there was special attention given to pastoral support. This was an aspect that had been reiterated throughout our data-gathering as highly significant. Underpinning the programme was a shared perception of the need to reengage this student group. In its second year, the programme developed to lead towards students re-entering mainstream education.
In this second example, the provision drew on European funding. There was therefore increased flexibility when it came to managing assessment, which is relevant for the earlier discussions (see also Edwards and Smith, 2005; Literacy Study Group, 2008: 450; Smith and O'Leary, 2013: 257) on the impact of funding and assessment requirements on provision.
Again in this second example, a key member of staff was brought up and still lived on the same estate as students. Like Jill, local knowledge supported him in gaining students' trust. This seems to be particularly important when working to support and teach students in the NEET category. The example emphasised the benefit for the NEET students of teaching and learning approaches that are more holistic, situated and responsive to local needs.
Conclusion We have seen in our research evidence in some provision of an approach that would reengage the students by resonating with their literacy practices and lives and would as such be different from students' previous (negative) educational experience. The teachers were “working around” an autonomous view of literacy. For example, they were working with assessments that were not seen to be suitable in the context and had to deal with funding priorities that were at odds with the needs of the students and their learning. In other examples the providers were more closely working within a “teaching to the test” approach. We have highlighted some of the challenging contextual factors, for example, the funding and qualification requirements that impact on delivery. The data we collected also highlighted the need to reflect on the students' prior experiences and individual needs in order to develop more flexible and creative teaching approaches. Student-focused delivery was key to reengaging this particular student group in education.
Reference List Baynham, M. & Prinsloo, M.,(2009) The future of Literacy Studies. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Cousin, G., (2009) Researching Learning in Higher Education. Abingdon: Routledge DfE, (2014) Statistical First Release: NEET Quarterly Brief January to March 2014. Available
Her (accessede
20 July 2014) Edwards, R. & Smith, J. (2005) 'Swamping and Spoon-feeding: literacies for learning in further education'. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Vol 57 (1) Finlay, I., et al (2010) 'Young people on the margins: in need of more choices and more chances in twenty-first century Scotland', in the British Educational Research Journal, Vol 36 (5) Hamilton, M. (2010) The social context of literacy. In Hughes, N. & Schwab, I., (eds) (2010) Teaching Adult Literacy: Principles and Practice. Berkshire: OUP Hamilton, M., Tett, L., & Crowther, J., (2012) More powerful literacies: An introduction. In: Tett, L., Hamilton, M. and Crowther, J., (eds) (2012) More Powerful Literacies. Leicester: NIACE Lancaster University, (2004-2007) Literacies for Learning in Further Education. Available
Here (Accessed 12
May 2014) Literacy Study Group, (2008) 'Sometimes no amount of reflection or theory helps' - thoughts on the “quality” of literacy provision across a range of Black Country providers'. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, Vol 60 (4) LSN, (2009) Tackling the NEETs problem. London: LSN
13
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