The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Three Recognition and the models of recognition

Within the focus groups pupils were asked to indicate their views on a number of issues relating to the recognition of part-time employment within educational contexts. In this section we focus on three aspects of these discussions:

(i) the pupils reaction to the general principle of recognising part-time employment;
(ii) their ratings of the models of recognition that were discussed;
(iii) their written comments on the models.

(i) The principle of recognition

All pupils participating in the focus groups were asked on two occasions to respond to the principle of recognising part-time work. The first occasion involved getting pupils to indicate their 'gut reaction' to the idea of recognition. The question was then repeated after pupils had discussed the different models that were proposed for recognising part-time work.

Many pupils had difficulty in responding the first time they were asked about the principle of recognition. In part this may be due to the novelty of the idea - it was apparent that this was something that they had never considered before - and the lack of concrete examples. We therefore focus on pupils' responses when they were asked a second time about recognition after they had discussed different ways in which work could be recognised.

Table 9 presents a summary of the responses to the question 'Should more use be made of pupils' part-time work in their schooling?'. Pupils could respond by ticking either a 'yes', 'no' or 'not sure' response box.

Table 9: Pupil responses to the principle of using part-time work in school*

* The full table with all base numbers included is in Appendix 3.

As Table 9 indicates, the pupil response to the principle of greater use of part-time employment within school was mixed. Overall, less than half were definitely in favour of the idea (42%) but only a minority (albeit a substantial minority) were definitely against it (31%). Another sizeable proportion of pupils were unsure whether greater use of part-time work would be a good idea or not (27%). But responses varied depending both upon year group and pupils' part-time work status. Just over a half of pupils in S4 and S5 in the EWP groups were in favour of the principle of greater use of part-time employment within school (54% and 53%). For S6 this drops to 42%. The trend across all year groups is for pupils with experience of employment to be more positive about the idea of using part-time employment within school than those who had never worked.

It is worth noting that among the NWP groups, participants were not all against the principle, this was especially true of the S4 NWP group - 43% indicated that they were in favour of this idea. In S5 and S6 the proportion in favour dropped to 29% (S4: 43%, S5: 29%, S6; 29%).

A number of pupils in both the EWP and NWP groups indicated that they were still unsure about the principle. This could reflect the fact that pupils did not like any of the models presented, but it could also reflect the conditions or caveats that pupils had. In a number of cases where pupils responded 'not sure', they indicated in written comments that it would depend on the degree of choice open to pupils whether to participate in such a system; others thought it might be of use to some pupils but not to them.

(ii) The models of recognition

The research team's working paper on recognition develops five models, each demonstrating different ways in which part-time work could be used within schooling. The time constraints of the focus groups and complexity of these models led the research team to reduce this five-model version down to a three model version for use in the pupil focus groups. The three models used for pupils reflect the general principles underlying the five-model version.

The three models used in the focus groups were:

Model 1: Teachers might ask pupils to talk about their part-time jobs in subject classes … Or encourage them to use their part-time work experiences in assignments … Or use part-time work to give evidence of their core skills.

Model 2: Pupils are able to get a new qualification or unit from their part-time work. This would be recorded on their SQA certificate like exam passes.

Model 3: Pupils use their part-time work to review and record how their skills are developing, use it to set targets and plan for the future, and use this to help them get a job or course at college or university.

Each model was presented to the groups in the above order and pupils were asked about their views and comments on the idea. The group discussion was recorded. After discussing all three models the pupils were asked to indicate their individual view on each model by rating it on the following scale: very good, fairly good, not very good, not good at all and not sure. In addition to indicating their view on this scale pupils were asked to write any comments that they wished on each of the models.

In this section we focus our attention on the ratings pupils assigned to each model. The figures below provide the profile of the scale responses of the EWP and NWP groups for each year group to the models. Our primary focus at this point is to identify the extent of variation in responses based on whether pupils have or have not worked and their year group.

Model 1: Teachers might ask pupils to talk about their part-time jobs in subject classes … Or encourage them to use their part-time work experiences in assignments … Or use part-time work to give evidence of their core skills.

A summary of the pupils' responses to this model can be found in Figure 1, the EWP group, and Figure 2, the NWP group. It is noticeable that a small percentage of pupils across all year groups indicate that they are 'not sure'. This pattern is reflected in all of the models; however, in all cases the majority of pupils have indicated their strength of preference for each of the recognition ideas.

Figure 1: Ever worked pupils' responses to Model 1 (use in teaching/assessments/core skills)

Pupil responses to Model 1 indicated that there were no significant differences between the EWP and NWP groups for S4, S5 or S6. Within the EWP group the S4 and S5 pupils were most positive about this model with 59% and 60%, respectively, indicating a positive response, ie either 'very good' or 'fairly good'. The S6 EWP pupil group had a more mixed response to this idea with 46% responding a negative manner, ie 'not very good' or 'not good at all'.

Figure 2: Never worked pupils' response to Model 1 (use in teaching/assessments/core skills)

The distribution pattern of responses in Figure 2 shows that the NWP groups across all year groups had roughly comparable percentages for and against this idea. Once again the S6 group had the highest percentage of unfavourable responses, 55% indicating that they thought this was either 'not very good' or 'not good at all'.

Model 2: Pupils are able to get a new qualification or unit from their part-time work. This would be recorded on their SQA certificate like exam passes.

Overall responses to this model were favourable for the EWP and the NWP groups (see Figures 2 and 4). In each year group within the EWP groups a high percentage of pupils indicated that this was either a 'very good' or 'fairly good' idea (S4: 79%, S5: 76%, S6: 79%). This pattern was to an extent, replicated amongst the NWP group with 61% of S4 and 72% of S6 pupils indicating that even though they had never worked they thought that this was a 'very good' or 'fairly good' idea. The S5 NWP were less positive with only 48% indicating that they had a positive view on this model.

While pupils in the EWP and NWP group were positive about this model, experience of work was significantly associated with pupil responses. In S4 pupils who had worked were more likely to indicate that they thought this was a 'very good' idea. In contrast their peers in the NWP group were more likely to indicate that this was a 'fairly good' idea or 'not good'. In the S5 group the distinction in views between those who had and those who had not worked was more marked. Pupils who had worked were more likely to indicate that this was a 'very good' or fairly good' idea. In contrast those S5 pupils who had never worked were more likely to indicate that this idea was 'not very good' or 'not good at all'.

Figure 3: Ever worked pupils' response to Model 2 (certification)

Figure 4: Never worked pupils' response to Model 2 (certification)

Model 3: Pupils use their part-time work to review and record how their skills are developing, use it to set targets and plan for the future, and use this to help them get a job or course at college or university.

The response to the idea of using part-time work within an ongoing review of skill attainment and development resulted in a more mixed response (see Figures 5 and 6). Amongst those pupils who had experience of employment S4 pupils were the most enthusiastic about this model, a total of 62% responded either 'very good' or 'fairly good'. Lower percentages of S5 and S6 indicated positive responses, 47% and 46%, respectively.

Figure 5: Ever worked pupils' response to Model 3 (personal planning)

Figure 6: Never worked pupils' response to Model 3 (personal planning)

This pattern was reversed for the NWP group, where S5 and S6 pupils who had never worked indicated that they thought this was a 'very good' or 'fairly good' idea, 72% and 61%, respectively.

Work status was significantly associated with response patterns only in the case of S5 pupils. Significantly more of the NWP S5 pupils thought this was a good idea compared to their EWP peers. The EWP group was more likely to indicate that this was either 'not very good' or 'not good at all'.

(iii) Pupil comments on the models

In addition to rating the models we asked pupils if they had any additional comments that they wished to make regarding their view of the model. They were asked to write these comments down on the workbook. This section focuses on the written comments that pupils provided. In attempting to summarise these comments a number of issues arose including:

• Some pupils did not provide comments
• Comments lacked detail (eg 'this is a good idea')
• Some comments were rather cryptic and difficult to interpret

In addition it is worth noting that some pupils who rated a model positively then wrote comments which were negative in tone, and vice versa. Based on the focus group discussions it was apparent that when writing comments some pupils were adding caveats to their original rating. This has an additional consequence in that the pattern of percentage figures found in the ratings section do not always coincide with those based on the comments on the models.

Two independent raters reviewed the comments and produced a set of categories to aid the classification of the comments. The raters then met to agree a list of final categories. Typically pupils provided only one comment on a model. On those occasions where two or more comments were given we based the coding on the first comment provided. Given the range of comments and the fact that many were model specific it was not possible to use the same category system for all three models.

Model 1

From the 376 workbooks that were returned 328 pupils had commented on Model 1. The table below provides a summary of the categories, the number of pupil comments in each category and the percentage figure for each category relative to the total number of pupils.

To provide some indication of negative and positive responses the table has been split into two parts. The top half of the table lists the positive categories, the bottom half the negative comments. The 'other' category represents those comments that we could not categorise in part because of the difficulty in interpreting the meaning of the comment.

From the table it is apparent that amongst the positive comments about Model 1 the most popular related to the idea that this model would increase awareness of work, allow pupils to share their experiences and would enhance the link between school and the world of work. A smaller number of pupils felt that this approach would be advantageous in the learning environment. A large number of positive comments were non-specific, simply stating that this was 'a good idea', while failing to justify such statements.

Table 10: Pupils' comments on Model 1

*note percentage figure rounded and may not add to 100%

A larger number of pupils made negative comments about the Model. The largest number of comments fell into two categories, those who felt that this idea was not relevant and those concerned about equality. In the former, pupils questioned the value of Model 1. The latter comments were concerned about the availability of work and that not everyone would be able to get a job. This in turn would create inequality. The assumption implicit in many of the comments was that if Model 1 was pursued those pupils with jobs would gain an advantage over those who did not have part-time employment. Some pupils indicated that a consequence of Model 1 was that it would increase the pressure on pupils to get a part-time job.

Other popular negative comments fell into a number of categories. Two categories of comments were that school and work should be kept separate and that adopting Model 1 would invade the individual's privacy since they would have to talk about their work in classroom settings. These categories share a common underlying theme where pupils appear to be indicating their desire to maintain some distance between work and school.

Model 2

The comments that pupils provided to accompany this model were in general more positive in tone. The largest number of positive comments identified the value of this Model highlighted its relevance to employers; it showed them what you had done. In a similar vein a number of pupils saw the link between this model and an individual's CV and future career prospects.

Amongst pupils there was some evidence that this Model was valued simply because it recognised what pupils were doing, in effect it acknowledged their out of school activity.

Table 11: Pupils' comments on Model 2

*note percentage figure rounded and may not add to 100%

A smaller number of comments pointed to the fact that for some pupils Model 2 was of value because it would motivate the individual to become involved in part-time work and develop positive aspects of what we might call a work ethic or realising what work is about. As with Model 1 a number of general non-specific positive comments were made with respect to Model 2.

In creating a category system for this model a larger number of negative categories were produced to allow us to differentiate between the range of responses. However, this does not mean that there were more negative comments overall, just under one third of the total number of comments were negative in tone. The most common concerns related to this model were over pressures to get a job and the lack of equality since not all pupils could gain part-time employment. A second theme related to the views expressed by some that the exercise involved in Model 2 would have no value. Some pupils were more specific and indicated that the jobs that pupils had access to are of too low a level to warrant this type of recognition.

Once again we see the emergence of a set of views indicating that some pupils wish work and school to remain as separate domains in their lives. For some pupils such a concern may manifest itself in the view that work would become a distraction from school. That is if school were to emphasise one's job it would distract you from the other subjects you should be attending to.

A small number of pupils suggested that such qualifications would not be valued by employers. It was not clear what reasoning lay behind this comment but it could be related to the perceived gap between the jobs pupils do and their future career aspirations.

A final set of comments draw attention to an interesting aspect of Model 2 that would have to be considered if such an approach were implemented. What would happen if a pupil failed to pass such a qualification? A small number of pupils drew attention to this indicating that they thought it would have negative consequences for future employment.

Model 3

In the case of Model 3 just over half of the pupils who commented were positive about this model. A large number of these comments fell into the non-specific positive category (eg 'this is a good idea', 'I think this would be useful'). Amongst those pupils who provided more specific comments a large number indicated that the value of this model lay in the fact that you would have something you could show a future employer.

Table 12: Pupils' comments on Model 3

*note percentage figure rounded and may not add to 100%

For others the value of this Model appeared to be at a more personal level. Some pupils indicated that this Model would provide them with a personal record of what they had done. Others highlighted the fact that the process would allow them to assess their own improvements or would develop their awareness of aspects of their development. For some this awareness raising aspect may be threatening. For example two pupils indicated that the process involved in Model 3 would be problematic for them since it would mean exposing their private thoughts and feelings and would make them self conscious. Such comments while in a minority indicate that pupils may need help and guidance in approaching the underlying tasks inherent in this model.

The largest number of negative comments were directed at the lack of value pupils perceived in this activity. As was the case in previous sections many pupils did not justify such statements. Other pupils provide more specific insight into this lack of value. For some the problem is related to the lack of time or the demanding nature of the activity. While others indicate that lack of variation over time in their jobs would lead to a lot of repetition in the recording process. This may also be related to some pupils views that the jobs are of too low a level and do not offer opportunities for development.

A range of other negative comments were provided by pupils. While a minority of pupils expressed these views they are of interest in providing some insight to a range of issues associated with Model 3. As before some were concerned over the issue of equality of opportunity to gain employment, others that the process would detract attention away from schooling while one pupil draws our attention to the fact that such processes may reveal negative aspects of development.

Work Status

As with the section on the advantages and disadvantages of part-time employment it is possible that pupil comments on the models vary depending on their work status. Each model is considered and the tables allow us to compare the percentage of EWP and NWP pupils who cited specific comments on each model.

Model 1

In looking at the table below it is apparent that in a number of categories similar percentages of EWP and NWP pupils are to be found. For example, in the case of pressure to get a job, keep work & school separate and no value pupils in both EWP and NWP were equally likely to make these comments.

Two aspects of this table are worth noting. First, the categories where some variation between EWP and NWP is to be found. Second, those categories where only EWP pupils are to be found. In the latter case it is only EWP pupils who comment in response to Model 1 that it may help in lessons and that there is a danger of repetition of material across classes if teachers incorporate part-time work experience into their lessons.

In the former case there is one category which EWPs were more likely to write in response to Model 1. This relates to the lack of relevance of part-time. In comparison to the NWP group a higher percentage of EWPs cited this concern with respect to Model 1. Two other categories of comments are worth noting, in both cases a higher percentage of NWPs commented that they were concerned about the issue of equality, essentially that those pupils who had jobs would be advantaged in this system and that the approach outlined in Model 1 would constitute some form of invasion of privacy where people would have to disclose what they were doing in a public forum.

Table 13: Work status and views of Model 1

*note percentage figure rounded and may not add to 100%

Model 2

Similar patterns are to be found with respect to Model 2, the formal recognition idea. In this case only EWP pupils suggested that this would be of value in that it would recognise skills and abilities gained by individuals. In contrast to this positive view it was only EWP pupils who thought that this model would produce a qualification that would be irrelevant to employers.

The major points of contrast between EWP and NWP was that a higher percentage of EWPs made general non-specific positive comments and commented that this exercise would produce a qualification that would be of use in the context of one's CV and career. The final point of contrast was with respect to the issue of equality. In this case a higher percentage of NWP pupils made comments that fell into this category when commenting on Model 3.

Table 14: Work status and views of Model 2

*note percentage figure rounded and may not add to 100%

Model 3

In this model the focus was upon allowing and encouraging pupils to use their part-time work experience within a more developed notion of records of achievement. As the table demonstrates this produced a wide range of comments from pupils.

In comparison to NWP pupils a higher percentage of EWPs commented that they were of the view that the idea behind this model was of no value or would be too demanding of their time. On a more positive note EWPs were more likely to note that this model would result in a personal record that they could use and would be something that they could show employers. In contrast a higher percentage of NWP pupils were more likely to note that this model provided an opportunity to assess improvements over time and to generally increase one's awareness of change.

The equality issue was cited less often as a concern in relation to Model 3. However, from the small number of pupils who did view this as important a higher percentage were in the NWP group. As such this reinforces a pattern which we find across all three models. First, that the issue of equality is commented upon and, second, the pupils in the NWP group are more likely to raise this concern.

Table 15: Work status and views of Model 3

*note percentage figure rounded and may not add to 100%

Year Group

Examining the data for any variations in comments by year group becomes problematic due to the overall sample size. The number of respondents in each category when divided across three year groups results in some very small numbers. For that reason we have summarised some general findings where the greatest variation is evident between year groups.

Model 1

In the area of positive comments regarding this model S4 and S5 pupils were more likely to give non-specific positive comments about this model. This might imply that S6 pupils were more likely to justify any positive comments that they gave.

When considering the positive comments associated with this model a larger number of S4 and S5 pupils highlighted the value of linking work and school. The S4 pupils were also more likely to emphasise the value of sharing experiences.

Lack of relevance was a key negative comment made by many of the pupils with respect to this model. A larger number of S6 pupils highlighted this concern. This pattern also emerged for the category of 'no value', a greater number of S6 pupils listed this concern.

In contrast S4 and S5 pupils were more likely to have noted concerns associated with equality and that the model invades the individual's privacy. A slightly higher number of S4 respondents indicated that work and school should be kept separate. One reason why S6 pupils may be less concerned with the issue of equality could be that they find it easier to enter the part-time job market.

Model 2

In comparing the pattern of responses across categories for Model 2 it was again apparent that the earlier year groups, in this case S4, were more likely to make non-specific positive comments.

There were a number of categories where it was evident that some variation between year groups was evident. In the case of the positive comment categories a higher number of S5 and S6 pupils indicated that the advantage of this model was that it recognised the activity of part-time employees. A similar trend was evident with respect to the Career/ CV category. A greater number of S5 and S6 pupils noted this positive aspect. In contrast to these patterns when we look at the category of 'relevance to employer' there are a greater number of S4 pupils who cite this as a justification for supporting Model 2. It is possible that S4 pupils are thinking in a more concrete fashion about the value of a qualification, while the S5 and S6 pupils are aware that there may be a more generalisable spin off from such a qualification.

The negative comments about this model revealed some year group variations. A greater number of S5 pupils indicated that a negative consequence of this model was that it would create pressure to get a job. S4 pupils produced the highest number of comments about the issue of equality, that is that the model is unfair to those pupils who cannot gain work.

Model 3

As in the previous two models S4 pupils were more likely to make non-specific positive statements regarding this model. There was little between year group variations in the positive categories associated with this model. Two exceptions to this were the category 'assess improvements' where a greater number of S4 pupils indicated that this was a positive aspect of this model. The second exception was in the usefulness of this process to employers. More S5 pupils gave this as a positive aspect of Model 3.

Consideration of the negative comment categories linked to this model shows little between year group variation. The later year groups, S5 and S6, recorded a higher number of pupils indicating that Model 3 embodies an exercise that they believe has no value and constitutes a waste of time. This is of interest since these year groups are closest to exiting the school system and may have experience of completing the type of forms where such material would be expected to be of use, eg employment and higher education applications.

One final variation is worth noting. The category of comments labelled 'repetition' draws attention to pupils' views that the record keeping involved in Model 3 would not change much over time. There was a trend indicating that S5 and S6 pupils were more likely to make this comment compared to S4 pupils. This may reflect the experience of the more senior pupils. Alternatively it might suggest that Model 3 would require a strong structure and support system before pupils would be able to gain, or see, the potential in such a model.

« Previous | Contents | Next »