Abstract:
Sow a thought to reap a behaviour,
Sow a behaviour to reap a habit,
Sow a habit and you will reap character.
Anon
In view of the plethora of coverage by the media, the lack of readiness for work is currently a major concern for both employers and the Government. The need to address the lack of employability skills is the focus of this action research report, which looks at one aspect of a whole employability programme developed in my own practice: differentiation of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ skills. Those skills defined as ‘hard’ being those which can be measured, whereas ‘softer’ skills are not readily measured but internally developed.
This research was carried out in a South London college of further education, in an area where there is an ever increasing number of young people ‘not in education, employment or training’ (NEETs). The research found that whilst the strategies and resources used developed the students’ ability to differentiate generic ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ skills, identificaton of the more subtle skills proved more problematic. Two examples of this are: ‘awareness of the needs of others’ and ‘the ability to prioritize tasks in order of importance’, both of which, amongst others, generated much discussion between participants.
A byproduct from this cycle of research, was the emerging need to ensure that those most vulnerable in this economic downturn, NEETs, acquire good employability skills and self-worth through a holistic teaching approach. As teachers we need to consider the thoughts and ideas we develop in the minds of young people, as this may influence the way they view the world of employment and their future role as an employee. We need to raise their awareness of what employers are looking and, by creating an environment that develops softer skills, facilitate the best possible opportunity for those who are at risk of staying in the NEET category and develop skills which will lead to sustainable employment by preparing them adequately for the workplace.
‘Relations between tutors and students lie at the heart of successful further education… They are crucial to the success of further education or employment in helping disadvantaged, underachieving and excluded people of all ages to develop their often-fractured identities… Unless tutors and students have time and space to work together effectively, employers, governments and the many other groups with a stake in further education will not get the results they want. (Nash et al (ed.), 2008)
NEET students often arrive with multiple complex needs. Bad prior learning experiences, educational gaps, exclusion, teenage pregnancy or time in a pupil referral unit are just some of the events/circumstances that contribute toward learner disengagement. The Entry to Employment (e2e) cohort, from whom the participants for research were sourced, comprised of twenty-six students. It included some who lived independently or who were in care as a result of a dysfunctional family. There were others who had suffered sexual abuse or who were self-harmers for a number of reasons. Some were young mums or mums to be. There were also students who were currently of no fixed abode; too old for care and too young to be housed. Many had mental health issues and most of them had either been put forward for, or were receiving, counselling from within or outside the college. However, whilst this could be true of many learner groups, particularly in city areas, it is a common feature of e2e students at the institute in this research. Although each individual has a different life experience, the culminating effect for each is a lack of interpersonal skills and an absence of good role models upon which to mirror and develop the ‘softer’ employability skills employers are looking for in their new recruits.
As a lecturer of Employability and Personal Development (E&PD) for NEETs on a programme, it was my desire to explore ways of improving students’ knowledge of the interview process. This was achieved by creating an environment that allowed the route from job search to interview to be viewed from a different perspective to promote a deeper understanding. Petty states: ‘…most informed opinion now considers that what happens in the learning ‘process’ is at least as important as its ‘product’’ (Petty: 2004, p.304).
In view of the merits of collaborative ‘discovery learning’, a community of practice as termed by Lave and Wenger, was created to allow students to explore and promote experientialism through conversation and reflective practice. The environment created was that of a ‘job agency’. Students were placed into smaller groups and given a ‘brief’ from a fictitious company and asked to prepare all the necessary resources required to recruit appropriate applicants for the job vacancy. The activities designed for this task ranged from creating a job advert, through to developing questions for interviewing applicants to establish suitability. To ensure the right knowledge was discovered, learning was ‘guided’. According to Watkins, Carnell and Lodge:
‘…the goals of learning need to focus less on knowledge acquisition by individuals and more on knowledge generation with others.’ (Watkins et al: 2007,p.18)
For the purpose of this action research I decided to examine just one aspect of the process, this being the effectiveness of teaching methods used within my own professional practice, to develop learners’ understanding of soft and hard employability skills. This approach not only acknowledged the importance of softer skills that are highly regarded and considered much needed of new applicants by employers, but it also responded to this Government’s desire to ‘…equip young people with the skills employers need…’ (DfES: 2005, p.3). With this in mind the following hypothesis was formed: if securing sustainable employment relates to applicants’ possession of softer employability skills, then ensuring students can identify the difference between soft and hard employability skills will increase their chances of sustainable future employment.
But what are employers looking for? Apart from a specific set of skills necessary to perform a particular job, employers are looking for applicants with good interpersonal skills and an ability to communicate effectively through different mediums. They also want new recruits who are flexible and adaptable, with the ability to multi-manage and prioritise. To be able to assess a situation and address any need appropriately, whether that be practically or interpersonally. These are just some examples of the ‘softer’ skills employers seek today.
To gain ownership of such skills, a variety of teaching and learning methods were used such as; Baker, Jensen and Kolb’s approach to knowledge creation through ‘conversational learning’, linking it with Bruner’s ‘discovery learning’ approach. However in consideration of the latter, Ausubel’s criticisms were noted and acted upon to ensure ‘meaningful learning’ took place by ‘anchoring’ new knowledge through application with what he calls ‘cognitive equivalence’ as cited by Curzon (2003, pp.97-102).
An incidental benefit for learners of the process was ‘motivational learning’, as students could place ‘intrinsic’ value on the knowledge to be gained. Watkins, Carnell and Lodge state:
‘…seeing learning as making meaning, interpreting events and constructing knowledge or understanding’ (Watkins et al: 2007, p.18)
Learners could identify with the purpose and significance of learning in relation to their own readiness for future employment.
I expected to find that the research would show that the methods and activities designed would enable students to gain the ability to differentiate between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ employability skills. I also hoped to discover to what extent these activities performed, and how robust the acquisition of new knowledge was over a period of time. Would the participants still be able to differentiate after a lapse of time.
Review:
Much has been said in recent years about the lack of softer skills amongst young graduates applying for jobs. An absence of such skills would appear to put applicants at a disadvantage from the outset.
‘The biannual survey of the graduate job market, published today by the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR), found that 43% of employers were unable to fill all their graduate vacancies last year - up more than 10% on 2005 - because students had failed to match academic achievement with leadership, teamwork and communication skills. Most expect a similar shortfall this year.’ (Ford, 2007)
Similarly, the Confederation of British Industries (CBI) 2009 education and skills survey advocates that the teaching of employability skills should not be viewed as a discretionary ‘add-on’ but a necessity to ‘…secure productive, sustainable employment’ in fact the report states that 82% of employers view employability skills as a priority. (CBI: 2009, p.29).
Graduates are not the only ones in need of good employability skills. For NEETs, gaining good employability skills is paramount to breaking a social cycle of dependency on the state. This is due to their ethnography, social background and multiple complex needs. The cost of being a NEET to society is huge. DfEE estimated that by the end of 1999 there would be 157,000 NEETs. At the time of the report the cost was presented as follows:
‘The total estimated additional lifetime costs of being NEET at age 16-18 at present values (2000/01 prices) are estimated as £7 billion resource costs, and £8.1billion public finance costs at a conservative estimate.’ (DfES: 2002, p.iii)
Worryingly, the NEET population continues to grow as highlighted by the National Foundation for Educational Research:
‘At the end of 2006, 454,600 young people between the ages of 16 and 18 were classified as not being in any form of education and training (NET), with 206,200 of these classified as NEET (not in education, employment or training). (NFER, 2008)
Additionally, many different reports and surveys, such as those commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF, 2009) arrive at the same conclusion: those aged 16-18 who fall into the NEET category, are more likely than others to experience unemployment at another time in their working lives. Clearly these figures emphasize the need for this type of learner to develop generic but transferable employability skills as well.
However, there is still a barrier of perception to overcome: the low value placed upon ‘soft skills’ against the highly valued ‘hard skills’ by teacher and student alike.
‘The assumption is sometimes made that discipline specific skills are more important than employability skills. However, in a world where knowledge (discipline specific) rapidly becomes obsolete the ability to identify, access, network and communicate new information (employability) is vital for career success.’ (USQ, 2009)
The Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) in their 2004 Employability Skills report outlines the importance for students to:
‘…recognize the mutual dependency of these two types of skills and thus reconstitute the relationship between generic skills, technical and vocational skills and the context of application.’ (DEST: 2004, p.16)
In recent years a lot has been written on the best way to teach the development of a range of skills, understanding and qualities for readiness appropriate to employment. But what do we mean by ‘employability skills’. For Yorke (2006) the definition of employability is:
‘A set of skills, knowledge and personal attributes that make an individual more likely to secure and be successful in their chosen occupation(s) to the benefit of themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy.’ (Yorke: 2006,21)
For Hind and Moss (2005) it is:
‘Employability skills (ES) are a set of social behaviours and skills that you can learn to help you interact and work with other people in a variety of different situations.’ (Hind and Moss: 2005, p.1)
To prepare e2e students for work or further training, it would appear that one starting point for development of ES is to be able to differentiate between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ ES and then contextualise the application of ‘soft’ ES within their own vocational area. Shakespeare, Keleher and Moxham (2002) suggest that soft skills are best acquired through situational learning, furthermore they propose:
‘Looking at this from the employer point of view we see that what they want is not good soft skills per se but an ability to operate effectively and appropriately in situ in the workplace, recognising and orienting to context.’ (Shakespeare et al, 2002)
Hence the decision as a teacher of E&PD to create a community of practice to act as a job agency to view the whole interview process from a different perspective. Effectively allowing the learner an opportunity to move ‘beyond the point where ‘mentality’ and ‘reality’ are separated,’ (Maharg: 2007, p.11) to appropriation of application. With one aspect of that process being identification and categorization of what is considered ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ employability skills.
However, classification of skills is not easy, whilst some are more easily defined than others, there is often a crossover that can lead to ambiguity and devaluation of some ‘softer’ skills. An example of this is the management of multiple priorities. This imprecision of distinction was highlighted by the participants’ responses to the activities designed for the purpose of this action research.
Methods:
The choice of methods had to fit the purpose of research, which in this case was to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching strategies used to teach students ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ employability skills. For this reason the following methods were used to measure success; an interview to establish prior knowledge, an exercise to ensure learning had taken place, observation of a ‘mix-and-match’ task to test knowledge learnt and lastly a questionnaire to establish if the intended outcomes had been achieved.
Minimums of three methods for data collection are required to ensure triangulation is possible. Lin (1976) argues that reliance on one method may ‘bias or distort the researcher’s picture of the particular slice of reality being investigated.’ (1976 cited in Cohen et al: 2007, p.141). In view of this I had to determine which methods would be appropriate to ascertain the facts of enquiry by asking myself the question: are the intended methods to be used to teach students the difference between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ employability skills effective, in other words is the overall goal ‘SMART’ (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timed). As a result a constructivist approach to teaching was taken. This approach posed further questions when designing activities for data collection; are the intended objectives clear and assessable, what are the practicalities surrounding delivery and can the results be achieved within such a short timescale. Consequently research design nomenclature became cross-sectional: taking place within a two person teaching session.
Much emphasis is given to discovery through conversational learning, as this is the preferred learning route for NEETs who learn from personal experience. With this in mind five logically ordered activities were created to collect the different types of data, see appendix ‘C’: a lesson plan describing the activities in detail which included a mini-questionnaire to assess students’ understanding of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ employability skills. However, assessment of understanding for the participants’ of research, was conducted using the same questions but within an interview. See appendices ‘D’ and ‘E’ for the results of student ‘A’ and appendices ‘F’ and ‘G’ for student ‘B.
Observation of students ‘A’ & ‘B’ was undertaken whilst they participated in activities numbered three, four and five. See appendix ‘C’. The main activity for action research was number five, a mix-and-match exercise devised to appeal to kinaesthetic learners. The task consisted of an A3 sized table with two headings, under which students had to categorize a mixture of thirty-six tiles of soft skills and hard skills. See appendices ‘J’ and ‘K’. This took place after learners explored what is meant by ‘employability skills’ and the difference between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ skills through conversational leaning and then a topical PowerPoint presentation (Breitsprecher, 2006). Utilizing the resources available from ‘Slideshare’, an online interactive service and Community of Practice of PowerPoint presentations created and up-loaded by other teachers.
Lastly, a questionnaire was created, see appendices ‘M’ and ‘N’, which was given to all students at the end of the programme to evaluate the process and assess if learning had taken place: demonstrating that collection of research data followed the order of ‘diagnostic’, ‘formative’ and ‘summative’ assessment. As Petty states:
‘This is used throughout the course to form judgements on whether, and to what extent, learning has been successful; and to pinpoint difficulties so that remedial action can be taken.’ (Petty: 2004, p.449)
But in this instance assessment stages also served to assess the effectiveness of my own personal practice and action research: defining an area in need f change or improvement as a result of experience, to reasoning why this is and how one can go about changing it: an assessment of personal pedagogy through a cycle of action research.
Permission was sought and gained from my manager to view the personal files of participants, to ensure ‘sampling’ was generic in background and ability. Howeer, even when elements and characteristics look comparable the overall diversity of participants can manifest very different results in research. Therefore it is import especially in small-scale research such as action research, that samples are comparable to reduce variables that influence validity and reliability. Hopkins states:
‘…if the various threats to validity are not taken into account, then one cannot claim that one’s interpretation is correct. The existence of possible sources of invalidity potentially offer plausible, rival interpretations to our findings when we do not account for them.’ (Hopkins: 2008, p.140)
In view of ethics and confidentiality, consideration was given to participants’ wellbeing including the option to withdraw at any stage of the research. A comprehensive letter of consent was given and individually read to both participants before being taken home for their parents to sign. See appendices ‘A’ and ‘B’. Questions were also asked to ensure participants understood the process and were aware of the option to withdraw at any time during the course of research. Although both were happy to be quoted, I decided to obscure their identity due to the type of learner and the possible need to highlight details of participants’ background within this report, when reviewing comparability of samples.
Findings:
I was initially happy with the results of triangulation, shown below which clearly indicate that the process did succeed in teaching students the difference between ‘soft’’ and ‘hard’ skills, setting them on the path to securing sustainable employment as advocated by Yorke (2006). However the question remained as to what extent had this been achieved? Would they be able to define those skills required to operate effectively ‘in situ’. (Shakespeare et al, 2002). Both participants were clearly able to name and categorize most employability skills, but those skills presented within the mix-and-match exercise proved to be far more challenging. On reflection this could be due to my own interpretation and categorization of skills as well as the language used. See appendix ‘J’.
An example was shown when both students pondered over: ‘awareness of the needs of others’. Deciding that it would be difficult to measure ‘awareness’ and therefore opted to categorize this as a ‘soft’ skill. But discussion over: ‘work under pressure and to a deadline’ was quickly resolved and labelled as a ‘hard’ skill after establishing that a ‘deadline’ was measureable. Both found: ‘capable of gathering and organizing information’ tricky to pigeonhole. First putting this ES under a ‘soft’ heading before settling for ‘hard’: the word ‘organizing’ being the sticking point for categorization. During the observation of behaviour it was notable how reticent each participant was to correct the other and how they often waited to see what the other thought before making a final decision.
Another interesting aspect of observation was their conclusion that an individual does not necessarily have to have an ability to complete the skill, and that a person could have the relevant hard skill but still not be able to carry out the task. From a teacher’s point of view, this underlines the need to practice skills in a contextualised environment.
The activities also raised the difficulty in defining skills. This caused me to evaluate the language used; giving further thought as to how future activities should be approached to ensure students could effectively identify softer skills. An example of this ambiguity was ‘punctuality’, even though punctuality is measurable, all of the students in activity four considered this to be a ‘soft’ skill. When brought to their attention, most reasoned that this was not a skill directly taught in school. However, through further discussion they conceded that this was a skill learnt through being disciplined: detention for missed deadlines, arriving late back to class and Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) being lost. This behaviourist approach to stimulus and response is learning that Skinner describes as:
‘…the result of the creation of conditioned connections between the learner’s operant behaviour and its reinforcement: it involves a change in the form or probability of the learner’s responses.’ (Skinner cited in Curzon: 2003, p.73)
In spite of this, neither could give a reason as to why most still had poor punctuality, except to say they ‘often lost track of time’ or ‘got too easily distracted’, which led to ‘forgetting what they were supposed to be doing in the first place’. Tolman rejected ‘stimulus and response’ as a simple explanation, instead he advocated that educators must appreciate the relationship between different stimulus, and the individuals’ expectation and understanding affiliated with that stimuli, which in turn is a ‘symbolic representation of the person’s environment – physiological, psychological and social – and his possible relations to it.’ (Tolman cited in Curzon, 2003: p.p.59-60). Many NEETs who fall outside of the DfES ‘open to learning category (2009, p.19) will have a fixed mindset of a learning environment.
Both participants felt that the mix-and-match exercise helped them to learn about what defines certain skills as being either ‘soft’ or ‘hard’. See appendix ‘K’. Whilst observing the participants, it was clear that by working together a shaky understanding was made certain through conversation: exploring thoughts and opinions verbally to define meaning. To understand the reason for this we have to look towards Baker, Jensen and Kolb (2002: Chapter 4): they reason that knowledge creation is a direct result of ‘conversation as experiential learning’ (ELT). Or as Kolb explains: ‘…the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience’ (Kolb: 1984, p.41) For this to be successful, both parties need prior knowledge in order to open up the ‘conversational space’. The seeds of knowledge having already been planted by previous activities in earlier employability classes, allowed the ‘discursive process’ to evolve; ‘pre-course’ being the reflective first stage, leading to ‘discourse’ whereby the epistemological manifestations of an individual’s ideas and experience are explored in order to name and frame understanding, lastly ‘post-course’ where participants sort out and decide what to keep and what to discard.
Being able to differentiate between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ skills was progressively improved through each stage of research. Each participant had an idea in the initial diagnostic interview of what was meant by ‘good employability skills’, but both were unable to give a clear example of a ‘soft’ skill. Once students had explored meaning through explorative conversation, a deeper understanding was achieved.
In order to reflect on my own strength of understanding I decided to grade participants’ responses. Participants ability to differentiate ‘softer’ skills from ‘harder’ skills, was clearly shown in the questionnaire, see appendices ‘L’ and ‘M’.
| Grading according to strength of understanding demonstrated: a = poor b = some c = average d = good 3 = very good f = excellent |
| ||||||||||
| | |||||||||||
| | Number of responses demonstrated | ||||||||||
| See appendix C: Lesson Plan | Activity 2 | Activity 3 | Activity 4 | Activity 5 | Questionnaire | ||||||
| Participants of research | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | |
| Demonstrated understanding / concept of ‘employability skills’ | 1b | 1a | 3b | 1b | 1d | 2c | 1f | ~ | 1 | 1 | |
| Demonstrated ability to differentiate between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ skills | 1a | 2b | 2c | 3c | 9d | 7d | 23e | 17e | 6 | 6 | |
| Demonstrated understanding of own employability strengths in readiness for employment | ~ | ~ | 2d | 1b | ~ | 1d | ~ | ~ | 4 | 4 | |
| Demonstrated understanding of what employers want from employees | 1c | 1a | 2c | 4c | 2d | 3c | ~ | ~ | 3 | 5 | |
Evaluation & Reflection:
Unfortunately, due to the timetabling of this module, the effectiveness of investigation was undermined owing to the lack of time available with students. When I felt ready to start my research I only had one week remaining with the students before their course finished: making it difficult to carry out a planned cycle of action research. Teaching of theory for the module was also interrupted and then delayed by change of tutor. Furthermore, frequent meetings from managers due to the need to address students’ concerns beleaguered sessions. The fractured nature of teaching unnerved many in the class and left others and I feeling disillusioned.
This affected personal motivation and ability to fully comprehend timely knowledge and understanding before undertaking a cycle of action research. In retrospect the inimitable pressure of having no students meant that activities created for research were rushed and therefore weak in design, which in turn affected the reliability of data collected, due to design. Raising the question: would the activities generate the data required? Timing dictated the research design: it became cross-sectional, which did not allow for a time lapse. Questioning if knowledge taught was knowledge truly gained: could it stand the test of time. Time is an important element of research design, but there are strengths for cross-sectional studies versus longitudinal studies. Cohen et al (2007, p.220) explains that is it ‘comparatively quick to conduct’ and that there is a ‘stronger likelihood of participation as it is for a single time.’ However they are quick to point out that an ‘omission of a single variable can undermine the results significantly.’
As this was an action research project it was really important to minimise variables to research when sampling participants for research. McCormick and James state:
'Basically reliability is concerned with consistency in the production of results and refers to the requirement that, at lease in principle, another researcher, or the same researcher on the same occasion, should be able to replicate the same piece of research and achieve comparable evidence and results.' (McCormick and James: 1989, p.188)
There are two variables to consider: independent variables (IV) and dependent variables (DV). With regard to this research the IV being the choice to reflect on my own methods and skills used to teach differentiation of ES, to the DV being the students’ ability to effectively categorize a variety of ES: whereby the observed characteristics are being defined through that which is being signified – the individual skills. This can be best explained by the following example:
‘…if you are studying the effects of a new educational program on student achievement, the program is the is the independent variable and your measured of achievement are the dependent ones.’
(http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/variable.php)
‘An independent variable is an input variable, that which causes, in part or in total, a particular outcome; it is a stimulus that influences a response, an antecedent or a factor which may be modified.’ (Cohen et al: 2007, p.504)
Another weakness of the research was the lack of time for forethought about all the possible ‘values’ and ‘attributes’ of variables: without this how can I, the researcher, truly understand and correlate data. Working with young people who are categorized as NEET is challenging. Each day brings a dichotomy: the role of being a teacher with the incidental and often fractured role of counsellor; advocate; disciplinarian; mediator; parental figure with an empathetic ear; and model of appropriate behaviour. Students will present themselves with a pressing need, whether it be within a teaching session or not, in which they are so absorbed that it becomes a barrier to learning until it has been satisfactorily resolved in their eyes.
When students are individually promised a more appropriately timed one-to-one discussion, they still find it difficult to wait. My attention was often diverted to deal with these daily, even hourly issues, which influenced my focus of research. ‘Each variable should be exhaustive, it should include all possible answerable responses.’ (www.socialresearchmethods.net). However, even as a teacher of NEETs, there are still times when I am presented with the unexpected: a ‘variable’ to be acknowledged and considered.
In view of this research the first set of variables would be the implementation and design of the activities for research, as well as the type of questions asked. These are ones that are influenced by the researcher’s own understanding and knowledge base. The participants influence the second set of variables for example: learning styles, level of operation, social background, participants were carefully selected. A bias evident to research, but introduced due to the necessity to select the most co-operative and organised students. The last variable to consider is environment, which is an independent influence as previously explained and outside of the control of the research therefore classified as an IV.
In response to this, participants were chosen because of their similar NEET characteristics, learning styles and level of operation. Together with similar social backgrounds and that both fell into the ‘open to learning’ category of the NEET segmentation as explained by DCSF (2009, p.p.25-26)[1]. Furthermore, both had experienced extra curricula activity in secondary school, promoting incidental development of ‘softer’ ES – linked to situational learning: giving them a basis upon which to ‘discover’ what they ‘incidentally’ knew through their ‘previous’ experiences and making it ‘concrete’ through conversation discussing those experiences: this ‘constructivist’ approach to knowledge creation is further explained by Baker, Jensen and Kolb (2002):
‘…conversational learning suggests that conversation is a meaning making process whereby understanding is achieved through interplay of opposites and contradictions…a linguistic process that leads to generation of new ideas and concepts…it involves stating a point of view and questioning it from other points of view, eventually seeking consensual agreement.’ (Baker et al: 2002, Chapter 4)
As a teacher of NEETs, personal experience has shown that learners’ needs are best met with a variety of short activities based around a central theme. There is a preference to learn through conversation and visual kinaesthetic activities rather than paper-based ones, as they do not respond well to activities that include written elements.
The strength of this research therefore, was in the design of the activity from which data for analysis was generated. All data collection had to be classroom-sourced due to the timing of this module. For this reason any resources or strategies created, or used, for the teaching of employability skills to a class of e2e students, had to appeal to the learning styles of the majority and attention span of the class, rather than for individual participants, as well as be empathetic to a cycle of action research. Activities had to be designed so that they were self-supporting with little intervention from me as their tutor and to allow time for me to observe those taking part in research. Participants’ responses were interrupted by other students: some of whom wanted to know why their opinions had not been sought and others who felt preferential treatment was being given. This could be viewed as an example of an attribute of a variable and highlights the need for researchers to consider all ‘values’ possible when reviewing variables: a lot of attention was given to both students ‘A’ and ‘B, in a less than desirable environment, in an attempt to complete most stages of action research in one teaching session.
I also felt the participants were more than willing to participate, being ‘eager to please’ and impatient to finish their penultimate day of term. These could also be considered to influence both ‘values’ and ‘attributes’ for deliberation when correlating data. Denscombe (2003, p.65) also explains that participants will always have a ‘heightened sensitivity’ when being observed and often ‘behave differently from normal owing to the knowledge that they are under the microscope’ (Denscombe: 2003, p.39). The participants’ behaviour could also have been influenced by the ‘power’ of the researcher (Zuber-Skerritt: 1996, 174): as both their tutor and observer I could have unwittingly influenced their responses. This observer’s paradox can be reduced by becoming ‘socially invisible’, not engaging with the participants in he setting if at all possible.’ (Denscombe: 2003, p.199).
However, I am acutely aware of a personal weakness, my desire for perfection. Normally, much time is spent going over and over resources and plans intended for teaching, this can be detrimental to my own practice as I can become too absorbed to be objective. This could be a case of ‘not seeing the wood for the trees’ and an experience not uncommon to those carrying out a cycle of action research.
To appraise all the influences on data would be exhaustive, but one last variable to be explored here is in regard to my own understanding. Although I had an agenda and a clear hypothesis, I gave further deliberation to Holliday’s (2002: p.175) definition of our 'own perceptions and biases' and how they influence what we 'see and find'. In response to this I reviewed the literature pertaining to employability skills before my action research took place, to ensure to my own personal perception and knowledge of what is meant by ‘soft’: that which is not readily measured but internally developed; and ‘hard’: that which can be measured through SMART targets, was correct and current. This is important as it avoids bias whilst triangulating data. As Maxwell (1992 cited in Huberman and Miles: 2002, p.p.37-64) suggests, that in pursuit of validity and impartiality the emphasis should be on understanding as the primary basis of analysis. This could be viewed as one of the strengths of this research. However, it could be argued that my own understanding or deductive ability to look for a signifier, or theme in research data, can be very different than that construed as evident by another.
Had more time been available for this cycle of action research, I would have chosen to do a longitudinal study. This approach would better show if strategies and resources used could replicate the same results.
Conclusion:
In conclusion of this research my desire to empower students with knowledge that would give them a better chance of breaking the cycle of welfare dependency was renewed. It has led to a re-evaluation of resources created and the production of a more robust Employability and Personal Development programme. In effect this action research became emancipatory for both researcher and student. For me as the researcher, it has been the acquisition of a deeper understanding and preparedness for my dissertation. As well as the realization that a consequence of being NEET growing-up in work-poor households, often leads to a devaluing of self and lack of access to communities or social networks, where opportunities for personal development can be gained. Bandura (1977) states:
‘…most human behaviour is learned observationally through modelling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.’ (Bandura, 1977:p.22)
Moreover, where there is an absence of good working role models within a family, or indeed a community to facilitate the modelling of employability skills and pro-work ethics, there is less chance of transition for NEETs from state-dependency to employment. If the transition of skills and attitudes from generation to generation has been lost it begs the question: can unemployment be so deeply rooted in the immediate social infrastructure, that it becomes the expected norm and inhibit an individuals expectation of themselves?
This recognition emphasized the need to ensure students gained good employability skills. In effect the process of research helped with the conceptualization of ideas into a concrete plan of action: having a summer break spent evaluating all the resources I had created for the Employability & Personal Development course I taught. By reviewing my existing practice and the teaching and learning strategies I used, I was able to identify areas for improvement and change. Feiman-Nemser and Remillard state:
‘…learning to teach is a two-stop process of knowledge acquisition and application or transfer.’ (Feiman-Nemser and Remillard: 1996, p.79)
It was made easier by analysing the reflective comments made on my former lesson plans, which helped me to deduce what was successful and what was not. This epistemological cycle became a dialectical conversation in my head as I sort to contextualise different scenarios through to a suitable conclusion. The complexities of which Winter’s suggests are:
‘…experienced in almost instantaneous succession as a single essence and a plurality of qualities, as universal and specific, as self-defined and as defined-in-relation-to-another’ (Winter, 1987: p.12)
He further elucidates that this must be dialectical, even if, as in this case, it is a conversation with myself. The outcome was the creation of a bespoke induction programme, which addresses the readiness to learn of individual NEET’s; the installation of the skills needed for learning and work: and a product that I intend to make the focus of a future research enquiry.
References:
Baker, A., Jensen, P.J. and Kolb, D.A. (2002) Chapter Four. Conversational Learning An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Breitsprecher, W.P. (2006) Career Development: What do employers want in employees? Presented on Slideshare. [Online] Available from: http://slideshare.net/bogeybear/employability-skills [Accessed 23rd June 2009]
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) (6th Ed) Research Methods in Education, London, RoutledgeFalmer
Confederation of British Industries (2009) HRE_087. Emerging stronger: the value of education and skills in turbulent times. London, BSI
Curzon. L.B., (2003) Teaching in Further Education: An Outline of Principles and Practice. (6th Ed) London: Continuum
Denscombe, M. (2003) (2nd Ed) The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects, Berkshire, Open University Press
Department for Education and Skills (2002) Estimating the Cost of Being “Not in Education, Employment or Training” at Age 16-18. RR346. London: Stationery Office
Department for Education and Skills (2005) 14-19 Education and Skills. Cm 6476. London: Stationery Office
DCSF (2009) Increasing Participation: Understanding Young People who do not Participate in Education or Training at 16 and 17. Research Brief: DCSF-RR072. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Department of Education, Science and Training (2004) Development of a Strategy to Support the Universal Recognition and Recording of Employability Skills: A skills Portfolio Approach. Canberra: DEST
Feiman-Nemser, S. & Remillard, J. (1996) “Persopectives on learning to teach.” In F. Murray (ed.,) The Teacher Educator’s Handbook (p-.63-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Ford, L. (30 January 2007) Graduates lacking soft skills, employers warn. Guardian. [Online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/
jan/30/workandcareers.graduates
Hind, D. and Moss, S. (2005) Employability Skills. Sunderland: Business Education Publishers Limited
Holliday, A. (2002) Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications
Hopkins, D. (2008) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. (2nd Ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer
A., Jensen, P.J. and Kolb, D.A. (2002) Chapter Four. Conversational Learning An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Lanning, J., Martin, R., and Villeneuve-Smith, F. (2008) Employability Skills Examined: Ten key messages from LSN’s quest to understand employability skills. London: Learning and Skills Network
Maharg, P. (2007) Transforming Legal Education: Learning and Teaching the Law in the Early Twenty-First Century. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited
Martin, R., Villeneuve-Smith, F., Marshall, L., and McKenzie, E. (2008) Employability Skills Explored. London: Learning and Skills Network
Maxwell, J.A. Chapter Two. Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. In: Huberman, A.M & Miles, M.B. (eds.) (2002) The Qualitative Researcher's Companion. London, Sage.
Nash, I., Jones, S., Ecclestone, K. and Brown, A. (eds.) (2008) Challenge and change in further education: A commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. London: TLRP
NFER (2008). Informal learning offer and positive activities for young people. [Online] Available from: http://www. nfer.ac.uk /research-areas/pims-data/outlines/informal-learning-offer-and-positive-activities-for-young-people.cfm [Accessed 2nd February 2009]
Petty, G. (2004) Teaching Today: A Practical Guide. (3rd Ed.) Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd,
Research Methods Knowledge Base. Variables. [Online] Available from: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/variable.php [Accessed 18th September 2009].
Shakespeare, P., Keleher, P. and Moxham, L. (2002 Soft Skills, Hard Skills and Practice Identity. [Online] Available from: http://www.open.ac.uk/cetl-workspace/
cetlcontent/documents/468fff75e60a2.pdf
University of Southern Queensland (2009) Beyond Education: What are employability skills. [Online]. Available from: http://www.usq.edu.au/beyond education /employability/skills.htm [accessed 20th June 2009]
Watkins. C., Carnell. E. and Lodge. C. (2007) Effective Learning in Classrooms. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Winter, R. (1987) Action Research and the Nature of Social Inquirey. Aldershot, Gowner
Yorke, M. (2006) Learning & Employability Series One: Employability in higher education: what it is – what it is not. York: The Higher Education Academy
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996) New Directions in Action Research. London: Falmer Press
[1] Government defines those young people who are NEET and those who are in jobs without training (JWT) as constituting an overall group of young people who are deemed to be in education or training (NET). The segmentation analysis identified three segmentations within each of the ‘NEET’ group and the ‘JWT’ group. The NEET segmentation comprising of those: open to learning, undecided and sustained. Whereas JWT comprises those who are: transitional, sustained or at risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment.