Much of the literature which explores student experience of post-16 education tends to explore the reasons behind why students decide to continue to study and their choice of course, qualification and institution. At the time this research was initiated and conducted (data collection began in January 2009), education and training beyond the age of 16 was not compulsory. Proposals had been made to make education and training for young people compulsory to the age of 18 from 2013 (DfES, 2005) and government discourse at the time emphasised that learning was the key to economic prosperity both for the individual and the nation as a whole (DfES, 2005, Leitch, 2006).
36
Within this upskilling and economic discourse, vocational qualifications such as GNVQ provided an education and training route which could ‘prepare young people for employability by developing generic skills, breadth, career planning, self-reliance, flexibility and a willingness for lifelong learning’ (Bathmaker, 2001 p.85). Central to GNVQs was the emphasis on the learner to take responsibility for their own learning and to gain the skills employers seek (Avis, Bathmaker & Parsons, 2002). GNVQs and the vocational pathways they offer are often considered to be an non-academic option for young people perceived as non-achieving and with low aspirations as they fail to meet the government benchmarks in terms of GCSE grades at A*-C (Atkins, 2010). Although policy rhetoric claims parity of esteem between academic A-levels and GNVQ, (DfES, 2005) GNVQs are perceived by students to be a second chance route for those who have not achieved the grades in their GCSEs to progress to A- level and who do not have the academic abilities required for A-level study (Bathmaker, 2001, Avis et al, 2002).
According to Bathmaker (2001) GNVQ offers a qualification for young people who do not wish to follow an academic route. In her research with students enrolled on a foundation (level 1) GNVQ, students were keen to make a fresh start and wanted a course which they would not fail at, as according to government education indicators they were viewed as failures in terms of their poor GCSE qualifications. An appealing feature of GNVQ courses is the emphasis on coursework compared to A-levels (Hodkinson, 1998) and the opportunity for students to study at their own pace in order to achieve (Bathmaker, 2001).
Although GNVQs are perceived to be of lower status compared to A-level, the opportunity to study them at a SFC is an important factor to students, as the young people in Hodkinson’s study revealed, SFCs are considered to be a high status place offering a quality education despite, in some cases, GFECs being better equipped to provide vocational education. In his research, Hodkinson, found that students placed the choice of institution, particularly if there was opportunity to study at a SFC, above the choice of course. ‘Often the ‘choice’ of GNVQ was really a choice to stay in the SFC rather than go’ elsewhere (p.157).
As explored in the previous chapter, SFC have a reputation for providing high quality education and are synonymous with high achieving students who progress into higher education and professional careers (Hodkinson & Bloomer, 2000, Lumby et al, 2002, Briggs, 2004, Stoten, 2014). SFC is perceived by students and their parents as a prestigious institution where students can achieve excellent results in most prestigious awards (A-levels) and so motivation to study at SFC is high (Lumby et al, 2002).
37
According to Hodkinson and Bloomer (2000) the choice to study at SFC is underpinned by the ‘subtle elitism’ attached to studying within this environment. Here the choice of SFC will enable achievement in qualifications (A-levels) which will allow entry into university (Keys, Maychell, Evans, Brooks, Lee & Pathak, 1998, Hodkinson and Bloomer, 2000). Keys et al (1998) found that for the SFC students in their research, their choice of course was influenced by their interest within the subject followed by their ambition to progress on to university. Even for those students studying vocational courses, SFC provides an attractive place to study as opposed to that of a GFEC because it offers a different and distinctive institutional and learning culture (Hodkinson and Bloomer, 2000).
In their longitudinal research with students, Hodkinson and Bloomer (2000) found that their focal SFC fostered a positive culture for learning, providing a community with a well-developed personal tutoring system, an extensive extra-curricular programme, and numerous sporting and extra-curricular clubs which helped to provide a common experience for students. This then contributed to the creation and maintenance of a coherent college identity which set itself apart from other types of learning institutions such as GFECs. This institutional culture fostered an independent and autonomous learning spirit in the students whilst strengthening their ambitions to progress to HE. The college provided a culture which was continually shaping and shaped by the interactions of the students and teachers which nurtured the culture of engaging and progressive learning.
Hodkinson and Bloomer (2000) identify that many of the students who entered the college were already ‘positively orientated’ to the college culture (p.196) and so it can be assumed that many of the focal students had experienced prior educational success and achievement and were equipped with the knowledge, skills and dispositions to engage with their learning. Arguably students such as those in Bathmaker’s study would not be so positively orientated in terms of engaging with learning due to their ‘failed’ attempts at learning previously. This concept of prior educational experience and its influence on student engagement and learning will be explored later on in this chapter. However, the availability of the adult atmosphere provided in SFC which is perceived to be more mature than that at school and offers a fresh start for all students are repeatedly found in the literature as motivations to pursue further study (Keys et al, 1998, Hodkinson and Bloomer, & Lumby et al, 2002).
The literature frequently cites that a common motive for young people to engage in further study whether it be vocational or academic, is the idea that investment in learning will enable achievement of ‘good’ qualifications which will enable them to get ‘good’ jobs and better
38
opportunities in life (Hodkinson, 1998, Bathmaker, 2001, Wahlberg & Gleeson, 2003 Atkins, 2010).
This notion of utilitarian interests in the form of economic, social and cultural capital, are increasingly influential upon student engagement with their learning (Hodkinson and Bloomer, 2001). Gorard and Smith (2007) propose that human capital theory explains why young people continue in education. They suggest that individuals participate in further learning ‘according to their calculation of the next economic benefits to be derived from education and training’ (p.144). In accordance with this, Glover et al (2002) found that students continued with education post-16 and then HE because they believed they would gain enhanced earnings in the future.
This idea of human capital theory ‘refers to the knowledge and skills possessed by individuals which enable them to function effectively in economic and social life’ and stems from the work of American economists Schultz (1961) and Becker (1964) where ‘investment in education produces returns, in more or less the same way as investment in physical capital does’ (p.14, Schuller et al, 2004). Schuller (2004) proposes that learning is a process where people accumulate assets in the form of human, social or identity capital. He presents the three different forms of capital; human, social and identity in the form of a triangular diagram.
39
Figure 1 Schuller's triangular representation of capital
The diagram presents a conceptualisation of the wider benefits of learning. Within this, social capital refers to the relationships that exist between individuals or groups of individuals which enable the fulfilment of common goals. Deriving from the work of Côté (1997), ‘identity capital refers to the characteristics of individuals that define their outlook and self-image’ (p.19 in Schuller, 2004). These characteristics can include self-esteem, personal interests and views and are not necessarily innate personality traits but are socially shaped. ‘These characteristics are vital factors at almost every stage of the learning process. They are major determinants of motivation and whether or not people choose to engage in learning; they effect performance in the classroom and are also an outcome of learning.’ (p.20, Schuller, 2004). According to Schuller (2004) many learning experiences and outcomes of these learning experiences can be viewed as an interplay between human, social and identity capital. Schuller emphasises the centrality of lifelong learning in people’s lives and how previous life experiences can influence learning in complex ways as ‘it is hard to disentangle the effects of education from those of family background or local context’ (p.14). Thus, engagement with learning is underpinned by complex social processes occurring over time which serve to shape an individual’s motivation to learn. The literature supports this and suggests that student
40
motivation to learn stems from previous education and learning experiences. Gorard and Smith (2007) ascertain that staying on rates in post-16 education is determined by prior attainments at GCSE level. ‘Success’ in school examinations is an influencing factor on whether to continue with education, creating a linear pathway from FE to HE which can predict a student’s educational routes and later employment (Pustjens et al 2004, McIntosh 2003). Gorard and Smith (2007) emphasise that an individual’s lifelong pattern of learning is transmitted through family generations and is influenced by an individual’s social and familial background and their educational experiences which then becomes embedded in their ‘learner identity’. They conclude that ‘inequalities in early-life education…’ can be viewed ‘…as a manifestation of profound multiple social disadvantages…’ which are ‘…then reflected in later participation.’ (p.154).
Similar findings are also reflected in the research of Archer and Yamashita’s (2003) qualitative study which followed 20 year 11 pupils through their final year at school, their GCSE results and their post-school routes. The focal pupils were predicted as not likely to progress onto further education by their teachers and were predicted GCSE grades D-F. Thus, they were considered educational ‘failures’. The study highlights the way in which the young people viewed themselves as ‘not good enough’ and ‘knew their limits’ (p.53) in relation to further study after school. The findings revealed how student’s negative experiences of school affected their decisions post-16. The focal school was located in a deprived area of a city, the poor physical state of the school buildings fostered negative views of pupils’ self-worth this, coupled with a high turnover of staff and employment of supply teachers made the pupils feel ‘abandoned’ (p. 65) and prevented the establishment of good relationships with their teachers.
Stemming from their school experiences and the identity they had constructed as failed learners, many of the pupils perceived themselves to be ‘dumb’ (p.58) and low achievers and felt they would be unable to participate in further education for fear of academic failure and would be ‘blamed for not paying attention’ (p.59) if they had difficulty understanding or keeping up with college. According to Archer and Yamashita (2003) those pupils who were unsure or not thinking of continuing on in education employed self-protective strategies of avoiding further educational failure by not engaging with further study.
The research discussed here suggests that engagement in learning in post-16 education is rooted in and is influenced by family, locality and history (Gorard and Smith, 2007). The process of learning cannot be viewed in isolation, acknowledgment of the wider social
41
influences need to be considered. Bloomer and Hodkinson (2000) refer to the term ‘learning careers’ as a way of illuminating how a student’s life beyond college affects their participation and learning opportunities. This concept of learning careers proposes that learning changes and transforms over time and that unlike policy rhetoric, they are not linear and predictable. Research (Bloomer and Hodkinson, 2000 and 2001, James and Biesta, 2007) illuminates the significance of situation and activity in shaping the learning process; demonstrating that learning is a profoundly social phenomenon.
James and Biesta (2007) utilise the concept of ‘learning cultures’ to refer to the ‘particular ways in which the interactions between many different factors shape student’s learning opportunities and practices’ (p.21). They offer a cultural theory of learning which sees learning as happening through social practices rather than in the individual heads or brains of students. In embracing an holistic approach to looking at learners and learning practises, James and Biesta (2007) state that students cannot separate their college learning with other parts of their lives (even if they consider them as separate). This is because ‘dispositions, attitudes, motivations and interests, ways of dressing and behaving all develop through a student’s past life in home, school, work, leisure and the local community’ (p.23). This demonstrates the social nature of learning and how the individual histories of students contribute to the learning culture created within post-16 institutions. Stemming from this, ‘student learning is not simply an ‘outcome’ or ‘product’ of participating’ (p. 22) within a particular learning culture but is something which in turn shapes the nature of the learning culture itself.
The literature discussed here indicates that student motivation to study post-16 is influenced by their prior educational histories as well as the social and economic context of their current life and formative years. A student’s motivation to enrol on a course and study cannot be viewed in isolation as it is a product of their life, their acquisition of human, social and identity capital, and their learning history. Moving on from the motivations which underpin a young person’s reason for engaging with further study, practices within and beyond the learning environment will further serve to enable or disable their learning which in turn will shape a student’s learning experience.