Student take-up
Pauline Wade discusses research looking at the reasons why students have opted to study Diplomas
HE NATIONAL evaluation of Diplomas is now into Diploma delivery were on occasion targeting those learners who
T
its third year, which means that for the 15 case study they thought were likely to get the most out of the Diploma. It was
areas we fi rst visited in 2008, we are now conducting the interesting that learners who had been targeted were generally very
third and fi nal visits. We have been able to follow these positive about their “selection”, regarding themselves as pioneers.
consortia through from their preparations in 2008 to the second T_h e opportunity to take a Diploma post-16 was more limited.
year of delivery in 2010, when the fi rst main cohorts of Diploma A minority of consortia had no Level 3 off er, because they wanted
students are approaching the end of their courses. In most cases, we to establish the qualifi cation pre-16 and then build on progression.
have tracked the same learners across the two years of their course, In others, Level 3 Diplomas had not recruited enough learners to
and so will be gaining insight into their perceptions of a new course create viable courses. Some consortia off ered a Level 1 or 2 Diploma
and how their learning and attitudes have developed. post-16, and this was generally as a one-year course while in other
T_h is year will be the busiest for the evaluation. In March, 30 consortia, there was a strong view that the Diploma was not suitable
Gateway 3 consortia will join the existing 90 Gateway 1 and 2 as a one-year course.
consortia that we are inviting to participate in surveys and, for
45, case study visits, as we begin the process of investigating the Infl uences on choosing a Diploma
experiences of staff and students who are, in some cases, just Both learner surveys and case study data indicated that the most
beginning the Diploma journey. common reason for choosing a Diploma was interest in the
During this year, we will produce three reports for the particular subject area, and in some cases, how this linked to an
government, which will give an overview of the three diff erent intended career. T_h e opportunities for work-related learning and
stages that consortia have reached. T_h e reports on Gateway 1 developing employability skills were also an important factor.
consortia progress in the fi rst year of delivery, and the baseline view T_h e expectation that Diplomas would involve a diff erent teaching
of Gateway 2 consortia (based on case study visits in 2009) were and learning style, with more opportunities to apply learning,
written in autumn 2009, and we expect them to be published soon. “be creative”, study in another location, and be less dependent
on examinations, attracted learners too. Finally, taking a new
What the evidence says about take-up and attitudes qualifi cation that would set them apart from other learners and
For this article, we focus on a brief overview of why students had perhaps provide an advantage for progression into employment or
chosen, or not chosen, to take a Diploma in the fi rst year of delivery. higher education was an attractive feature, and linked to this, for
T_h ese fi ndings are from the fi rst year of the research. year 9 learners, was the seven GCSE equivalency at Level 2.
In September 2008, approximately 12,000 learners across T_h e infl uences on not choosing a Diploma were often the reverse
England commenced the Diploma (this has now increased to of the factors that had attracted others; such as lack of interest in
around 36,000 in September 2009). Although this number was the lines of learning, reluctance to risk taking a new qualifi cation,
lower than originally anticipated, and take-up was particularly and apprehension about a diff erent teaching and learning style
lower than expected at Levels 1 and 3, case study interviewees often – especially if it involved travelling to learn elsewhere, or spending
refl ected that this made the initial implementation of Diplomas an entire day on one subject.
more manageable. Indeed, some Gateway 1 consortium leads and Some year 9 students were concerned about the narrowing of
institutional managers advised “starting small” to ensure quality other option choices at key stage 4, particularly if it was felt it
and building up numbers once any initial diffi culties had been dealt would reduce future career possibilities. For some year 11 students,
with. However, in some cases, lower than expected take-up meant uncertainty about how a Diploma would be viewed by universities
that some Diploma courses would be too expensive, or too diffi cult was an inhibiting factor, and they felt safer keeping to traditional
to timetable for a small group, and so were not viable. courses.
T_h e Diploma “off er” available to young people in 2008, was Finally, some students had not chosen a Diploma because they did
determined by the lines of learning and levels in the consortium, and not know enough about them, and some of the students interviewed
also by their individual school or college. Although the majority of had a very limited understanding of what they involved. T_h is point
schools off ered the Diploma to all their year 9 students, in reality, leads on to the area of Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) for
the wider curriculum off er at key stage 4 and the school’s approach students and its impact on Diploma take-up and levels of learner
to option choices, infl uenced the extent to which Diplomas were satisfaction. By the end of our current round of case study visits,
available to all learners. we hope to have a clearer picture of how greater consistency in the
In addition, potential learners usually needed to fulfi l entry provision of IAG might be promoted. DD
requirements, such as those related to achievement in key stage 3
assessments for the Level 2 Diploma, which was the most widely • Pauline Wade is a researcher at the National Foundation for
off ered Diploma level. School and college staff who were planning Educational Research. See www.nfer.ac.uk
10 Delivering Diplomas • Volume 2 No 1 Spring 2010
10 NFER.indd 8 5/3/10 10:43:24
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52