Session Information
02 SES 11 A, Higher and Adult Education II: Transitions
Paper Session
Contribution
Whilst demands for the admission of students with vocational qualifications onto higher education courses are internationally widespread, few countries offer straightforward progression to these applicants. In some countries, candidates with vocational backgrounds are largely restricted to a second tertiary pathway that includes professional and vocational degrees, sometimes generically described as Universities of Applied Sciences (Teichler 2008). In countries with unitary higher education systems, candidates holding vocational awards may be restricted to a narrower range of institutions and subjects. These various restrictions have led internationally to questions of access and permeability (Boliver 2013, 2015; Hemkes 2018).
In England, higher education has long been dominated by full-time study for the bachelor degree in universities. Sub-bachelor education courses are studied less frequently than in other countries (Musset and Field 2013; DfE 2018). Applicants holding vocational qualifications generally progress to lower-ranked ‘post-92’ universities, which offer lower financial returns, yet which also follow the academic norms of older institutions, in an isomorphic process labelled as ‘academic drift’ (Pratt and Burgess 1974; Tight 2018).
Policies under coalition and Conservative UK governments since 2010 have encouraged a further diversification of routes in England (DBIS 2016); but they also include consideration of permeability between these pathways.
Across vocational education, these governments have sought to develop provision with stronger links to employment, extending to tertiary levels. New apprenticeship ‘standards’ are more frequently offered at higher levels, extending to degree apprenticeships (Richard 2012; UK Government 2015). The Sainsbury Review (Independent Panel for Technical Education 2016), which introduced an upper-secondary ‘technical education’ pathway with substantial work placements, also proposed that sub-bachelor courses and higher apprenticeships should form a higher level of technical education, distinct from university bachelor degrees, which the Review described as ‘academic’ higher education. Whilst not yet forming an explicit second sector like the earlier polytechnics or European ‘applied’ institutions, this represents the outline of an alternative tertiary pathway. Designed to be more employment-oriented, with qualifications meeting the requirements of ‘panels of industry professionals’ (Independent Panel for Technical Education 2016, pp. 44-5), this would diminish the relative autonomy of universities.
The Sainsbury Review also proposed opportunities to progress from ‘technical’ awards onto ‘academic’ higher education. This acknowledges international concerns, particularly widespread in countries where high numbers study at universities, addressed in the design of ‘degree apprenticeships’. The Sainsbury Review argues that 16-18 education cannot ‘meet[…] the needs both of employers and undergraduate degree admissions’ (Independent Panel for Technical Education 2016, p. 29) so that ‘any student choosing to start on one option at age 16 will be able to move seamlessly to the other option’ (ibid.). Consequently, ‘bridging’ provision was proposed as a means of supporting transitions from ‘technical’ awards at upper-secondary level to ‘academic’ higher education.
Provision of this type, aiming to support higher education progression by those who do not meet the standard admissions requirements of universities, has been developed over a period of 40 years in England. However, this provision is mainly conceived as preparing for higher levels of study rather than as supporting transfer between tracks. It aims to support the ‘transitions’ of higher education entrants, largely by preparing them for higher levels of study but also by acculturating them to the academic norms of higher education. In this, they imitate programmes organised by universities, which Gale and Parker (2014) distinguished between those (characterised as T1) focused on acculturation to the institutional practices of the institution and those, denoted by T2, concerned with the acquisition of ‘student’ identity.
The study reported here therefore addressed the question: What kind of opportunities will enable young people to make successful transitions across pathways to higher levels of study?
Method
The study was designed to examine what kind of curriculum and practices might be included within provision to support bridging between pathways at the same time. The Sainsbury proposals had suggested that young people should be able to make transitions in both directions: both from work-based ‘technical’ upper-secondary education to ‘academic’ higher education and in the opposite direction. The selection of field sites was based on expectations of what provision might support moves in these directions, although since these reforms have not yet been implemented, the selection was necessarily based on finding similar features. Thus, two sites were selected as providing progression from work-based studies studies with features of ‘technical education’ into higher education: an industry-based ‘bridging’ course supporting progression from level 3 (upper-secondary) apprenticeships onto professional degrees in nursing and midwifery; and the provision of ‘Access to Higher Education’ courses at a further education college, supporting candidates without standard (‘A’-level) entry qualifications onto university progression. Correspondingly, two further case studies were identified as supporting transitions from general education to more work-based forms of study at tertiary level, although work-based forms of higher education are still weakly developed in England. These were an innovation module enabling Foundation degree (sub-bachelor) students to gain credit during work-based studies and a selection of firm-based (i.e. sub-bachelor) higher-level apprenticeships. The four studies used case study methods (Yin 2018), including documentary analysis and interviews of staff, students and employer representatives. Data was primarily collected at institutional sites: colleges, universities and workplace training sites. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using schedules that focused on the students’ experiences during their studies but which provided elements of context both for students, exploring their earlier experiences of study and their progression where applicable, and the background to curriculum developments as reported by educators and employers. Interviews were taped and systematically transcribed in full, before coding and thematic analysis procedures were used to draw out the key themes in the data.
Expected Outcomes
Each case study showed potential to support higher-level transitions, achieved through a strong focus on the expectations of destinations. The courses designed to support applicants onto university courses evidenced high levels of success. A university leader reported that degree students completing the work-based ‘bridging course’ succeeded as well as students with general education qualifications. ‘Access’ courses reported high success, many students progressing to highly-regarded universities. Correspondingly, work-based higher education routes also reported successes. Those on firm-based apprenticeships benefitted from the close integration of learning with work activity. The innovation module supported student transitions by encouraging critical reflection on industry practice. Yet these transitions focussed on the norms of progression: Gale and Parker’s (2014) T1, ‘teaching the student the knowledge [and] the execution of it under pressure,’ as the Access course leader expressed it. Acquiring student identities (Gale and Parker’s T2) had less resonance for adults hoping to enter university. Students already employed on higher-level apprenticeships or studying the innovation module had already adopted primarily the identities of employees. The cases emphasised less the knowledge that students already possessed. Gale and Parker suggested a T3, providing greater recognition of student differences, through which students could navigate change and risk. However, Access students and graduates interviewed already held qualifications at a level which would have admitted them to university courses. Those on higher-level employment progressions were already committed to these routes; academic achievements were valued for their usefulness in work. For these activities to enhance transitions across pathways would suggest deeper recognition of the differences among students, opportunities to build on their earlier knowledge and a critical orientation to their future expertise. Their absence suggests that bridging provision, far from supporting permeability, could reinforce barriers between relatively autonomous general education and work-oriented pathways, even in the absence of a formal sectoral divide.
References
Boliver, V. (2013). How fair is access to more prestigious UK Universities? British Journal of Sociology 64(2), 344–364. Boliver, V. (2015) Are there distinctive clusters of higher and lower status universities in the UK? Oxford Review of Education, 41(5), 608–627 DfE (Department for Education). Review of Level 4 and 5 Education: Interim Evidence Overview. London: DfE. DBIS (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills). (2016). Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice. London: Department of Business, Industry and Skills. Cm 9258. Gale, T. and S. Parker. (2014): Navigating change: a typology of student transition in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 734–753. Hemkes, B. (2018). Zwischen Studium und Beruf: Formate und Handlungskoordinationen im Kontext von Durchlässigkeit. [Between degree and career: permeability formats and coordinated actions in the education system.] Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik-online 34, at https://www.bwpat.de/ausgabe/34/hemkes . Independent Panel for Technical Education: (2016). Report of the Independent Panel for Technical Education. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills/Department for Education. Musset, J. and P. Field. (2013). Skills beyond School: Synthesis Report: OECD Reviews of secondary vocational education and training. OECD. Pratt, J. and T. Burgess. (1974). Polytechnics: A Report. London: Pitman. Richard, D. (2012). The Richard Review of Apprenticeships. London: Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Teichler, U. (2008). The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities? In J.S. Taylor, J.B. Ferreira, M.L. Machado and R. Santiago (Eds.), Non-University Higher Education in Europe (Higher Education Dynamics) (pp. 1–13). Dordrecht: Springer. Tight, M. (2015). Theory development and application in higher education research: the case of academic drift, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(1), 84–99. UK Government. (2015). English Apprenticeships, Our 2020 Vision. BIS/15/604. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Yin, R.K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th edition. London: Sage.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.