No regrets? Measuring the career benefits of a psychology placement year

We report an analysis of whether a psychology placement year provides a significant benefit to graduates’ careers. Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey data six months post-graduation suggested that placement programme graduates across the university are more likely to be (i) in work and (ii) in graduate level jobs. For psychology, the association between graduates’ placement status and employment status at six months post graduation was not significant overall. However, when analyses were split by degree classification obtained, it was shown that amongst those graduates with 2.1 classification degrees reporting themselves as working, more placement programme vs. non-placement programme graduates had obtained graduate level jobs (63% vs. 33%). In 2.2 graduates there was no significant association. This pattern persisted in the data from a survey of psychology alumni (from 18 months to six and a half years post graduation). Psychology placement programme alumni were more satisfied with their careers even when ethnicity, gender, degree classification and entry year were taken into account. They also earn more, although not when background factors are taken into account. This study was therefore able to show some measurable and persistent effects of a psychology placement year, although whether the benefits can be claimed to outweigh the costs is inconclusive. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Review of progress in implementing the recommendations of Sir Gareth Roberts regarding employability and career development of PhD students and research staff:A report for Research Councils UK by an independent review panel October 2010

The need for improvement in the development of research careers and researchers’ training in transferable skills was highlighted in two particular recommendations (numbers 4.2 and 5.3) in the 2002 report ‘SET for success: the report of Sir Gareth Roberts’ Review - the supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills’ (Roberts, 2002). As a consequence of that review, Research Councils UK (RCUK)1 have invested about £120 million, usually referred to as ’Roberts’ Money’, in research organisations to address this concern in all research disciplines. The last ‘Roberts’ Money’ payment will be for the period up to March 2011; it was therefore proposed to assess the progress made with taking forward these specific recommendations. An independent panel was formed by RCUK to undertake this review in 2010. The terms of reference for the panel are in Annex A. In summary, the panel was asked to review progress made and to advise RCUK and the higher education (HE) sector about future requirements for the development and training of researchers. In the course of their review, the panel considered a wide range of existing reports, interviewed key stakeholders in the HE sector and elsewhere, as well as drawing on their own knowledge and expertise. This report presents the findings of the panel’s review.

Breaking down barriers:teenage girls’ perceptions of engineering as a study and career choice

Background: Stereotypically perceived to be an ‘all male’ occupation, engineering has for many years failed to attract high numbers of young women [1,2]. The reasons for this are varied, but tend to focus on misconceptions of the profession as being more suitable for men. In seeking to investigate this issue a participatory research approach was adopted [3] in which two 17 year-old female high school students interviewed twenty high school girls. Questions focused on the girls’ perceptions of engineering as a study and career choice. The findings were recorded and analysed using qualitative techniques. The study identified three distinctive ‘influences’ as being pivotal to girls’ perceptions of engineering; pedagogical; social; and, familial. Pedagogical Influences: Pedagogical influences tended to focus on science and maths. In discussing science, the majority of the girls identified biology and chemistry as more ‘realistic’ whilst physics was perceived to more suitable for boys. The personality of the teacher, and how a particular subject is taught, proved to be important influences shaping opinions. Social Influences: Societal influences were reflected in the girls’ career choice with the majority considering medical or social science related careers. Although all of the girls believed engineering to be ‘male dominated’, none believed that a woman should not be engineer. Familial Influences: Parental influence was identified as key to career and study choice; only two of the girls had discussed engineering with their parents of which only one was being actively encouraged to pursue a career in engineering. Discussion: The study found that one of the most significant barriers to engineering is a lack of awareness. Engineering did not register in the girls’ lives, it was not taught in school, and only one had met a female engineer. Building on the study findings, the discussion considers how engineering could be made more attractive to young women. Whilst misconceptions about what an engineer is need to be addressed, other more fundamental pedagogical barriers, such as the need to make physics more attractive to girls and the need to develop the curriculum so as to meet the learning needs of 21st Century students are discussed. By drawing attention to the issues around gender and the barriers to engineering, this paper contributes to current debates in this area – in doing so it provides food for thought about policy and practice in engineering and engineering education.

Peer mentoring in Higher Education:a reciprocal route to student success

This paper provides an introduction to the findings of a large HEFCE/Paul Hamlyn-sponsored project, which aimed to investigate and analyse the value of peer mentoring in facilitating a successful transition into higher education.

Peer mentoring works!

This report draws on the findings of a three year study into peer mentoring conducted at 6 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), 5 of which were in the UK, 1 of which was in Norway. Following a multiple case-study design, quantitative and qualitative research was conducted in collaboration with the project partners. The research findings provide empirical evidence that peer mentoring works! In particular the report provides: - An Executive Summary outlining the main project findings - A synopsis of the relevant literature – and a link to a much larger literature review undertaken at the beginning of the study - A working conceptual framework and set of research questions - An overview and rationale of the methodological approach and tools - Evidence of the value of peer mentoring in promoting a ‘smooth’ transition into university - Evidence that peer mentoring works by providing the means by which new students can access peer support in both social and academic spheres throughout their first year - Identification of the main challenges of peer mentoring - Evidence of the manner in which writing peer mentoring works by providing bespoke help for individual students - A discussion section in which a new approach to peer mentoring, Transition+, is proposed. The report concludes with recommendations for: Higher Education Institutions: Students: Policy Makers: and, Individuals within HEIs wishing to establish peer mentoring.

Peer mentoring works! How peer mentoring enhances student success in Higher Education:evaluation toolkit

This toolkit, published by the HEA, provides colleagues across the Sector with the practical and methodological tools to empirically evaluate peer mentoring and tutoring. This evaluation kit provides two data collection tools that may be adopted and adapted to meet institutional requirements. The first of these is a survey, developed out of the original survey used in the Peer Mentoring Works Project. Some questions have been added as a result of reflexive application of colleagues and students input as the project has progressed. The second part of the toolkit comprises a qualitative interview guide. This guide is similar to the one used in the research, but again it has been further developed as a result of the project. It may be adapted for use in focus groups or one-to-one interviews. The final document within the kit is a sample consent form.

Peer mentoring works! Institutional manual

Institutional guidance and recommendations pertaining to peer mentoring

Peer mentoring and experiential learning:the pathway to success

An analysis of the value of peer mentoring as an experiential learning approach

Writing for success:mentoring as a pedagogical tool – a cross- institutional study

The prominent position given to academic writing across contemporary academia is reflected in the substantive literature and debate devoted to the subject over the past 30 years. However, the massification of higher education, manifested by a shift from elite to mass education, has brought the issue into the public arena, with much debate focusing on the need for ‘modern-day' students to be taught how to write academically (Bjork et al., 2003; Ganobcsik-Williams, 2006). Indeed, Russell (2003) argued that academic writing has become a global ‘problem' in Higher Education because it sits between two contradictory pressures (p.V). On one end of the university ‘experience' increasing numbers of students, many from non-traditional backgrounds, enter higher education bringing with them a range of communication abilities. At the other end, many graduates leave university to work in specialised industries where employers expect them to have high level writing skills (Ashton, 2007; Russell, 2003; Torrence et al., 1999). By drawing attention to the issues around peer mentoring within an academic writing setting in three different higher education Institutions, this paper makes an important contribution to current debates. Based upon a critical analysis of the emergent findings of an empirical study into the role of peer writing mentors in promoting student transition to higher education, the paper adopts an academic literacies approach to discuss the role of writing mentoring in promoting transition and retention by developing students' academic writing. Attention is drawn to the manner in which student expectations of writing mentoring actually align with mentoring practices - particularly in terms of the writing process and critical thinking. Other issues such as the approachability of writing mentors, the practicalities of accessing writing mentoring and the wider learning environment are also discussed.

Volunteering for success:mentoring as a form of student volunteering

Previous studies into student volunteering have shown how formally organized volunteering activities have social, economic and practical benefits for student volunteers and the recipients of their volunteerism (Egerton, 2002; Vernon & Foster, 2002); moreover student volunteering provides the means by which undergraduates are able to acquire and hone transferable skills sought by employers following graduation (Eldridge & Wilson, 2003; Norris et al, 2006). Within the UK Higher Education Sector, a popular mechanism for accessing volunteering is through formally organized student mentoring programmes whereby more ‘senior’ students volunteer to mentor less experienced undergraduates through a particular phase of their academic careers, including the transition from school or college to university. The value of student mentoring as a pedagogical tool within Higher Education is reflected in the literature (see for example, Bargh & Schul, 1980, Hartman,1990, Woodd, 1997). However, from a volunteering perspective, one of the key issues relates to the generally accepted conceptualisation of volunteering as a formally organized activity, that is un-coerced and for which there is no payment (Davis Smith, 1992, 1998; Sheard, 1995). Although the majority of student mentoring programs discussed in the paper are unpaid and voluntary in nature, in a small number of institutions some of the mentoring programs offered to students provide a minimum wage for mentors. From an ethical perspective, such payments may cause difficulties when considering potential mentors’ motivations and reasons for participating in the program. Additionally, institutions usually only have one or two paid mentoring programs running alongside several voluntary programmes – sometimes resulting in an over-subscription for places as paid mentors to the detriment of unpaid programs. Furthermore, from an institutional perspective, student mentoring presents a set of particular ethical problems reflecting issues around ‘matching’ mentors and mentees in terms of gender, race, ethnicity and religion. This is found to be the case in some ‘targeted’ mentoring programs whereby a particular demographic group of students are offered access to mentoring in an attempt to improve their chances of academic success. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the experiences and perceptions of mentors and mentees participating in a wide-range of different mentoring programs. It also analyzes the institutional challenges and benefits associated with managing large scale student volunteering programs. In doing so the paper adds to third sector literature by critiquing the distinctive issues surrounding student volunteering and by discussing, in-depth, the management of large groups of student volunteers. From a public policy perspective, the economic, educational, vocational and social outcomes of student volunteering make this an important subject meriting investigation. Little is known about the mentoring experiences of student volunteers with regards to the ‘added value’ of participating in campus-based volunteering activities. Furthermore, in light of the current economic downturn, by drawing attention to the contribution that student volunteering plays in equipping undergraduates with transferable ‘employability’ related skills and competencies (Andrews & Higson, 2008), this paper makes an important contribution to current educational and political debates. In addition to providing the opportunity for students to acquire key transferable skills, the findings suggest that mentoring encourages students to volunteer in other areas of university and community life. The paper concludes by arguing that student mentoring provides a valuable learning experience for student volunteer mentors and for the student and pupil mentees with whom they are placed.

Peer mentoring in higher education:a multidimensional approach to conceptualising the role of peer mentoring programmes in enhancing the first year undergraduate experience

Across the literature researchers agree that the concept of mentoring results in positive outcomes for both mentors and mentees alike (Enrich et al, 2004). From a pedagogical perspective, student focused mentoring activities in Higher Education are generally perceived to comprise dyadic or triadic relationships that encapsulate a diverse range of learning strategies and/or support mechanisms. Whilst there exists a significant amount of literature regarding the wider value of Peer Mentoring in Higher Education, there remains a notable gap in knowledge about the value of such programmes in enhancing the first year undergraduate experience and thus promoting a smooth transition to University. Using the emergent study findings of a large international project, a multidimensional conceptual framework bringing together the theoretical, conceptual and contextual determinants of Peer Mentoring is proposed. This framework makes a distinctive contribution to current pedagogical theory and practice – particularly in relation to the first year experience.

Volunteering for success? An Analysis of Student Perceptions of the Pedagogical and Social Outcomes of Peer Mentoring in Higher Education

Previous studies into student volunteering have shown how formally organized volunteering activities have social, economic and practical benefits for student volunteers and the recipients of their volunteerism (Egerton, 2002; Vernon & Foster, 2002); moreover student volunteering provides the means by which undergraduates are able to acquire and hone transferable skills sought by employers following graduation (Eldridge & Wilson, 2003; Norris et al, 2006). Although much is known about the benefits of student volunteering, few previous studies have focused on the pedagogical value of student mentoring from the perspectives of both student mentee and mentor. Utilising grounded theory methodology this paper provides a critical analysis of an exploratory study analysing students’ perceptions of the pedagogical and social outcomes of student mentoring. It looks at students’ perceptions of mentoring, and being mentored, in terms of the learning experience and development of knowledge and skills. In doing so the paper considers how volunteering in a mentoring capacity adds ‘value’ to students’ experiences of higher education. From a public policy perspective, the economic, educational, vocational and social outcomes of student volunteering in general, and student mentoring in particular, make this an important subject meriting investigation. In terms of employability, the role of mentoring in equipping mentors and mentees with transferable, employability competencies has not been investigated. By critiquing the mentoring experiences of undergraduates within a single institution, this paper will make an important contribution to policy debates with regards to the pedagogical and employability related outcomes of student volunteering and mentoring.

Peer mentoring in higher education:a literature review

A review of the literature in the area of peer mentoring.

New career models in UK professional service firms:from up-or-out to up-and-going-nowhere?

In this paper, we empirically examine how professional service firms are adapting their promotion and career models to new market and institutional pressures, without losing the benefits of the traditional up-or-out tournament. Based on an in-depth qualitative study of 10 large UK based law firms we find that most of these firms do not have a formal up-or-out policy but that the up-or-out rule operates in practice. We also find that most firms have introduced alternative roles and a novel career policy that offers a holistic learning and development deal to associates without any expectation that unsuccessful candidates for promotion to partner should quit the firm. While this policy and the new roles formally contradict the principle of up-or-out by creating permanent non-partner positions, in practice they coexist. We conclude that the motivational power of the up-or-out tournament remains intact, notwithstanding the changes to the internal labour market structure of these professional service firms.