined to this approach The only agreement in fact was that the assessment of academic ability is a far from easy task.

At this juncture the group found help in the realisation that not all Diploma courses were comparable and therefore proceeded to consider the nature of the various Diploma courses and the relationship they had to academic ability. It was felt that selection procedures and academic ability could not be considered in isolation from

(i) the volume of applications;
(ii) The origin of the course, i.e. whether the course has grown out of traditional extra-mural work or whether it originated from an internal department or faculty of education;
(iii) The objectives of the course;
(iv) Its place in the university structure, i.e. whether or not it is a recognised or necessary step towards an M.Ed. qualification or a credit exchange.

Members disagreed about the need for previous experience of adult education and some saw this question as being related to what they claimed was a dichotomy of objectives. Some Diplomas clearly were designed to provide initial training for those wishing to undertake full time work in adult education whereas others provided mainly, if not exclusively, for the in-service education of experienced adult educators, whether teachers, organisers or administrators. Similarly, some Diplomas provide for the traditional area of liberal adult education while others seek to provide a service for the whole field of adult education encompassing a broad range of practitioners in the prison service, army education, the churches, technical education, youth services or community work. Some Diplomas are governed by extra-mural requirements while others are more clearly part of the university curriculum, complying with more formal university regulations and requirements. In the latter case it could be said that the production of good dissertations and high examination standards are of greater importance.

In the final analysis the grout thought that the selection of Diploma students was more of an art than a science and that sound judgement counted far more than scientific analysis. It was however stressed that selection related to the purpose of the Diploma, and some members considered that in view of the different origins, histories and objectives of the Diploma courses a case exists for SCUTREA to examine the matter as an urgent priority.

Group B

This group was asked to report on the criteria of motivation and the degree of awareness of the demands of courses (factors 3 and 4 above).

The group spent most of its time discussing the whole range of the factors suggested as criteria for admission, and in particular the appropriateness of the two which had been assigned to it. In the early stages of the discussion many doubts were expressed, as for example the comment that 'motivation evaporates across three different meanings of number five' It was also felt that it was doubtful if factor 2 'development potential' - could really remain undifferentiated. Many thought that it should rather be divided into personal, academic and career suitability.

There was considerable criticism of the fourth factor and it was felt that this really subsumed two different criteria which should be separated as (i) the degree of ability to meet the demands of the course and (ii) the degree of awareness of what the course can and cannot do for the student.

On selection procedure there was considerable support for the view that there is no real substitute for an interview. It was however stressed that this must be a two-way dialogue with the prospective student and not solely a series of questions from the staff to the candidates It was also thought that it would be undesirable to give too much weight to the interview, that much selection was bound to happen during shortlisting before interviews took place and that there would always be some candidates who could not be interviewed for one reason or another.

The group therefore turned its attention to the kind of written information required from candidates. In general it was thought that present practice consisted too much of ‘unilluminating form filling’ and it was suggested that more care should be taken in drawing up the questions for answer and in seeking adequate reports from referees. Above all we needed to know if the student could cope with the course and if this was the right course for him; both these questions could only be answered jointly by candidates and the selection team. It was suggested that SCUTREA should give some detailed attention to the organisation and contents of this structured paper work.

In attempting to give a rank order to the criteria, the group felt a certain unwillingness but eventually came to the view that academic ability and the degree of awareness of the demands of the course (factors 1 and 4) were really the basic pre-requirements for admission and that it might then be possible to place the other factors in some kind of rank order. It was suggested however that much depended on the model of educational selection held to be appropriate - either the model which was open and therefore subsequently competitive, or the 'sponsorship model' where selection was extremely rigorous but failures then few. In that there were normally more applicants than places, the second type seemed the more realistic.

All members agreed that a missing criterion was that of need. It was essential to determine the aims and objectives of the course and to decide if the applicant really needed to undertake it.

Group C

This group was asked to consider the criteria of career intention and likely contribution to the course (factors 5 and 6 above).

In general it was first thought that anyone who satisfied university regulations and could get a grant would be accepted. However, evidence showed that this is not the case everywhere and that because some courses are over-subscribed, students are rejected. There would appear to be a range from the position in which applications matched the number of places available and were therefore all accepted to that in which there were three applicants for each place, with a consequent rejection of two of them. The average appeared to be about 1.5 applications to each acceptance.

It was recognised that Departments and courses differ both in objectives and in content and methods, and it was held that Departments should be more explicit in making clear statements about the nature of the course. The view was expressed that some of the tensions and frustrations observable in students would disappear if the objectives were clearly stated before students enrolled. There was some discussion of the old question of education and training: were the Diploma courses vocational or non-vocational, were they offering a 'training' programme or an analysis of the concepts of adult education, what sort of ‘improvement’ was to be expected in the students, etc.? The group speculated whether course work, project work, dissertations, etc. gave any indication of an answer. Others held that this kind of question was unreal.

Some time was given to questions about student rejection. It was believed that Departments should not reject a student on the grounds that his expectations were unrealistic or that he would probably fail the examinations, but that instead the problems should be 'honestly discussed' with the student before enrolment took place.

On the factor of career intentional the majority held that the general student motivation was career advancement in the form of personal promotion. The mixture of students and the availability of options in the course (administration, industrial subjects, etc.) were factors to be considered as was the view of the Departments about the needs of the educational community as they saw them. Retraining, to provide for sideways movement from one type of work to another, e.g. from school teaching to adult courses or to community work, might be thought to be of major importance.

The group examined methods of assessing career intention, suggesting in particular the use of the interview, carefully worded forms and some kind of written work submitted in advance.

It was believed that career intentions might be different between those attending courses in their own time on a part-time evening course basis and those attending day-release or full-time courses with their fees and salary paid.

Discussing the criterion of likely contribution to the course, the group suggested that previous experience was most important. It was noted that some Diploma courses are not only postgraduate in level but also post-experience and that some insist on the need for a considerable amount of experience both in their regulations and in their advertising.

Stress was given to one obvious factor; that the contribution is likely to be greater and more effective if the students come from a wide variety of backgrounds, countries, ages, cultures, interests, etc.

The group then considered the possible testing of need and likely contribution before admission but felt that this was ‘uncharted territory’. It was held that the course itself could both give information to those without knowledge, or help to those without basic skills or conceptual powers, etc.

Members believed that university examinations at the end of the course often raised problems both for overseas students and for highly placed United Kingdom students. In particular failure could be very damaging.

Finally it was agreed that if selection procedures and assessments are to be of value, it is necessary to monitor the performance of students who have taken the Diplomas or higher degrees. Some thought that ‘we very rarely have any idea what happens to our students once the examinations are over’, while others drew attention to the contact maintained in some Departments by visits, newsletters, correspondence, etc. over periods of even more than twenty years. There was general agreement about the need to collect information about the future careers of students and to use this to strengthen future selection procedures.

Discussion following syndicate reports

Every group felt that the differences between Diploma courses were of more than minor significance and that they were of both intention and level. In the process of discussing selection members had begun to get to grips with these.

It was suggested that an additional criterion would relate to needs, of which three kinds could be distinguished: of the student; of the employer, or the presumed employment situation in adult education; and of the community, in that a responsive adult educator would have to relate to specific characteristics of the community he was supposed to serve. These were complex factors, raising alternative questions about the constituencies served by the course and also posing in different ways the possible dichotomy between academic and other factors (such as professional skills or affective and attitudinal learning) in these courses. The discussion returned to these questions by means of other terms - for example, 'service' needs - but it was agreed that a University could not maintain any role in this area unless it could offer a core of disciplines, both in delineating some content and in demonstrating appropriate methods of study.

We were reminded of the needs of the staff teaching on these courses. It was stressed that their own development should be furthered by involvement in professional training courses from time to time.

We were warned to be on our guard against the relentlessly rising spiral of expectations: that students apply to the course for the sake of a qualification, which itself might be devalued by higher qualifications initiated later.

Finally, the discussion made it clear that, in spite of the differences between the Diploma courses, nearly all the selectors thought that it was valuable for students to have experience in adult education. It was recognised that for some students such experience could have adverse effects in making them resistant to new ideas or practices, but in general the Conference believed that a heterogeneous student group bringing together many different kinds of experience could help to create appropriate challenges to learning.

Reproduced from 1974 Conference Proceedings, pp. 1-5  SCUTREA 1997