The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE: DELIVERING SKILLS FOR WORK COURSES

5.1 This chapter focuses on respondents' views on the practicalities of delivering the SfW courses. It compares the experiences of college senior managers and course leaders contacted at the start and end of the pilot, and also draws on the views of lecturers, teachers and trainers interviewed in the six case-study partnerships. Reference is also made to the survey of Year 2 partnerships where relevant. The chapter presents respondents' views on the teaching approaches they had adopted and any changes introduced in relation to:

• Providing a course induction
• Delivering the SfW course overall
• Teaching employability and core skills
• Assessing the course.

5.2 This chapter also reports on the extent to which interviewees had accessed training and development opportunities, shared good practice with other delivery centres, and evaluated their practice and the success of the courses. It also presents their views on the course materials provided and explores what impact being involved in the pilot had on schools and colleges.

COURSE INDUCTION PROCEDURES

5.3 All of the delivery centres contacted provided some sort of induction for students undertaking a SfW course. Induction procedures adopted varied depending on the type and size of partnership. Most colleges said they had given students a customised version of the standard college induction, which usually included a tour of the college and information about health and safety, travel arrangements and an introduction to staff. Schools that were delivering courses and smaller partnerships tended to offer more informal induction procedures, sometimes in the form of an introductory session to the course.

5.4 Just under half of the delivery centres contacted at the end of the pilot reported that they had changed their induction process in the second year of the pilot. In several cases, interviewees said they had made small changes; for example, making it 'shorter and more concise', putting more emphasis on health and safety issues or providing separate inductions for the different courses.

5.5 Four interviewees said that in Year 2 they had either introduced or provided more taster sessions. These usually happened in June before the beginning of the courses. In one case, this involved putting "prospective students in classes alongside existing SfW students to get a genuine 'inside' feel to the course". This was seen as helping students recognise early on whether the course suited them, in order to reduce student drop out later on during the course. A similar approach had been taken by a training provider delivering the Early Education and Childcare course in several schools. They had adapted their approach in the second year of the pilot and now started the course with:

"A number of activities, the first being 'Is this the course for me?'. So we give pupils some idea of what would be expected of them on the course and how the course can benefit them in the future. They answer a tick-box sheet to indicate their level of commitment."

5.6 As at the start of the pilot, only a minority of colleges invited parents to come into college as part of the induction process. Those doing so emphasised that they felt that it could help alleviate any concerns parents might have and could raise awareness of what the students would "get out of the college experience". These visits were also reported to provide opportunities for "parents to have an informal chat" and/or ask any questions.

COURSE DELIVERY APPROACHES

5.7 At all stages of the evaluation, interviewees emphasised the need to "make the course as practical as possible", as this was seen as the best way to engage and motivate students. Many course leaders interviewed as part of the final survey emphasised that this was one of the areas in which their approach had most changed since the beginning of the pilot. While those delivering Construction Crafts, in particular, found this approach easiest to adopt right from the start of the pilot, lecturers teaching courses such as Financial Services and Early Education and Childcare indicated that they had needed to be more pro-active to achieve this. One teacher involved in the delivery of the Early Education and Childcare course described her method as follows:

"I use a lot of enterprising approaches and it is quite practical and hands on. There is not a lot of chalk and talk. We have a lot of discussions and we work in groups and use ICT. We do a lot of creative stuff too and they enjoy that. We have quite a mixed approach to teaching really."

5.8 A lecturer teaching the Financial Services course similarly commented on the way he had adapted his delivery approach over the last two years. He said that he had faced some challenges at the beginning as most of "the pupils want to be doing things all the time and where we tend to get any issues is when they're asked to be more settled and you're doing more theoretical stuff". He had learnt from this to teach more theoretical content ' in short, sharp time bursts'. Similarly, a senior manager of a college, delivering this course alongside several other SfW courses, reported that she had implemented various changes to the delivery of the Financial Services course to make it more practical. She said that this was part of:

"The college's drive to make all the courses more pro-active, by providing better teaching and making them more practical so that students get the opportunity to do visits, conduct research, take part in internet working, etcetera."

5.9 Interviewees in 11 of the 20 delivery centres contacted at the end of the pilot emphasised that they had changed their approaches adopted to suit the needs of younger students. This was obviously more of an issue for providers and lecturers with little or no previous experience of teaching this age group. In many cases, it was again linked with the need for practical activities and keeping students "busy all the time - busy, busy, busy, so they don't have the time to think about messing around". An Early Education and Childcare course leader, on the other hand, said that she and her colleagues had become increasingly "aware of the fact that things have to be broken into small chunks and to vary the pace and techniques throughout the classes to meet the needs of young learners". Many of the delivery centres reported that staff had accessed specific training opportunities to help them teach this age group (see paragraphs 5.24-26).

5.10 Many interviewees also stressed the need to treat course participants as adults. The positive effect of this approach was reflected in students' comments (interviewed in the six case-study partnerships), many of which highlighted this aspect as one of the best parts of doing a SfW course. One lecturer explained what this meant for her:

"I try to be very laid back with them. I try to treat them like adults - a couple of them call me by my first name and that is fine with me. I think it is important for them to feel as though they are grown up - I don't want there to be a barrier there."

5.11 Others emphasised that "giving responsibility to students for their own learning" helped them to grow up and behave in a more adult way. One Sports and Recreation lecturer, for example, detailed the teaching approach she had adopted:

"What we did was we asked them to select a sport or a fitness activity and, with my help, they had to design a training session. There had to be a warm up, drills where I could see them helping the others with their skills, and they could have a five minute game at the end. And we used that to reflect on their performance and to think about the skills and qualities they would need as a coach - like being patient and things like that. And they did really well and I think it changed them a bit. I think giving them that responsibility made them behave in a more adult way."

TEACHING EMPLOYABILITY AND CORE SKILLS

5.12 The final survey revealed that delivery centres had made considerable progress in embedding employability skills in the SfW courses. The first survey (November 2005) had shown that several centres had initially put off the delivery of this component to the second year of the course or were teaching it as a separate unit only. In contrast, towards the end of the second year almost all of those contacted reported that they were now delivering it fully integrated into the course. As one respondent explained:

"We started off thinking that this was just a separate unit that we'd do at some stage towards the end of the course. But we changed all of that in the second year, so now it's implicit in all of the course and every session plan has it at the forefront."

5.13 There was evidence that the approach taken differed between courses even within colleges. This can partly be explained by the fact that not all SfW courses contain an (explicitly titled) 'Employability Skills' unit - this is the case, for example, with regard to the Early Education and Childcare course (although it does have one entitled 'Working in Early Education and Childcare'). Furthermore, some delivery centres or course leaders had chosen not to teach the unit as a separate class, but were teaching and assessing it throughout the whole course. As one Construction Crafts lecturer explained:

"The employability skills are a theme that runs through everything - you are reinforcing the skills as you do everything, as an attitude. There is a specific unit, but it is assessed throughout the course - embedded in everything - the attitudes of employment."

5.14 In one college, the same approach was taken for the Construction Crafts course, but a different one adopted for Hairdressing in the second year of the pilot because of the delivery model used for this course ( see Chapter 3). In particular, while the former course was taught exclusively within the college, the partner school had chosen to deliver the employability skills unit within their own building. Initially, it was taught by a teacher, but:

"It didn't work out so a member of college staff went down and that's working well. (..) It increases the credibility amongst pupils of the course when a college lecturer delivers employability skills at the school."

5.15 The final survey also revealed that some delivery centres had adapted their approach as a result of accessing 'the SFEU package on employability skills', while others had done so after attending SQA events. One college senior manager also said that they had " SfW meetings [within the college] to share thoughts and practice, so our Construction staff have benefited from the Early Education and Childcare experience".

5.16 The final survey also showed that most centres had adopted an integrated approach for teaching core skills. In some cases, respondents indicated that it was assumed that most of the course would cover the core skills and they had not taken any specific steps to develop students' skills. A minority of delivery centres had taken more pro-active steps, as one interviewee pointed out:

"Building up students' core skills was written into the course at the design stage. These include things like practical internet skills, compiling a portfolio, team-working skills, writing a report and numeracy skills."

5.17 In some cases, core skills were seen as linking very closely, or even overlapping, with the employability skills taught as part of the SfW courses. A college senior manager, for example, said that:

"We have a big thing in the college here about what we call Employability Skills, which is core skills, and we encourage the staff at all opportunities to reinforce these to all students in whatever they're doing. So rather than being ad hoc, I like to believe that they're covering it but also reinforcing it because that's college policy."

5.18 None of the respondents said that they were explicitly assessing SfW students' core skills. However, there were a few instances in which centres had taken specific steps to teach particular core skills. One college, for example, reported that in response to an HMIe visit, which had "identified IT as a weakness in the college delivery in Construction', they had 'invested in improving that area - so SfW students benefit from a greater use of their IT skills". This meant that in the second year of the pilot they embedded the use of IT equipment more firmly into the teaching of the course, including " showing DVDs, looking at websites and moving from chalk and talkto a more electronic presentation" of the course.

5.19 Interviews with Year 2 partnerships (who only started delivering courses in the second year of the pilot) showed that only a few of the sample of ten delivery centres contacted had so far fully integrated the teaching of employability or core skills into the SfW courses. Instead, several delivery centres saw them as stand-alone activities that were delivered either at the beginning of the course or at certain intervals. As reported in paragraph 5.33, there was no evidence in the sample of delivery centres contacted that colleges and schools had accessed good practice developed in this area by others involved from the start of the pilot.

ASSESSING THE COURSE

5.20 Lecturers interviewed within the six case-study partnerships were specifically asked how they monitored and assessed students' progress on the courses. Most said that they combined formal and informal approaches. Interviewees reported that they largely relied on the SQA National Assessment Banks ( NABs) for formal assessment purposes and were generally satisfied with the materials. As one Early Education and Childcare teacher observed: "we use the NABs - it's pretty straight forward really and we're satisfied that they're assessing what they need to be assessing". However, some respondents working with lower ability students, interviewed in the first year of the pilot, commented on the time-intensive nature of completing the NABs. Two Financial Services lecturers said that they had particularly struggled to keep on time in completing the assessment materials. As one interviewee explained:

"I know that the NAB they are working through is taking them ages. I am learning from the students how long things are taking but it is happening as we go along. I have discussed it with SQA and I know there are problems with it."

5.21 It is also worth noting that many of the students interviewed highlighted completing the assessment materials as the least enjoyable aspects of their courses. One lecturer also said that she spent a lot of additional non-contact time checking students' written work:

"I spend an awful lot of time on it - I've got four afternoons of formal teaching time. The NABs for it takes so much time - I spend at least two or three nights per week on marking them, because of the sheer volume of students we've got on it."

5.22 Many lecturers emphasised that they used more informal approaches as well, including discussions with pupils and observing their work. One respondent, for example, reported that he monitored students' progress mainly via such informal assessment "we have got to know each other really well over time, so I can pick up on things". One college interviewed as part of the final survey had also piloted the use of an e-portfolio in the second year of the pilot for the Financial Services course, which students had found more engaging:

"For the second year group, we are involved in a pilot of an e-portfolio; [the tutor] has been using the [e-portfolio] with the students to build up their Skills for Work portfolio. She's found it very successful. They really enjoy working with it and she's enjoyed it too."

STAFF SKILLS AND DEVELOPMENT

5.23 As part of the final survey, interviewees working in colleges were asked to say to what extent they agreed with the statement that their organisations' involvement in the SfW pilot had "provided new opportunities for staff development". All of them either 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with this, which indicates that SfW was seen by all as a valuable opportunity for staff development.

5.24 Interviewees were also asked whether staff delivering the SfW pilot courses had received any additional training or support and whether they had any outstanding needs. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the most commonly mentioned development opportunities (12 delivery centres) said to have been accessed by staff included either external or internal training related to teaching or managing the behaviour of younger pupils. In particular, this related to areas such as 'how to handle disruptive behaviour', 'how to motivate younger learners', and 'child protection issues'.

5.25 Delivery centres had adopted different approaches to provide this support or training. This included internal workshops and staff meetings or training days, SQA training events, SFEU seminars, external speakers or trainers, or via accredited courses such as the Teaching Qualification for Further Education ( TQFE). One interviewee reported that the college had provided the training as part of its ongoing staff development:

"We put together a 'school strategy' by talking to staff, asking what people wanted. They said they wanted more training in working with young people, and training in keeping young people safe. And obviously we're encouraging all staff doing TQFE to do the module on teaching 14-16."

5.26 In another instance, the delivery centre had linked with their partner schools to inform them on how best to deal with particular students:

"A weakness of our Skills for Work programme is how to form relationships with pupils when you only see them for half a day a week. It is a difficulty - and one not easily overcome. As a result of internal meetings we visited some schools to seek information on certain individuals and how they can be handled successfully."

5.27 Several interviewees commented very favourably on the support received from the SFEU and SQA on specific areas or in general. One teacher delivering the Early Education and Childcare course in a school, for example, noted:

"[The SQA contact] has been fantastic. Any difficulty and I just phone him. I don't feel neglected in any way - it's a very good support network."

5.28 Other staff development opportunities accessed over the two years of the pilot which were only mentioned by one or two delivery centres included training on using ICT equipment, "consistency of marking and consistency of assessment" and teaching employability skills.

5.29 Respondents in only three of the 20 delivery centres said that they were not aware of any specific training received, although two of these said that they planned to do so in the future. One training provider working with several schools, for example, indicated that all its tutors had applied to do the TQFE to enable them "to go for GTC approval, so that they can teach 14-16 year olds without a teacher having to be there too".

5.30 All interviewees were asked whether they had shared good practice on delivery with any of the other colleges or providers delivering SfW pilot courses and respondents from all of the 20 delivery centres reported that they had done so. Almost all said that they had attended SQA meetings or a SFEU conference and it was universally seen to be a useful opportunity for sharing good practices, learning from others as well as more informal networking. Several interviewees said that they had picked up very useful tips which had informed their own delivery or organisation of SfW courses. One college, for example, said that they had discussed moves towards delivering SfW in schools and what others regarded as best practice in this area. Another college reported that they had learnt about using "daily feedback sheets with space for comments as well as attendance that go back to schools".

5.31 Other ways of sharing good practice identified by fewer respondents, included direct contact with other schools or colleges (three interviewees), putting good practice case-studies on the Learning and Teaching Scotland (LtS) website (three), via events organised by the local authority (two), and through the SQA external verifier who visited the college (two).

5.32 Two providers complained that even though there had been many opportunities to share good practice in the first year of the pilot, they had not been aware of any in the second year of the pilot. One college manager, for example, said that in "Year 1 we had quality network meetings for organisers and delivery staff, but not in Year 2. I would really like these to continue". However, other providers had accessed such events in both years, so it may indicate that the interviews took place before such events were organised in these areas or that they had not been sufficiently widely publicised within some colleges.

5.33 Year 2 survey partnerships (who had only got involved in the second year of the pilot) were also asked whether they had received any support, guidance or materials from schools or colleges involved in the first year of the pilot. However, only two of ten delivery centres said that they had received any such help when interviewed. One school delivering the Construction Crafts course reported that they had attended an SQA seminar: "There were copies of paperwork and worksheets that other colleges and schools were using and they were useful". Another college reported that they had contacted lecturers in other colleges to get "tips on how best to deliver particular parts of the course and what to do first and stuff like that". But otherwise none of the other delivery centres reported any such learning from other providers.

COURSE MATERIALS

5.34 The majority of respondents interviewed as part of the telephone surveys (final and Year 2 partnership surveys) and the case-studies were extremely positive about the support materials provided by the SFEU for use and adaptation by colleges and schools. One college senior manager, for example, said that "they've obviously had money invested in them and have turned out to be very good packs - the staff like them".

5.35 Several interviewees said they had either adapted the provided materials or developed additional ones to better suit their own students' needs and requirements. One delivery centre had done this with the help of employers who were providing work experience opportunities for students completing the Early Education and Childcare course. The employers received "information on the course and the units and are asked to input into the learning materials that we develop".

5.36 In relation to the specific materials for the different courses, interviewees (spoken to as part of both the final and Year 2 partnership surveys) were generally very positive about the Sport and Recreation, Rural Skills and Hairdressing course materials. Two respondents said that the Construction Crafts materials had, initially, contained some "inaccurate terminology" and omitted some important areas, such as "working with different materials", but that these had been rectified since then.

5.37 The only really critical comments were raised in relation to the materials provided for the Early Education and Childcare and Financial Services courses, although only by very few respondents. As regards the former, two delivery centres, for example, criticised them as being not practical enough and inappropriate for the age group. One interviewee, for example, explained:

"Our main concern about the SFEU materials was that we didn't feel that they met the criteria of the Skills for Work course to be based upon interactive, experiential learning - with employability skills being embedded. On the whole the SFEU materials are very dry - if we thought they were boring, the likelihood is that the candidates would also be bored."

5.38 In contrast, however, there were some interviewees who were very positive about the course materials for Early Education and Childcare: "We're delighted with the materials -- they worked very well for me. I don't use everything - there is a huge amount of paper - but I'm able to extract what I need".

EVALUATION AND REVIEW

5.39 Almost all of the 20 delivery centres contacted as part of the final survey stated that they had carried out some form of evaluation of the SfW pilot programme. Some of the colleges had used the HMIe 'How good is our school? School/college partnership' self-evaluation framework, while others used the college's own internal evaluation procedures. A minority of centres had carried out more than one evaluation - in three cases, one each at the end of Year 1 and Year 2 of the pilot, and in another instance, at the end of each semester. Two schools delivering courses had not carried out a formal evaluation, but had reviewed the SfW pilot via informal meetings and staff discussions. One college also said that they were planning a more detailed evaluation in the future.

5.40 Very few college staff indicated that the self-evaluation had involved their partner schools. In fact, one respondent commented that they:

"Were a little disappointed about not having more engagement with the schools in looking at that document - we're both supposed to be looking at it with the school as a joint thing. What we've done is we've written it from a college point of view for our relationships with all the schools. The schools haven't been as forthcoming as we'd like, so it's something we need to build on."

5.41 Interviews with school staff also showed that very few had been involved in such a process - only eight of the 29 schools contacted as part of the final survey said that they had carried out an evaluation or review of the SfW programme and only four said that they had done this with their college or provider partners.

5.42 Those delivery centres which had carried out a self-evaluation at the end of the first year of the pilot were particularly positive about the benefits of such a process having made changes to the delivery and organisation of the SfW courses as a result. One college, which had used the HMIe self-evaluation framework, said that its main outcomes had been an action plan for the second year of the pilot focussing on:

• Issues regarding retention
• Improved communication with schools on both behaviour and attendance
• Improved communication of the details of courses to schools (for example, via presentations at option evenings)
• Improved strategic planning to allow the college to identify problems more quickly.

5.43 Similarly, a training provider working with several schools said that they had carried out an evaluation involving their staff, students and their partner schools. This had included examining "how pupils felt about the course and we've also asked schools for feedback on the partnership arrangement and on team teaching and how it works". It had resulted in a development plan, which set out concrete steps for improvement in the future.

5.44 Several interviewees commented on the way carrying out regular evaluations helped not only to identify issues, but also to demonstrate progress that had been made over the two years. As one college senior manager remarked:

"What comes out is that despite the practical difficulties, we're overwhelmingly getting there. That's what's coming out. Schools are beginning to take cognisance of our agenda and our requirements for delivery and the practical things are beginning to get solved bit by bit."

PERCEIVED IMPACT ON ORGANISATIONS

5.45 Schools and colleges were asked a series of closed questions on what impact participating in the SfW pilot had had on their own organisations. Tables 2 and 3 summarise the findings from these questions.

5.46 As can be seen, there was very strong agreement from both types of organisation that the pilot had led to stronger partnerships with other organisations. Thus, all 15 colleges contacted as part of the final survey agreed that it had led to more effective partnerships with schools. Similarly, almost all the schools interviewed felt that the pilot had strengthened their partnerships with other organisations - mostly with colleges, but, in some cases, with other schools, training providers, or employers. As regards employers, only four of the 15 colleges felt that they had managed to develop stronger relationships with employers as part of the SfW pilot. Several interviewees stressed though that they already had good relationships with employers before the start of the pilot.

Table 2 Impact of SfW pilot on colleges

5.47 There was an overall positive response in relation to the impact the pilot had had on the status of providers within schools (see Table 3). Only three schools working with external providers did not think that SfW had made a difference in this respect and this included one respondent who said that "we've always been pleased with the college". Most interviewees in schools also agreed that SfW had raised the status of vocational learning among teachers and pupils in their schools. However, the effect was reported to be more pronounced in relation to pupils rather than teachers. Indeed, eleven respondents were either unsure or disagreed with the view that it had had such an impact. One interviewee who had disagreed with this statement explained:

"I'm afraid that many of my colleagues' view is that going to college is for the less able and less important than getting a Standard Grade - some people think for example that getting a Grade 5 in History is of greater value to them than doing a Skills for Work course, but it's the teacher that's wrong there I'm afraid."

Table 3 Impact of SfW pilot on schools

5.48 All schools agreed that SfW had enabled them to offer a more relevant curriculum to their pupils - with 15 respondents strongly agreeing with this statement. The SfW coordinator in one school, for example, commented:

"This is something I've been needing for a long time and I could do with much more of it. I could do with an even greater provision -- I could fill the places no problem!"

Another teacher described the SfW courses as "ideal for the type of curriculum that we as a school are continually striving to deliver".

5.49 On the negative side, most interviewees in colleges and schools agreed that the SfW pilot had increased the workload of staff - although very few respondents suggested that this was a very serious issue. Some respondents in college commented, for example, that 'it's the nature of most new courses that there is more work involved at the start before things settle down'. There were some colleges, however, who said that the course itself involved more paperwork and assessments than other similar college courses and that this had put pressure on staff. As one respondent explained: "There is quite a time cost of feedback in paperwork associated with it or providing information for report cards - that can take quite a long while to do".

5.50 All interviewees were also asked an open question on whether there had been any other impacts on their organisations. Two schools reported that it has improved their relationship with parents because "they see that we are actively trying to get the kids into something that they regard is appropriate to get them a job". A depute rector in one school reported that:

"We've had very positive feedback from parents - they think it's a wonderful opportunity we're providing the kids with. They're aware of the amount of work involved in getting these things off the ground and the amount of liaison between school and college. It actually helps us to bond with parents."

5.51 Similarly, a college manager said that SfW had raised the status of college provision among parents, in particular as it provided a nationally recognised qualification:

"I think what we're probably looking at is prestige value. When I'm talking to parents, they want something out of the college, not just an experience. They would wish to have a qualification. And in the past we have given them experience in different areas without actually qualifying them to do anything. Skills for Work has provided a framework for qualification. Parents would be more willing to see their young people going for an actual qualification which is going to be supplied and provided by SQA along with their Standard Grades. This, I think, has impact back at the schools."

KEY FINDINGS

• Respondents in many delivery centres documented ways in which the pilot had helped them to develop teaching approaches to better suit the needs of younger students. This included making lessons as practical as possible, keeping students busy and breaking topics into small chunks.
• Delivery centres had also made considerable progress in embedding the teaching of employability skills into courses since the beginning of the pilot. Most said that they were now a theme that ran through all of their teaching and that they were explicitly built into lesson plans.
• All providers agreed that the SfW pilot had provided new and valuable opportunities for staff development and most teaching staff were said to have had accessed internal or external training. Most commonly this related to teaching or managing the behaviour of younger students.
• Almost all delivery centres had shared practice on delivery with other colleges or providers via direct contact with others or, more frequently, via SQA meetings or SFEU conferences. However, very few of the delivery centres that got involved only in the second year of the pilot had so far accessed such good practice or lessons learnt.
• The majority of respondents interviewed as part of the telephone surveys and case-studies were extremely positive about the support materials provided by the SFEU. Several interviewees reported that they had adapted the provided materials or developed additional ones to better suit their students' needs and requirements.
• Almost all of the 20 delivery centres had carried out some form of evaluation or review of the SfW pilot and had found the process very useful. Those which had done this at the end of the first year were able to document ways in which it had resulted in changes to the delivery and organisation of courses in the following year.
• Schools and colleges both felt that the pilot had led to stronger partnerships between their organisations. However, only four of the 15 colleges felt that it had improved their relationships with employers.
• Most interviewees in schools agreed that the SfW pilot had raised the status of vocational learning among teachers and students and all felt that it had enabled them to offer a more relevant curriculum to their pupils.

« Previous | Contents | Next »