How Effective are Curricula for 16 to 19 year olds as a Preparation for University? An Investigation of Lecturers’ Views
Author(s):
Sanjana Mehta (presenting / submitting) Irenka Suto Sally Brown
Conference:
ECER 2012
Network:
11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Format:
Paper

Session Information

11 SES 02 A, Higher Education Effectiveness

Parallel Paper Session

Time:
2012-09-18
15:15-16:45
Room:
FCT - Aula 1
Chair:
José Cajide

Contribution

A key purpose of academic curricula for 16 to 19 year olds is arguably to provide students with the core academic skills and subject knowledge needed to succeed in higher education. The opportunities for independence and freedom of thought and intellectual endeavour that universities offer are valued highly across Europe and beyond. It is important that they are open to the most academically able students, regardless of social and economic background. The effectiveness of pre-university education is a critical factor in ensuring that this is the case.

 

University lecturers internationally have expressed dissatisfaction with the preparedness of new undergraduate students for degree level study. In the UK, Jones (2011) reports that differences between student competencies and staff expectations are evident in multiple areas of university teaching, partly because school teachers concentrate more on knowledge than on skills. In Canada, Julien and Barber (2009) have found similar problems arise because school teachers teach directly to syllabuses in anticipation of high-stakes examinations, rather than focusing on the longer term development of scholarly skills. A complicating factor in the preparedness of undergraduates is the internationalisation of higher education. Within Europe, the Bologna process, increased ease of travel, and high levels of multilingualism have all contributed to universities admitting large numbers of international students with diverse educational backgrounds. Whilst some have followed national educational routes for 16 to 19 year olds such as English A levels, Scottish Highers, the German Abitur, and the FrenchBaccalauréat, others have followed international curricula such as the European and International Baccalaureate Diploma programmes. Despite broad equivalencies being established across qualifications, routes vary considerably in the pedagogical approaches entailed, the skills developed, and the breadth and depth of subject knowledge covered.

 

The British Government has indicated its desire both for the reform of A levels in England and Wales, and for the higher education community to play a greater role in curricular re-developments. The present study relates to both issues. Its primary aim was to address three main research questions:

  1. In which core academic areas do university lecturers consider new undergraduates to be least prepared?
  2. In which core academic areas do university lecturers consider new undergraduates to be most prepared?
  3. How do lecturers think the responsibility for preparing students in these areas should be divided between schools and universities?

 

A secondary aim was to explore the use of a combined prioritisation task and focus group methodology as a systematic means of engaging university staff in the collection of relevant information. To construct the prioritisation task, a framework of ten core academic areas was developed. The framework drew upon skills groupings developed by the Lisbon Council (2007) of the European Union and a major international research venture exploring 21st Century skills (ATC21S, 2012), as well as preliminary discussions with university staff in England. An important objective was to provide a model of engagement between curriculum researchers and higher education which could be adopted in other countries addressing similar concerns.

Method

University lecturers in four regions of England were invited to participate. Those who accepted the invitation attended one of seven data collection sessions, held in four major cities. Each session lasted two hours and involved up to nine participants. In total 46 lecturers participated, from a range of disciplines and with varied teaching experience. Each session entailed two linked research activities. First, participants completed a written prioritisation task. They were presented with ten core academic areas and were asked to indicate: (i) the two areas in which new undergraduates were least prepared; and (ii) the two areas in which new undergraduates were most prepared. The responses were anonymised, analysed immediately, and reported back to the participants. This prioritisation data provided stimulus material for the second activity: a focus group. The discussion schedule comprised open-ended questions with related prompts and probes. Groups had one main facilitator, who was primarily responsible for the discussion, and one co-facilitator who observed the discussion and made notes (Kreuger and Casey, 2009; Morgan, 1997). All discussions were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Within and across the groups, the main and recurrent themes were identified in relation to the research questions.

Expected Outcomes

Consensuses emerged among the participants. However, the prioritisation task data indicated an interesting difference between lecturers in the humanities and the sciences. Humanities lecturers felt undergraduates were least prepared in academic writing, self-directed study, and independent research skills, believing such skills should receive greater emphasis in pre-university curricula. Science lecturers, in contrast, prioritized greater depth of subject knowledge over greater skills development. The focus group data revealed that ultimately, almost all lecturers saw skills and subject knowledge as being linked intrinsically. They saw little value in teaching skills separately, instead favouring pedagogical approaches that embed them deeply within subject contexts. Most lecturers conceptualised the ten core academic areas as spanning continua which could not easily be divided into components for teaching at school and at university. Instead, they believed students should be exposed to all areas as early as possible, and that responsibility for their effective development should be collective. The methodology generated extensive data which was sufficient to address the research questions posed. The authors conclude that it provides an efficient and effective model of engagement between curriculum researchers and university staff, which could be used with ease in other countries.

References

ATC21S (2012) Official website. http://atc21s.org. Browning, C. and Sheffield, S.L. (2008) Practice makes perfect? University students’ response to a first year transition course. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vo. 1, 22–27. Jones, H. (2011). Are Our Students Prepared for University? Bioscience Education. Vol. 18 (Special Edition), December issue. Julien, H. and Barber, S. (2009) How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 31, 12–17. Kreuger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2009) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (4th Edition), Thousand Oaks, Sage. Lisbon Council (2007) Skills for the future (Brussels: Lisbon Council). Available online at: www.lisboncouncil.net/component/downloads/?id=214 (accessed 6 April 2011). Morgan, D. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Author Information

Sanjana Mehta (presenting / submitting)
Cambridge Assessment, United Kingdom
Irenka Suto
Cambridge Assessment, United Kingdom
Sally Brown
Cambridge Assessment, United Kingdom

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.