Conversations with a purpose
Our discussions during this period can best be described as ‘conversations with a purpose’, or motive. Swain and Spire (2020, n.p.) describe this approach to data gathering as one that has been rather overlooked in educational research. Yet, such conversations have the potential to produce rich, in-depth insights, which, given the more free-flowing nature of the interaction, can be ‘more authentic’ than those generated through more formal and staged interviews.
What has worked during recent months
Although a number of planned university visits during the winter and spring terms had to ‘abandoned’, Andy discussed the positive reaction that a series of online lectures offered to year 12s and 13s (sixth formers) had received. Described as ‘very powerful’, these had proved successful because they were ‘not just one-off lectures’. Instead, the students took part in a course linked to the subjects they were studying for their A-level. This involved them ‘sending in an essay’ and receiving feedback. The impact, it was added, was that the course cultivated a sense that ‘they are university students.’ As evidence of this intervention’s effectiveness, Andy talked about how ‘the students were keen to discuss what they had been doing. Moreover, through engaging with the course the students had acquired transferable ‘skills in how you learn online’. In this respect, Andy’s expectation – shared by a number of commentators – is that ‘more online learning’ will be built into future undergraduate programmes (Buitendijk, 2021; Tzirides, Kalantzis and Cope, 2021.).
What needs to be addressed
Yet, Andy was also realistic about the longer-term impact of this intervention. It had certainly ‘stoked students’ enthusiasm and nurtured confidence in their academic abilities’. It had also helped inform them about the choice of post-18 institutions. However, these sessions were directed at those on level advanced (level 3) programmes, who, in many instances, were committed to their studies and were already exploring the HE option. Consequently, there remained a need to focus on those at an earlier stage in their educational journeys and before crucial post-16 study decisions were made. Failure to engage and support these younger people could, it was suggested, be very costly. ‘Unless something is done for them, we could lose a generation to HE. Once they have left at the end of year 11, we will not get a lot of them back.’
What could work
Asked what would work for younger learners, especially those in years of 9, 10 and 11 – and who had embarked on their GCSEs – Andy’s response was that they need the same type of intervention as that offered to their older peers. Specifically, the suggestion was for a short programme of sessions delivered once a week. Andy was quite clear about the number. Whilst doubts were expressed about the enduring impact of one-off interventions (an assessment supported by recent research, Patel and Bowes 2021), a series of four to five sessions could have a significant positive and cumulative effect. It would also help cultivate a sense of belonging and being a ‘member of the gang’. In contrast, a larger number of sessions could be viewed as ‘too much’, and could lead to participants being less likely to ‘commit’. In terms of duration, the suggestion was that individual sessions should run for between 40 minutes to an hour, and comprise short, focused segments. In order to support engagement, interactive exercises within these sessions were also emphasised.
Andy was equally clear about the content of these sessions. The temptation amongst outreach practitioners might be to offer revision workshops, or cover aspects of the GCSE syllabus. Both of these were likely to generate little interest and enthusiasm. If it involves revising ‘GCSE French, they will not want to do that’, and they will ‘push against sessions’ that are based, for example, on the science curriculum, since that is what they do ‘in the classroom’. Instead, it was argued that, whilst subject-focused, these sessions should place the topic being studied in class into a wider context. This could be achieved by exploring its real word application, and informing students why, for instance, ‘they are covering this subject in physics.’ Yet, this would still have a significant benefit for their GCSEs. It would generate an excitement in what they are doing, and ‘make their teacher’s job easier because they can see a significance to it.’
Our conversation also acknowledged the value of involving university students in these sessions, ideally comprising those from comparable backgrounds to the participants, ‘who’, Andy observed, would ‘talk with an accent they’d recognise’. Exploring this further, it was suggested that this undergraduate component could capture the students when they were learning. For instance, when ‘working in the lab, on a production, or involved in a seminar discussion.’ It could also feature them studying in their ‘dorms’. As opposed to a more conventional tours of students flat, this would provide an insight into student accommodation ‘in a real life context and from the students’ perspective.’
Whilst Andy argued that such an intervention could make a real difference to the outlooks and engagement of the young people involved, its impact could be further enhanced – and underpinned – by awarding participants a certificate denoting their completion of the course and outlining the themes addressed and associated learning outcomes. This, it was added, could then be referenced in their personal statements and the CVs they prepare for both their college and university applications.
Although the four to five online sessions could represent a self-contained intervention, the potential for a follow-up set of activities was also acknowledged. Should conditions permit, Andy talked about the positive impact arising from a visit to the school by the lecturer who had given the virtual talks and the undergraduates who had also featured. Similarly, reference was made to the opportunity for the students to ‘visit the university’ and see the facilitates associated with the subjects covered in the online talks.
Whilst our discussions drew to a close on this up-beat note, an important proviso was added, and one that reflects outreach at its best: that it is a collaborative endeavour between schools, colleges and HE providers that requires an ongoing and open dialogue (Raven, 2020). Arguably, conservations with a purpose afford one mechanism for achieving this.
ARU Peterborough
University House
Bishops Road
Peterborough
PE1 5BW
© Forum for Access and Continuing Education 2025 | A charity registered in England and Wales. No 289413 | All rights reserved | Privacy policy | Site built by web agency Bristol Global Bay.
