Forgot your password?
Guidance and Retention discussion summary
"Student Services Guidance people keep sending us the wrong students, students who don’t really understand what the course is all about and students who are not particularly up to it; no wonder we get so many dropping out. It was different in the past when we could recruit our own students."
This discussion was sparked by the above quote and series of questions. The questions addressed by the group were:
Are the college lecturers right - does the quality of pre-course guidance really make that much of a difference in terms of retention and dropout?
"Student Services Guidance people keep sending us the wrong students, students who don’t really understand what the course is all about and students who are not particularly up to it; no wonder we get so many dropping out. It was different in the past when we could recruit our own students."
I just wonder to what extent careers advisers are able to influence young people's choices to the degree indicated…with the best will in the world a limited half hour with a careers adviser isn't going to undo 16 years of other influences
I would argue that it is quite possible that the impact of Connexions may be a contributory factor in poor retention if those students who are perceived to be less in need receive no guidance at all, but only group based information sessions, where they will be especially vulnerable to recruitment and marketing ploys of institutions whose interests lie in drumming up the greatest number of takers, rather than operating in the best long term interests of the individuals.
For some young people 'dropping out' will be really positive, it's too simplistic to see it in every case as a failure, even if it irritating for course providers.
The problem with Students Services is not so much that they they might be partisan, but more that they may lack up to date course information.
Do need a different approach - one that makes young people value further education more than they currently do (what is lost by dropping out?) and one that prepares them better to see their education through.
Many student services or centralised teams have helplines (the quality of which varies greatly, in my opinion), as a result of this many colleges now recruit staff with call centre backgrounds rather then IAG backgrounds.
It may be that some young people interpret impartiality with advice that is dispassionate or even disinterested - they see this as cold information not really directed at them as individuals. They may prefer partial hot information that is directed personally at them - 'I think you really should do this'.
Those in guidance are not sending anyone. The role of guidance is to empower individual students to make the decisions for themselves. Students may well reject the assistance that comes through the advice given. They are not just operating in a vacuum of guidance from a practitioner.
Clearly it is desirable that students should have access to properly qualified staff. The issue of DCG/QCG or equivalents for advisers, and for staff in colleges in schools to hold Dip. Careers Ed or equivalent is an important issue. There is also an issue as to whether government policy of placing more and more responsibility on schools is in fact going to make this problem worse rather than better. Students in colleges will be receiving advice from tutors and teachers who may have no formal training in guidance or current experience in or of further/higher ed.
There is plenty of evidence out there. Some of it may be anecdotal, but if “stories” of how students decide can be pieced together then we would have evidence. If we can show from that evidence that guidance is in fact effective where it is applied in reducing drop out or students on “wrong” courses, then we can argue that students need more guidance from those properly qualified as opposed to that from either the well meaning or the ill-informed or both, whose influence might be at the heart of the problems raised. Until the analysis is done practitioners will carry the blame as the easy target. It can also assist managers in allocating resources or indeed persuade government that resources are required in the area to prevent wasted public resources on those that make inappropriate decisions.
In response to the question of how to deal with people who want 'hot information': I think that this is a red herring, in the sense that giving a hot recommendation is a shortcut (in time terms) for finding out what the person really likes or prefers. I stongly believe that if you can spend enough time with someone and ask them fruitful questions, they will be able to come to understand their own preferences. The problem with this is the length of time that this approach takes, and the conflict that this produces for advisers who cannot devote appropriate amounts of time to clients who need it
The impact of career guidance has been and, no doubt, will be, consistently hard to measure in hard evidence. It is a process which works with an individual and helps provide the understanding and awareness for life changing decisions to be made. It is not prescriptive nor do advisers 'send' young people to FE.
Guidance plays a key role in the recommendations of the Tomlinson 14 -19 review. It is specifically acknowledged that at present, following the Connexions focus and social inclusion agenda, many students are not receiving sufficient support re career decision-making.
Read the full text of the discussion
If it does, where's the proof ? Can anyone point to convincing evidence in the published literature or provide relevant case study material?
Can anyone point to convincing evidence in the published literature?
In response to this question several sources were suggested:
An MA dissertation completed at University of East London in May, 2002 specifically looked at pre-entry guidance for FE:
In conclusion, I return to my original aim "to consider the impact of advice and guidance by evaluating its effect on student retention at the College of Further Education where I work which is situated in Greater London". The impact would appear to be considerable. There are, no doubt, many factors influencing student retention, but my research indicates that being enrolled on the correct course in the first place is an important factor. It therefore follows that applicants need as much advice and guidance (including clear, detailed written or visual information) about potential courses as possible, in order to make an informed choice. This would lead to a greater chance of success in terms of completion, achievement and enjoyment of their course.
Martinez and Munday (1998) reported: "Students on the wrong courses are more likely to drop out, and appropriate selection to courses by central admissions or specialist staff is of crucial importance to retention". (Martinez P., Munday F. (1998) 9000 Voices: Student Persistence and Drop Out in Further Education. Further Education Development Agency: London. A study of student retention and drop out based upon research involving 9000 points of view from students, teachers and managers.)
A study by The Responsive College Unit (1998) sought to differentiate withdrawn from completing students. This study found that withdrawn students, unlike completing students, were dissatisfied with a number of aspects of their college experience. In the report’s conclusion it was noted that: "It was also significant that thorough pre-course guidance and a good course induction had clear impacts on later retention."
Findings of the MA research on drop-out from University of Ulster concluded that, "although the decision to drop out of university is usually the result of a combination of factors, it appears from this study that the lack of pre-entry guidance does have a significant impact on students deciding to leave their course early."
Read full text
Could it be that pre-enrolement advice and guidance is not that important and other factors, such as the availability and variety of courses, are more significant?
Could it be that pre-enrolment advice and guidance is not that important and that other factors, such as the availability and variety of courses, are more significant?
The problem lies with the number of different influences over a young person, whether it be the school encouraging them to go one way, parents peers, the choice provided by educational institutions or the influence of the media. What we need is a more balanced view that gives the person a better chance of making a choice that is right for them and for employers.
Pre-enrolment advice may NOT be that important because many young people want to find out for themselves. Maybe it is more important to offer advice at a later stage when the young person may be more responsive
Guidance is surely most effective when it is seen as part of a process, rather than as a one off intervention. Judging pre-enrolment advice purely in terms of whether or not this reduces drop-out suggests that the effectiveness of guidance should be seen from the perspective of the institution. An alternative view would not only allow for the possibility that some drop out can be 'positive', but also consider the need for any intervention to be seen as part of a pathway of interventions and interactions, whether formalised by the term 'career guidance' or not.
Could it be that in engaging with the debate about the importance of pre-enrolment advice to reduce drop out we are in danger of viewing guidance with too narrow a focus.
People are most receptive to interventions when they have themselves identified a need for assistance - perhaps after commencing a course the client may be better able to make an informed decision about whether or not it is for them and has met their expectations.
There is a need to be more ambitious in our fight for maintenance and expansion of career guidance provision. This should not be unduly influenced by organisational priorities, but keep in mind the primary focus and potentially beneficiary of any interaction, the individual, as well as the longitudinal character of the guidance process.
Read full text
Could it be that some 16-18 are just not suited to full-time post-16 education and that it is the responsibility of guidance workers to be more challenging in pointing out the likelihood of drop-out when this is learly indicated?
Could it be that some 16-18 year olds are just not suited to full-time post-16 education and that it is the responsibility of guidance workers to be more challenging in pointing out the likelihood of drop-out when this is clearly indicated?
There is a significant minority of 16-18 year olds who enrol on full-time courses who are just not suited to full-time education; insufficient attention is paid to this factor. The Responsive College Unit study (1998), acknowledges that, “even at the very start of courses, many students can predict their own non-completion”, and that “college staff can also detect at risk students and this detection can come from exploring students` attitudes as well as their circumstances.”….This is one of the main reasons why it is important for colleges to employ guidance practitioners whose professional integrity is such that they put the needs of the individual first, even if this means suggesting alternatives other than enrolling at college.
I accept that not all 16-18 year olds are suited to full time education, what concerns me is that sometimes statements to this effect are trotted out by those who are involved in delivery of full time FE as a disclaimer and so by implication used to 'blame' those who don't stay the course, instead of looking at their own role and responsibility in failing to engage young people.
Whilst it is of course true that there are many 'worthless' full time FE courses one advantage of remaining in full time education is that it can for some postpone career decision making and keep options open a bit longer, whilst continuing to gain qualifications that have some currency in the labour market.
The literature suggests that the longer individuals remain in full time education the better their prospects are, and the more likely they are to continue to learn throughout life? Therefore to use the 'not all 16-18 year olds are suited' argument, as a decoy from the deficiencies of FE may have lifelong implications for those young people who were or are in fact suited, but don't see it as for them, or are discouraged by their experiences in education.
Personally though, I think the problem here is more about modes of tuition, the new environment in which young people find themselves and just how well prepared they are for what is a major step up. School is a controlled environment, one that is strict, where you are required to attend classes - one where there is some discipline forced upon each pupil. The same cannot be said for further education where a degree of self discipline is needed to ensure success. I don't think it is always about staying on in education, some of us should be encouraged to pick it up at a later stage, something that needs to be built into both careers advice but also funding etc.
Read full text
Last modified
2004-08-13 04:54 PM
Last cached: 2008-05-28 01:20 PM
Last cached: 2008-05-28 01:20 PM