Curriculum and learning styles

The previous chapter established that as SFCs evolved and adapted to changes over the years, many now offer vocational qualifications to their students alongside their ‘staple’ A-levels. Some researchers have questioned how appropriate SFCs are in providing for vocational learners (Hodkinson, 1998) nonetheless, many SFCs offer vocational curriculum in the form of BTEC qualifications at various levels to appeal to the varying needs and abilities of their students. This is the case for the focal college in this research and the focal students enrolled on a BTEC level 2 Health and Social Care course. Therefore, the curriculum offered within vocational courses and how it is taught is an important aspect of the literature to explore in order to understand the learning experiences of the students.

In terms of the vocational curriculum offered via GNVQ, the literature collectively confirms that this provides an enabling learning opportunity for students, particularly, as it offers a fresh start with limited opportunities for ‘failure’ for students viewed as reluctant or unsuccessful learners at school (Bathmaker, 2001, Hodkinson, 1998, Bloomer, 1998). As explored earlier, vocational qualifications like GNVQ offer parity of esteem in comparison to the more academic A-levels although researchers question this, (Atkins, 2010, Whalberg and Gleeson, 2003, Avis et al, 2006) but are often courses taken by students who have not succeeded at school and so lack the confidence in their learning ability. According to Hodkinson (1998) students actively choose GNVQ courses as they provide a greater emphasis on coursework, allowing for them to take responsibility for their learning with the direction and guidance of their teacher (Bathmaker, 2001, Avis et al, 2006). Findings from the accounts of GNVQ students confirm that students experience success in their learning which increases their confidence in themselves as leaners (Hodkinson, 1998, Bathmaker, 2001, Bloomer, 1998). Thus, the components of vocational qualifications such as GNVQs and now more commonly BTECs, provide enabling learning opportunities for students undertaking them. One of the most enabling learning opportunities which GNVQ students reported in Bloomer’s (1998) research was the practical experiences they undertook to aid them in their understanding of the theoretical aspects of their course. This is a key feature of vocational curriculum and students in this research felt this practical experience was most beneficial to

51

their learning as it was easier to remember things if they had done them or seen them first hand.

Another enabling (yet contested) feature of GNVQ curriculum is that it provides a progression route for students from foundation/level 1, to intermediate/level 2 and finally to advanced/level 3. Students in Bathmaker’s (2001) study admitted that they were aware that their foundation GNVQ held value only as a stepping stone to gain enough credentials to progress to the next level of qualification. Therefore, ‘GNVQ represents a sort of educational ladder, and once on it, students aspire to continue up it’ (p.96). In doing so, students exchange credentials in order to acquire more human capital (Schuller, 2004) and progress through the different levels and routes. Students in the literature felt positive about their futures and felt they were on a clear route to a successful career (Bathmaker, 2001, Hodkinson and Bloomer, 2000, Whalberg and Gleeson, 2003). Although in terms of government rhetoric this ability to enable young people to progress in education and ultimately into employment is a highly valued one, researchers question the learning value offered to students.

Bloomer’s (1998) interview data with students enrolled on GNVQ courses revealed that their learning was constrained by assessment requirements, with teachers occupied with judging coursework evidence and ‘ticking off performance criteria’ (p.181). Many students felt that their assignments resembled ‘data retrieval exercises’ (p.179) as teachers emphasised the need to demonstrate outcomes for the purposes of assignments. Teachers in the research revealed that assessment requirements emphasised a ‘tick-off’ approach focusing on evidence indicators and performance criteria boxes over a holistic approach. Despite, GNVQs intending to provide a general vocational knowledge with emphasis upon the acquisition of relevant skills and the opportunity for independent learning (Bloomer, 1998, Avis et al, 2006), teachers in Bloomer’s research indicated that the courses are viewed in terms of outcomes with teaching concerned with ‘directing students along pre-specified paths to pre-specified goals’ (p.178).

Some students in Bloomer’s study liked the progressive and predictable opportunities offered through coursework assignments whereas others felt limited and restrained working to adhere to assignment outcomes. These findings are reflected elsewhere in the literature. Many students enrolled on GNVQ courses learn to ‘fit into the system’ learning to work to a particular order, rather than ‘developing a critical understanding of the nature of the work’ (p.89-90 Bathmaker, 2001). Business Studies students in Whalberg and Gleeson’s study (2003) began their course with a keen interest in the subject with the aim of wanting to understand how

52

businesses work. However, as the course progressed they became more preoccupied with understanding the assessment grid rather than establishing an understanding of business. The reality it seems, is that students do what they need to do without much critical understanding in order to gain their qualification and progress (Avis, 1984, Bathmaker, 2001, Whalberg and Gleeson, 2003).

Bloomer’s (1998) research does indicate that students engaged in interactive learning activities where they assumed independent responsibility for their learning through group discussions, project work and individual research. However, much of the course was dominated by receptive learning activities where students took down notes from the teacher or course textbook. Bloomer found that the ‘emphasis in learning is placed firmly upon the ‘taking’ rather than upon the ‘making’ of knowledge and understanding’ (p.183). It appears that although vocational courses may be described as enabling students to take responsibility for their own learning, it is difficult for teachers to offer this opportunity within a curriculum that desires performance and outcome indicators rather than a holistic approach to acquiring knowledge and understanding.

The literature demonstrates that the curriculum found within vocational qualifications provides an enabling learning opportunity for those learners considered to be ‘unenthusiastic’ and ‘fragile’ (p.97 Bathmaker, 2001), it rebuilds their confidence and self-esteem and offers educational progression. This progression however, can be viewed as a double-edged sword as the literature questions whether deep or meaningful learning has taken place as students endeavour to meet the demands of the assessment criteria. A further criticism highlighted in the Wolf Report (2011) was that some vocational qualifications were of little value, holding no meaningful progression to successful employment. Time will tell as to whether the recommendations made in the Wolf Report will improve vocational curriculum and progression learners can make