The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SIX: GUIDANCE

6.1 The LIC pack suggests that guidance should be pro-active so that learners are able to reflect on learning, make informed decisions and plan for progression. Good practice should involve ' guidance processes being integrated within the programme at all stages in order for learners to identify choices and make decisions' (p15). There is also an emphasis on the Individual Learning Plan ( ILP) that is used to ' record, update and review progress towards the learners' intended outcomes and changes in the learners' needs and aspirations' (p15). The ILP is seen as an essential feature of the learning programme because it sets out in detail the ' learning outcomes, the learning necessary to achieve them and the sequence that learners and tutors should follow towards their achievement' ( HMIe, 2005: 13). Thus the ILP is the most effective means of identifying literacy and numeracy needs and building an individual curriculum to address them, and forms a key part of the guidance process in ensuring that learners are working towards and achieving their goals. For these reasons learners were asked a number of questions about this.

Entry

6.2 Learners were asked in the first round of interviews if anyone had drawn up an ILP with them at the start, or shortly after they had started their learning programme. As can be seen from Table 6.1 below a third of learners did not know they had an ILP. It should be remembered that this is the perception of the learners and ILPs may exist but learners do not recognise them as such. However, interviewers were careful to explain what an ILP meant and good practice involves making the ILPexplicit in a form that is shared by both learner and tutor ( LIC pack p15). The table also shows that learners who were based in an FE College were less likely to be aware of having an ILP than those in other settings. This may be because at entry most Colleges are more concerned with ' assessing learners' core skills levels' and using 'various forms of screening for new learners' ( HMIe, 2005: 13) in order to find the right programme for learners to begin their studies. This means that learners were less likely to have an ' extended initial interview where learners discussed their needs and agreed an individual learning plan' ( HMIe, 2005: 13), which was a characteristic approach of local authority provision.

Table 6.1: ILPs - comparison between FE and non- FE

Guidance on the Course

6.3 The Literacies in the Communities Good Practice Framework ( LIC) suggests that the best practice in guidance and support is when learners ' identify choices and make informed decisions' (p15). It also suggests that opportunities should be offered to ' discuss, record, update and review the ILP and discuss changes in needs and aspirations' (p15). These criteria were used to help assess the quality of guidance and support learners were receiving during their course. They were asked three questions about their guidance on the course: if anyone had talked to them about what they had learnt; helped them to think about the knowledge, skills and understanding they had gained during the class; and reviewed their ILP with them to see what they had achieved. The responses to these questions are detailed in table 6.2 below. It is of note that 143 learners (41%) indicated that they did not have an ILP and of the 217 that did 15% said that it had never been reviewed. As in the first interview interviewers were careful to explain what an ILP was in case they were unsure about the term. It was described as ' a means of helping them identify and draw up their learning goals and what they were doing to try to achieve them'.

Table 6.2: Guidance on the course

* 143 learners indicated that they did not have an ILP

6.4 The answers to these questions were also compared between those in FE settings and those in other settings and it was found that a slightly higher percentage of learners in FE settings reported that they had never discussed what had been learnt or their skills knowledge and understanding as can be seen in tables 6.3 to 6.5.

Guidance on the course - FE Non- FE comparisons

Table 6.3: Did someone talk to you about how much you had learnt?

Table 6.4: Did someone help you to think about the skills, knowledge and understanding you had gained during the class?

6.5 A statistically significant (1% level) percentage of learners in FE settings reported that they had never had a review of their ILP as can be seen from table 6.5 below.

Table 6.5: Did someone review your ILP with you to help you see what you had achieved?

* - 143 learners indicated that they did not have an ILP

6.6 This difference could be explained by the arrangements for setting targets and reviewing progress that are in place in FE settings that involve ILPs being kept centrally rather than by the learner ( HMIe, 2005: 14).

Exit Guidance at the End of the Course

6.7 The LIC pack suggests that exit pathways from learning programmes should present learning ' as a self directed lifelong process where participation in the programme is a stage' (p16). It also suggests that ' confidence and competence as a critical user of literacy and numeracy' should be developed as well as 'confidence in transferring learning to new roles and contexts' ( ibid). Learners were therefore asked if, at the end of the course, anyone had talked to them about what they had learnt; helped them to think about the knowledge, skills and understanding they had gained during their class; and reviewed their ILP with them to see what they had achieved. The data shows that 190 learners had completed their course. Of these, 142 (75%) completed their course and also indicated receiving exit guidance. Thus the first 2 tables (Tables 6.6 and 6.7) are based on these learners. However, in both instances N is below 142 since there were also a number of missing cases.

Table 6.6: Did someone talk to you about how much you had learned?

Table 6.7: Did someone help you to think about the skills, knowledge and understanding you had gained during the class?

6.8 The third table (Table 6.8) is also based on this group of learners but additionally excludes learners who indicated not having an ILP. In total 98 students had completed their course, had an ILP and had also received exit guidance. In the table N=77, there were 21 missing cases where learners did not answer the question.

Table 6.8: Did someone review your ILP with you to help you see what you had achieved?

6.9 One hundred and seventy-one learners from the 190 who had completed their ALN course responded to a question asking them if anyone had helped them to find other learning opportunities. Two thirds of these learners (66%) indicated that they had received such an offer of help. While there were differences in the responses from learners in FE and Non- FE provision (see table 6.9) these differences were not statistically significant.

Table 6.9: Did anyone help you to find other learning opportunities that you could move onto?

6.10 Open questions were also asked about the experiences of learners after they had completed their courses. Seventy-five (38%) of the learners in the qualitative sample had continued with some form of learning. Table 6.10 summarises the subsequent studies/training routes suggested by 74 of these learners (one did not provide an answer).

Table 6.10: Further learning routes accessed by learners

6.11 Six of the F.E. students had enrolled on pre-vocational courses preparing for social care and nursing. The remainder were working towards a variety of N/ SVQs. Seven of the learners who were continuing in ALN learning indicated that they were moving on to a higher level with the intention of subsequently applying for a vocational course, however one commented that s/he had been attending the current course for nine years. General courses included a range of more academically geared subjects such as Sociology, English and Psychology, whereas others included digital photography, First Aid, Counselling and Health Issues. Three of those who reported not having continued with their learning cited health reasons, and a further respondent was waiting for an interpreter to be allocated before continuing.

6.12 Those learners who had completed their courses (N=190) were then asked their reasons for leaving. Table 6.11 summarises (in rank order) the 181 responses.

Table 6.11: Reasons for leaving the programme

6.13 Although it is only a very small percentage of learners that were unhappy with either the content of their course or the methods used in them, these negative comments should be taken seriously. Other research ( e.g. McGivney, 2001) shows that adults who return to learning are often easily satisfied with their programmes as they are unable to make appropriate comparisons. Therefore, learners were asked if they wished to comment on the reasons why they had left the programme. Sixty-one learners responded to this question, and of these nineteen (31%) implied that they had completed the course. Not all stated this explicitly, but comments such as, 'It was great and now I'm doing x' were taken to imply completion and have therefore been interpreted as such. Most of these had positive things to say about their learning experience, as the following comments illustrate:

• The great guidance teacher really boosted my confidence
• Beneficial to anyone looking to progress themselves
• Enjoyable and gave me a boost to go and do other courses that I would never have thought I would do
• It's changed things at home for the better
• It gave me the confidence in my writing ability and enabled me to attempt the GCSE

6.14 Other comments reflected a less positive learning experience for twenty-nine (48%) of the learners. For some, their premature exit resulted from changed life circumstances including increased domestic commitments. For others, difficult or altered locations and class times made access to programmes problematic. These circumstantial and organisational factors accounted for 41% (12) of the more negative comments.

6.15 The remainder concerned the content, methods and organisation of the classes themselves. Some found them too hard, some too easy, and others suggested that the content was wrong for them (7). Ten (34% of the negative comments) were critical of pedagogical and organisational issues that they encountered, the chief one of these being that in mixed groups of a broad ability spread, they did not receive the individual tutor attention that they needed, as the following quotes illustrate.

• It wasn't flexible enough and the range of abilities in the class was too great. I felt I was helping a lot of the other students and people didn't have access to books right from the start
• Everyone was being taught in the same way and at the same pace and stage
• Not enough attention was given to each student so we didn't get enough support

Summary

6.16 Guidance is a weak area of provision in all settings due to the ineffective use of the Individual Learning Plan ( ILP) that forms a key part of the guidance process in ensuring that learners are working towards and achieving their goals. Well over a third of learners stated that they did not have an Individual Learning Plan ( ILP) at the beginning of their programme and only just under a third had received a review of their ILP during their programme. There was a better position in terms of exit guidance since, for the small number of learners that had left their programmes and had an ILP, a high percentage had received a review of their learning.

6.17 A very small percentage of learners had left their programme because they were unhappy with the content or methods These cases were most likely to occur when learners were part of mixed groups with a broad spread of ability. Learners who had completed their original courses have continued with a range of other provision in a variety of settings with some moving from community based provision into FE as detailed in chapter 3.

« Previous | Contents | Next »