5.5 Current OH training methods implemented for construction apprentices
5.5.5 Computer-based training observations
Two out of the ten classroom-based training sessions utilised computers to specifically deliver “Functional Skills” training for the apprentices. Functional Skills are fundamental qualifications in English, Mathematics and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) available in England for people who have not secured Grade C or above in GCSE. Functional Skills are a compulsory element in apprenticeship courses, aiming to specifically develop and allow students to demonstrate practical skills in literacy, numeracy and ICT that help them to gain the most from life, learning and work.
Whilst this research did not set out to investigate the role of and or the provision of Functional Skills training, the focus and purpose of the observations was to examine the role of computer-based training in the learning of the apprentices. Given that earlier research into the areas of training and learning processes reviewed in Chapter Three, proposed that computer-based technologies, integrating visual and interactive technologies have an important role to play in the learning of the current generation of learners, who have grown up surrounded by digital technology (DeshPande and Huang 2009, Li et al. 2007, Ueltschy, 2001), it was in this research’s interest to evaluate the extent to which such computer-based training could be used to engage and enhance the apprentices’ learning and ultimately to support and benefit their OH training. The researcher took particular note of the activities the participants were involved in i.e. what role did the instructor and trainees play in the learning process and were there opportunities for active learning and student interaction.
150
In both sessions, a single trainer administered the training to a group of 7 male apprentices. The trainer had their workstation located at the front of the room, with the apprentices each sitting down on workstations arranged around the room, depicted in Figures 5.7 and 5.8.Figure 5.7: Trainer’s workstation in computer room
Figure 5.8: Apprentices’ workstations in computer room
Similar to the lecture-based training sessions, the trainer defined the purpose, structure and content of the training sessions at the beginning. In the first session however, they explained that the session was about Functional Skills English and Maths, a government requirement for their apprenticeship framework meant to help them to get through their personal and working lives. For those that did not have the GCSE grades, they were required to take either Level 1 (equivalent to GCSE grades D-G) or Level 2 (equivalent to GSCE grades A*-C) of the Functional Skills assessments. The trainer’s task thereafter involved establishing what grades or qualifications each apprentice had before setting them up for the activities. Out of the seven apprentices in the first observed group, only two of the apprentices had at least 5 GCSEs including Maths and English. One apprentice had two GSCEs including English (Grade C), whilst another had one GCSE in Maths (Grade C). The remaining three apprentices had no GCSEs at all. This part of the training provided further evidence of the low levels of literacy amongst the apprentices.
151
The trainer also read through the “rules” on the use of computers at the college, then proceeded to get all the apprentices logged onto the computers. The trainer then directed the apprentices to a web link (which the apprentices could also access remotely provided they had an email address and a computer), where they could do Maths and English assessments (they could choose to do either Level 1 or Level 2). All the apprentices successfully logged on and could access the assessments independently. From then on, the apprentices worked independently on Maths Level 1 exercises, asking questions when unsure about something. It was noted that most of the exercises were in text format, requiring a degree of theoretical understanding. Upon completion of the assessments, the apprentices printed out their results and handed these to the trainer, who would then provide additional support based on the result obtained. The first observation ended when three of the apprentices had completed the first assessment. The others had not completed the assessment by break time. They would resume the task after break time.Training on Maths Level 1, focussing on metric and imperial measurements was the primary objective of the second observation. Again, the trainer guided the apprentices onto the web link with the exercises. Thereafter, the apprentices were split into three groups for an exercise in which they were required to write down the units of measurement that are metric (for example, centimetres and metres) and ones that are imperial (for example, inches and feet). One person in each group was responsible for writing down their group answers. At first some of the apprentices seemed unsure what the difference between metric and imperial is. One apprentice remarked, “I ain’t got a clue!”, to which the trainer responded by illustrating on the white board, with examples of what she expected the learners to be working on.
The trainer then provided them with tape measures so that the learners could use them to get a practical appreciation of the differences. The trainer asked them to measure each other’s heights first and then the computer room’s length and width in metric, and then to convert them to imperial measurements. Figure 5.9 shows the apprentices taking part in the learning exercise. She also provided them with calculators to use for the conversions. One apprentice, staring outside of the training room, appeared not interested in the exercises. The trainer asked him if he was alright, to which he replied, “Sorry I was just watching a
squirrel”. The trainer advised that it was important that he got involved with the exercises
because they would later be tested on them. Another apprentice asked, “why do we have to
do all this?” to which another apprentice answered, “To learn, so that you can earn more
money when you pass”. Again, the trainer urged them to carry on with the exercises as they
152
The apprentices worked in their groups of two or three to complete the exercise, asking questions when unsure and checking with each other for clarification. At the end, one learner from each group wrote down their answers on the white board, example shown in Figure 5.10. The observation ended when they had all written down their answers, which they would present to the whole group after break time.Figure 5.9: Apprentices involved in measurement exercise
Figure 5.10: An apprentice writes group answers on white board
Significant differences between the two Functional Skills training sessions and the other classroom-based sessions (discussed in Section 5.5.3) were evident. Firstly, the Functional Skills trainer provided opportunities for the learners to be involved with their learning and to be more active. Certainly from the second observation, the apprentices were not confined to their individual workstations and simply taking notes down from the trainer’s instruction.
153
Rather, they walked around the room, worked in groups, talked to each other to work out solutions for the different exercises and they also stood at the front of the class to write down and present their answers. The instructor explained how she administers the training in the following statement:“Umm, I do either; either I have a whole group all day. And so, we’ll do some lessons like the one that you observed. But we also do a lot of time on the computer because we have really four days to get through a year’s worth of stuff. So, it’s really intense. So, umm I try to break it up and do half where they move around and half where they are on the computer. And other days like today, I have like individual people that need extra help. So like, this morning I had one guy who needed extra help with his Maths. Then at lunch time, I had a guy who is dyslexic and ADHD, and so we did some reading and writing work and then this afternoon I have a guy coming in at 3 to do some ESOL work”
[Instructor, 4].
These findings show efforts by the trainer to use a combination of methods including computer exercises, practical elements that actively engage the learners in the form of group exercises and dialogue as well as individual supported work. When asked further about the methods of delivery she employs and the motives for using the varied methods, the trainer acknowledged the differences in the abilities of the learners and the role that non-verbal instruction can play to engage the learners. In addition, she explained that her previous teaching experience, in which she taught English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), influenced her kinaesthetic teaching style. Hence, there was consideration of visual and kinaesthetic learners and not just auditory learners in her training sessions. She reflected on this:
Instructor 4: “Umm, basically I started to use, I used to use a lot of verbal instructions
but I’ve been finding that recently only about 75% of the students get it the first time if I tell them. Even if they are looking straight at you, and then you set up a task, they still don’t know what to do. So, I’ve started doing verbal instructions, and then have it on the board as well. That way, at least if they don’t get it the first time, I can just tell them to look at the board.
Interviewer: Yeah.
Instructor 4: “It’s also interesting because my background is teaching ESOL, my first
teaching qualification is teaching ESOL and you have to use non-verbal ways to communicate things coz the learners don’t understand English. So, you kinda develop a teaching style that’s around, that’s kinaesthetic, get them to do stuff, get them to walk around, work in pairs so they can communicate with each other and stuff like that. Umm,
154
I also do a lot of, this comes from being an ESOL teacher again, umm there’s a thing called funds of knowledge where you find out what they know before you start teaching.
Interviewer: Okay.
Instructor 4: So, I try to work with their funds of knowledge a lot, and then like put them
into groups and give them a task and then get them to work it out by themselves. Because usually there’ll be people who know everything and people who don’t and they can teach each other. So, instead of me losing my voice trying to tell them stuff, that helps. I try to get them active as much as possible and doing things”.
As a result of the use of training methods with a stronger degree of interactivity compared to purely lecture-based instruction, far more positive views were gathered from the apprentices when they were asked about their learning experiences in the computer room. Most said that the experience was enjoyable because they got involved in the training. One apprentice (Trainee 11) successfully completed the course, despite his limited abilities in English and Maths. The following are examples of comments made:
“Yeah it’s not too bad like. You can just tell people are enjoying it more, being active and joining in more. It just keeps us on our feet, like it just keeps us alert. Instead of just dozing off in the classroom or trying not to” [Trainee, 6].
“It was alright, it was quite helpful. She helped out a lot. I’m not very good at Maths either but I felt like she helped me and I ended up passing them both, so yeah, it went quite well, yeah” [Trainee, 11].
“It’s a lot better; you get involved and do it. It was good” [Trainee, 2].
For the few that commented negatively about the experience, the analysis of responses identified two main reasons: 1) lack of interest in the subjects (Maths and English) and 2) they did not see the relevance of the training to their job.
Lack of interest in the subjects: Maths and English are subjects which some of the apprentices did not want to learn about, with most stating that they never liked the subjects since school and did not do well in them either. The following were some of the comments made in this regard:
“Boring, unexpected because when we got our paperwork through about the college course, we were told to bring all of our tools, all of our safety equipment and nothing to do with GCSE Maths or English or Key Skills sorry. So pretty much when we all turned up, everyone was not too happy about it. Umm, it’s gotta be done though I guess. It’s part of the Government’s rules now, isn’t it?” [Trainee, 1]
155
“I didn’t like it personally. The course and the way they teach it, that’s fine. That’s just me, I’m not a really academic person to be honest, Maths and English is not my best subjects. It’s a bit tedious” [Trainee, 8].
“Umm, yeah it’s alright, like she’s nice enough and that, it’s just it’s not really my cup of tea, I’m not a very academic person, like I don’t struggle with it, like my ability was okay to deal with what we needed to do but I just find it kinda boring really” [Trainee, 14].
When asked what problems she faced on a daily basis, the trainer also confessed that the biggest problem she faced was that the apprentices did not want to learn English and Maths. She admitted:
“The biggest one is that they don’t wanna do English and Maths” [Instructor, 4].
It was interesting to note that whilst these apprentices did not like to learn English and Maths, they did not seem to have a problem with the way the subjects were actually delivered. This can be seen from two of the trainees’ comments (Trainees 8 and 14), who both admitted that the actual course was “fine” or “alright” but as individuals they just did not like the subjects.
Other participants did not see the relevance of the subjects to their job. As far as these apprentices were concerned, they did not see the relevance of learning Maths and English to the levels required by the Functional Skills course, to their trade (scaffolding), although to some extent, they acknowledged that some of that training would be useful. When asked how they found the training, the following comments were made:
“I see where they are going with it coz we do need it. But then what we need, we don’t really need to go into that depth. It’s like useful, and it’s like plus and minuses” [Trainee,
5].
“Annoying. I think it’s just school all over again. I’ve gotta do Level 1 English and Level 1 Maths, why? I know Maths is a big part of scaffolding don’t get me wrong. But you’ve got a measuring tape, you can work that out yourself. Like it ain’t hard to measure from the inside of your standard to your ledger, get your measurement right, is it? But, Maths umm, they want it, I know what they are saying is if you gotta come out of scaffolding, at least you know Level 1 English and level 1 Maths, it may help you maybe get another job” [Trainee, 7].
The instructor provided a possible reason why the apprentices may have questioned the relevance of English and Maths in the following discussion:
156
Instructor 4: the way it’s delivered is really the wrong way (referring to Functional Skills training).Interviewer: Yeah, can you tell me more?
Instructor 4: Cos it’s delivered discretely, which is considered to be the worst way to do it. The best way would be it’s embedded in their sessions, so that all their literacy and numeracy is in their vocational work. Umm, but the way that we have done it is quite old fashioned way, they like come in here and it will be like a different thing.
Interviewer: So like, now we are going to do Maths or we are going to do English? Instructor 4: Yeah. So they don’t really see, like a lot of the guys say to you that they don’t see the relevance of English and Maths to their jobs. So, for me that’s a problem. And then also, it’s too kind of like the vocational people don’t know what I do. And I don’t really know a huge amount of what they do. Ideally we would be working together, so there would be one teacher that’s attached to each department, then they would go and sit in the classes and help people with their work”.
The instructor’s statements suggest that perhaps if the English and Maths training was embedded within the vocational training sessions, the learners would appreciate the relevance of the Functional Skills training to their trades better.
5.5.5.1 Discussion of results
The findings presented here show that computer-based exercises alone were less engaging, with individuals working through mainly textual theory-based exercises. However, opportunities for non-textual, theory-based instruction and active participation on the part of the learners in the form of interactive group exercises, problem solving in collaboration with peers or peer-assisted learning were also incorporated. The use of a combination of methods was driven in part by the instructor’s teaching background, contributing towards her awareness and consideration of the differences in the abilities of the learners as well as their different learning styles including visual, kinaesthetic and auditory and the different ways in which varied information needs to be communicated. Moreover, the trainer demonstrated an understanding of the role that non-traditional training approaches play in engaging the learners when she spoke about how she makes every effort to get the apprentices active through group work and using the learners’ funds of knowledge.
It can be argued that the training methods implemented here and the reasoning behind the selection of methods, to a degree, reflect constructivist ideas and conceptions, which are opposed to the traditional view of learners as passive recipients of abstract knowledge imposed from above and external sources (Section 2.3.2.2). Rather, the idea that learners
157
are active beings that are capable of constructing their knowledge and new understandings through social interaction is central to constructivist theories. Accordingly, Brooks and Brooks (1993) write that practitioners informed by and working around constructivist theories and principles seek to support learning (not control it) by encouraging and accepting learner autonomy and differences, utilising curricula activities that are interactive in order to actively engage the learners, seeking learners’ points of view and encouraging them to present their own conceptions (see Table 2.2). Schunk (2012) and Brooks and Brooks (1993) provide examples of instructional applications that reflect constructivist concepts including group work, peer-assisted learning and or peer collaboration, demonstrated in the present study.As a result of a stronger degree of participation and interactivity compared to purely lecture- based instruction, positive comments were far more prevalent than negative ones when the learners spoke about their learning experience in the computer room. Even the trainees that did not like to learn English and Maths did not particularly seem to have a problem with the way the subjects were actually delivered and in fact one trainee reported successfully completing the course despite his general belief that he did not do well in Maths based on