Paths in education: how students make qualification choices at Level 3 and what influences these choices

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Zoe Lewis
{"title":"Paths in education: how students make qualification choices at Level 3 and what influences these choices","authors":"Zoe Lewis","doi":"10.1080/13636820.2022.2118957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study explores how young people in England make choices about the qualifications they study at the age of 16, when they move to post-compulsory education, and the impact on further progression. Given the potential impact on students’ lives, it seems vital to understand how they make their choices, and whether the current decision-making process could be improved. There is increasing research into the provision of career guidance, on how students are making choices about higher education (Diamond et al., 2014). However, the majority of research into qualification choice has been about progression to Higher Education or choices made about GCSEs, leaving a gap in the literature relating to vocational education and training. It has been argued that some students are poorly prepared when it comes to choices about the qualifications after 16 (Leatherwood, 2015). This is still true for young people today. Using a mixed methods approach involving questionnaires (n = 50); 35 student interviews; 2 focus group discussions, and 4 staff interviews, the study found five main influences on choice. They included peer influence, career aspirations, parental or family influence, advice from careers officers and media influences. The role played by schools in shaping qualification choice is considerable: young people need both good impartial information as well as good advice and guidance in how to use this information. However, these structural factors can play a significant role in the choice of qualifications, to the point where it is effectively a ‘non-choice’.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2022.2118957","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study explores how young people in England make choices about the qualifications they study at the age of 16, when they move to post-compulsory education, and the impact on further progression. Given the potential impact on students’ lives, it seems vital to understand how they make their choices, and whether the current decision-making process could be improved. There is increasing research into the provision of career guidance, on how students are making choices about higher education (Diamond et al., 2014). However, the majority of research into qualification choice has been about progression to Higher Education or choices made about GCSEs, leaving a gap in the literature relating to vocational education and training. It has been argued that some students are poorly prepared when it comes to choices about the qualifications after 16 (Leatherwood, 2015). This is still true for young people today. Using a mixed methods approach involving questionnaires (n = 50); 35 student interviews; 2 focus group discussions, and 4 staff interviews, the study found five main influences on choice. They included peer influence, career aspirations, parental or family influence, advice from careers officers and media influences. The role played by schools in shaping qualification choice is considerable: young people need both good impartial information as well as good advice and guidance in how to use this information. However, these structural factors can play a significant role in the choice of qualifications, to the point where it is effectively a ‘non-choice’.
教育路径:学生如何在三级考试中做出资格选择,以及影响这些选择的因素
本研究探讨了英国的年轻人在16岁时如何选择他们在义务教育后学习的资格,以及对进一步发展的影响。考虑到对学生生活的潜在影响,了解他们是如何做出选择的,以及目前的决策过程是否可以改进,似乎至关重要。有越来越多的研究提供职业指导,关于学生如何选择高等教育(Diamond et al., 2014)。然而,大多数关于资格选择的研究都是关于高等教育的进展或gcse的选择,留下了与职业教育和培训相关的文献空白。有人认为,一些学生在16岁以后的资格选择方面准备不足(Leatherwood, 2015)。对于今天的年轻人来说,这仍然是正确的。采用问卷调查的混合方法(n = 50);35个学生访谈;2个焦点小组讨论和4个员工访谈,研究发现了5个主要影响选择的因素。这些因素包括同伴影响、职业抱负、父母或家庭影响、职业指导官的建议和媒体影响。学校在形成资格选择方面发挥的作用是相当大的:年轻人既需要良好的公正信息,也需要如何使用这些信息的良好建议和指导。然而,这些结构性因素可能在资格选择中发挥重要作用,以至于它实际上是一种“无选择”。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信