Vocational and Mature Student Success in Higher Education Foundation Programmes

IF 0.8 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Continuing Higher Education Pub Date : 2021-07-06 DOI:10.1080/07377363.2021.1923306
Anna M. Black
{"title":"Vocational and Mature Student Success in Higher Education Foundation Programmes","authors":"Anna M. Black","doi":"10.1080/07377363.2021.1923306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Higher education in the UK is pressured to widen participation due to the social justice issues of mobility and movement through the class divide. However, those from lower classes and mature students elect for qualifications that do not classically allow entry into university, for example, the Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC) and Access to Higher Education (AHE) diplomas. A solution to this is a university bridging programme. Such a programme was analysed as to whether it prepares different cohorts of students effectively for undergraduate programmes, that is, those who have just missed the entry qualification but are coming from Advanced level qualifications, the other coming from nontraditional entry routes. Data from one academic year were anonymised and analysed. Results indicated that students coming from courses designed to widen participation scored significantly lower on the programme than those coming from Advanced level awards of any subject. This indicates that vocational and returning-to-education qualifications fail to prepare students for academia due to being focussed on the outcome, rather than the objective, of learning. The study also questioned entry tariff point equivalency. Those with higher points and nontraditional qualifications performed worse, suggesting that entry points cannot be used prognostically. Tariff points are a system to translate traditional grading systems into a numerical form which then allows for easy comparison between students. Varying qualifications have differing grading systems, and tariff points are used to enable the conversion of these grading systems to a universal one.","PeriodicalId":44549,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Continuing Higher Education","volume":"70 1","pages":"105 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07377363.2021.1923306","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Continuing Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2021.1923306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Higher education in the UK is pressured to widen participation due to the social justice issues of mobility and movement through the class divide. However, those from lower classes and mature students elect for qualifications that do not classically allow entry into university, for example, the Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC) and Access to Higher Education (AHE) diplomas. A solution to this is a university bridging programme. Such a programme was analysed as to whether it prepares different cohorts of students effectively for undergraduate programmes, that is, those who have just missed the entry qualification but are coming from Advanced level qualifications, the other coming from nontraditional entry routes. Data from one academic year were anonymised and analysed. Results indicated that students coming from courses designed to widen participation scored significantly lower on the programme than those coming from Advanced level awards of any subject. This indicates that vocational and returning-to-education qualifications fail to prepare students for academia due to being focussed on the outcome, rather than the objective, of learning. The study also questioned entry tariff point equivalency. Those with higher points and nontraditional qualifications performed worse, suggesting that entry points cannot be used prognostically. Tariff points are a system to translate traditional grading systems into a numerical form which then allows for easy comparison between students. Varying qualifications have differing grading systems, and tariff points are used to enable the conversion of these grading systems to a universal one.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
职业和成熟学生在高等教育基础课程中的成功
摘要英国的高等教育面临着扩大参与的压力,这是由于阶级分化中的流动和流动等社会正义问题。然而,那些来自低年级和成熟学生的学生选择了传统上不允许进入大学的资格证书,例如商业和技术教育委员会(BTEC)和高等教育入学证书(AHE)。解决这一问题的办法是一项大学衔接计划。对这样一个课程进行了分析,以确定它是否有效地为不同的学生群体准备了本科课程,即那些刚刚错过入学资格但来自高级学历的学生,另一个来自非传统入学途径的学生。对一学年的数据进行了匿名分析。结果表明,来自旨在扩大参与度的课程的学生在该项目中的得分明显低于来自任何科目的高级水平奖项的学生。这表明,由于专注于学习的结果而非目标,职业资格和重返教育资格未能为学生进入学术界做好准备。该研究还对进口关税点的对等性提出了质疑。那些分数较高且具有非传统资格的人表现较差,这表明切入点不能用于预测。关税点是一种将传统的评分系统转换为数字形式的系统,这样可以方便地在学生之间进行比较。不同的资格有不同的分级系统,关税积分用于将这些分级系统转换为通用的分级系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Continuing Higher Education
Journal of Continuing Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dopamine neurons drive spatiotemporally heterogeneous striatal dopamine signals during learning. A nucleoid-associated protein is involved in the emergence of antibiotic resistance by promoting the frequent exchange of the replicative DNA polymerase in M. smegmatis. Nontraditional Students and Credit for Prior Learning—Analytical Thinking, Clout, Drives, and Motives The Relations Among Math Anxiety, Math Self-Construct, and Math Achievement in Older and Underserved Minority Students Examining the Perception of Military Culture in the Undergraduate University Classroom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1