Higher Education for Part-Time Mature Students - Essay Example

?Review and Analysis of Educational Research Swain and Hammond present a study dealing with mature in part-time s. The article’s topic is higher education for part-time mature students, where the authors try to relate the learning to the motivations for the learning and the benefits derived from the learning. In contrast, Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) presents a study dealing with workplace learning and the underlying equity that prevents access to workplace learning, the learning that the researchers deal with is the education that employees are subjected to as a means of furthering their work experience and social status. The topic of the study revolves around the access factors faced by different employees concerning the learning in the workplace. From the two topics, it is evident that the two studies are somewhat related but completely different. First, the two studies deal with education for mature education, but Swain and Hammond (2011) focus on students in institutions of higher learning while Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) focuses on individuals in the workplace. The other difference in the two articles is that Swain and Hammond (2011) try to focus on the individuals themselves and their motivations and benefits from the studies. Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) focuses on the external factors that affect the individual, not what the individual feels. According to Brannen, the scope and scale of research refers to the exact areas covered by a researcher, the information presented in the study, and the factors that limit the research. This means that the scope and scale of research includes the lower and upper bounds of a study. In Swain and Hammond (2011), the researchers specifically deal with mature students in Higher education. The authors deal with these students with the aim of identifying their motivations and outcomes for studying part0-time. The scope is centered on a sample of 1539 graduates, from which 18 graduates are picked. From the research, it is evident that the authors are only dealing with mature students and the only aspect of their lives researched is the motivations for the higher learning and the benefits derived from the education. Conversely, the scope of Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) revolves around the workplace. The study focuses on survey data to identify the extent and benefits of workplace learning in Scottish SMEs. The scope is further divided into information intensive organizations and traditional manufacturing and training organizations. Finally, this scope and scale is limited to workplace learning and the benefits derived by the employees for the companies being investigated. Contrary to the research by Swain and Hammond (2009), Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) focus on the employer and not the individual. Research in social science is usually different according to the paradigms or extent of research conducted (Oakley, 2007). This means that different researchers aim to achieve different results by focusing on different research methods, mainly choosing from qualitative and quantitative research methods. The two methods mentioned usually differentiate the paradigm used in research, where the scientific theory or positivist theory is used for quantitative research while the constructivist paradigm focuses on qualitative research. Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon’s (2009) background literature is read as statistical based, with emphasis on policies and the Scottish Government objectives of getting adults up to a level of education to create an equal Scottish society. The researchers’ literature reports the European study of lifelong learning as its driver, hence a study on government objectives. It does nevertheless highlight, “driving national economic growth, whilst at the same time increasing social mobility for socially disadvantaged workers through workplace learning programmes” (p.794) does not justify the government objective. This could indicate the perspective of the researcher could fall into constructivism due to its multiple interpretations (ERM), along with its flair on economic and social mobility growth, a phenomena objectively identified by drivers such as the government. Conversely, Swain and Hammond’s (2011) study specifies focus on mature learners in higher education, using the vision of learning promoted by the labour government as a basis for the research. The research is identified as having a constructivist approach, since the researchers do not focus on any statistical aspect of the research. In Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009), the initial statistical factors could lead to the conclusion that the research is quantitative, but from an analysis of the literate review and the perspective followed, it is evident that the research is qualitative. However, in Swain and Hammond, it is evident from the onset that the research is qualitative, since the researchers argue for the importance of learning the outcomes and benefits of part-time education for mature students. The authors base their initial review on the aim of the labour government, but after the identification for the reason for higher education, they focus on the student and the motivations and outcomes for the studies. In the theoretical background, the researchers deal with the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation used by the students for their studies, a fact that would normally be avoided by qualitative or positivist studies. The conclusion is that both Swain and Hammond’s and Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon’s researches are based on the constructivist approach, though argument can define Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) as positivist. As already stated, Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon’s (20090 study is based on the constructivist paradigm, but some of the statistical inferences in the study could be used in a scientific way. Previously, it had also been identified that Swain and Hammond’s research is based on the constructivist theory, where the researchers take a subjective view point of the research and their choice of subjects. According to Oakley (2007), the choice of paradigm in the study ultimately determines the epistemology, ontology and methodology of the research being conducted. Swain and Hammond (2011) focus specifically on the subjective method and determine the motivations and outcomes of the higher learning for mature students. These factors are not quantified by the researchers, and the questions used in the survey are broad and open-ended. Conversely, though the final results are deemed to be objective, Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon still take an objective view when collecting and analyzing the results. Despite the fact that their research is not quantitative, the researchers still take a quantitative viewpoint of their data. Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon take on a subjective epistemology, but the initial parts of the research, including the literature and background could lead a reader to believe that the research is objective. Different individuals interpret relationships between the different aspects of society in different ways, a fact that makes up the ontology of different studies or research. Researchers in the constructionist field usually have one basic leading for their ontology, that there is no true knowledge and that different individuals have different interpretations for knowledge. This basic foundation can be applied to both papers being analyzed, though the ontologies are still different. Swain and Hammond (2011) interpret their findings in terms of the subjectivity of the subjects, in this case, the students. The researchers focus their interpretations of the subjects’ responses on determining their motivations and outcomes from studying part-time at a mature age. Conversely, Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon focus on a different aspect of their research. The study by Riddell et al does not interpret the findings in the subject’s perspective; it instead focuses on the benefits of lifelong learning on the organization and workplace setting, not on the specific individual. As already stated, the ontology from research is different for each and every research, even for research in the same paradigm. Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) determine their findings from the whole organization, while Swain and Hammond determine their findings from individual reactions. It does need to be noted, Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon’s paper aimed to “identify some of the reasons underlying inequalities”, as in learning opportunities in the work place and presumably to question the enhancement of social mobility and employee retention in its literature review. It identifies the conflict caused by the recession market between the Scottish Governments aim to increase skills and qualification levels, against employers funding employee learning which could hinder company profit. It can be drawn that the knowledge to be disseminated from these finding can support the European lifelong learning project to identify the reality of whether it is mature adults returning to learning or work based learning provided by employers, that can create an equal Scottish society. The connections or key points to be drawn from both papers include lifelong learning, education and progression/social mobility. These common, interwoven features demonstrate to be presented in both papers which bring out motivations and inequalities in access to learning; which can be either seen as barriers to enter or an opportunity to enter an educational programme or scheme which can be associated to capital gains (Swain & Hammond, 2011) or social mobility (Riddell et al, 2009). It can be inferred this associates to career planning, linked to life roles. Taking Super’s Life span, Life Rainbow careers theory into account, it specifies how certain roles within one’s life could influence motivation, commitment, meaning, values, one associate’s to their role as a worker or their career (Super et al). The role of a parent may supersede the role as student or the role as partner. Therefore, these varying life roles could either reflect as a constraint or could open opportunities to enter education or training. As noted in Swain & Hammond (2011) and Edward et al.’s (1992) paper, the constraints students with children faced were higher for those students with younger children than those students with children of age who were less dependent. Methodology in research should not be confused with the research methods used to conduct the research. Methodology usually differs according to the funding available and the type of research being conducted. According to Oakley (2007), methodology choice is dependent on the organization and the research, and as can be seen from the studies being analyzed, the methodologies are different. Though Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) and Swain and Hammond (2011) use differing approaches to their research, it is evident that they research a related matter. The methodology chosen by both studies indicate the scope chosen by the studies, where Riddell et al (2009) choose to focus on six SMEs to find their results. Conversely, Swain and Hammond (2011) conduct their research on a smaller scale, which require the use of smaller and more specific methods for their research. The two studies use different approaches to their background and literature, an indication of the type of research being conducted and the methods that would ultimately be adopted by the researchers. Finally, it can be surmised that Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) use a bigger methodology than Swain and Hammond (2011), an attribute that can be laid down to availability of funding or scope. Research methods are the specific data collection and analysis tools that a researcher utilizes in research to achieve the ultimate aim. Based on the research methodology, it is evident that the research methods will follow on the availability of resources for research and the aim of the researcher, meaning that the research will be limited by available resources and what type researcher aims to achieve. One of the most effective methods used by researchers is repeat research, where the researchers use subjects who had previously participated in related researchers, a means of reducing costs and having t find new subjects for research. From an analysis of Swain and Hammond’s (2011) research, it is evident that the study is one of a two-part study investigating part-time students. The researchers state that their study is the second part of the study, which means that the first sample of 2700 students helped them pick out the eighteen responses. The researchers used a sample of eighteen students, whom they already knew possessed what kind of educational qualifications. This research method helps in reduction of costs, since the researchers do not have to conduct the initial researching and elimination of subjects. The choice of the type of students used by Swain and Hammond (2011) depended on the degree type of the students, where the researchers chose students with bachelor’s degrees. The justification for this is that the students in undergraduate studies are mostly fulltime students. Conversely, Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) use a different methodology, focusing on six SMEs for their case studies. The research methods split the case study firms into different natures depending on the workforce. The methods focused on the workforce of these industries with an aim of finding the effect of learning on the workplace itself. After the research methods have been identified, it is important to identify the research instruments for each research. Research instruments refer to the specific tools that the researchers will use to collect the data pertinent to the study. In Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009), the research tools used are case studies. The case studies analyze company reports, promotional material and annual reports of the companies being discussed. The main tool, case studies, focuses on the qualifications of the employees and their current trainings in the companies. In contrast to the tools used by Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009), Swain and Hammond (2011) use surveys that include questionnaires for their interviews. The main tools used are interviews that try to determine the reasons and benefits that the participants have for studying for their degrees. The face-to-face interviews on the selected participants are effective tools for quantitative or constructivist approaches. The interviews used are open-ended and give the interviewees the chance to present open answers to their opinions. The main difference between the tools used by the two research studies is that case studies are used for researchers that encompass large geographical and physical regions while surveys and interviews are used for small studies. The data generated in Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) included the nature of the enterprise being studied, the number of employees, interviews and the positions of the employees. These data is then used to determine the number of employees in lifelong learning and the benefits of these factors. In Swain and Hammond (2011), the data collected mainly revolved around the motivations and outcomes for the learning process. The study differentiated the different programs, age of the participants and the subject areas. The difference in the data for the two studies reflects the ideological differences in the objectives and aims of the studies. One of the factors that determine the paradigm of a study is the analysis of the data generated. Ridell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) identified different benefits of formal learning in knowledge intensive and training organizations. The data collected is analyzed by separating it into qualification levels and determining whether job related training is affected in equity in the workplace. The researchers separate the employees into those without qualifications, and those with different types of qualifications. Swain and Hammond (2011) relate the findings of their study to the motivations and outcomes of the learning to the students. The analysis separates the motivations into intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, which are used to analyze the relationships between the motivations. According to Swain and Hammond (2011), “the analysis of the interviews not only illustrates the close, overlapping and complex relations between the different types of motiva­tions, but also illustrates that, the distinction is not clear-cut”. Swain and Hammond (2011) classify the motivations into thirteen motivations for studying. The analysis also focused on the outcomes for studying, which include the personal, social and economic benefits. From these two analyses, it is evident that the two studies are related since they deal with the learning process. The inferences from the two studies are related to the topics that the researchers were trying to find. Ridell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) find that there are two main views in the workplace. The first inference found is the difference in managers’ views in traditional medium skilled organizations and in knowledge intensive organizations. The managers usually felt that trained employees, employees trained by the organization were resources for the company and should not be lost to competition or other companies. This is because the organizations require specific training to fit their areas of expertise. For the employees, they chose their professions to fit their regulatory bodies. In Swain and Hammond (2011), the inferences include the motivations and benefits, which is different from Ridell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009). From an analysis of the articles, it is evident that the two articles are related in their epistemology and subject. The two studies use a constructivist approach, but Riddell, Ahlgren and Weedon (2009) start off with a quantitative approach to describe their data. Swain and Hammond (2011) use a purely qualitative approach to present their data. However, the presentation in Swain and Hammond present their data in a better way, organizing their data and conclusions in a better manner than Riddell et al (2009). References Brannen, J. (n.d) ‘Mixed methods research: a discussion paper’, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Review Paper 5. Oakley, A. 2007. ‘Evidence-informed policy and practice: challenges for social science’, in Hammersley, M. (ed.) Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice, London, Sage/The Open University. Riddell, S, Ahlgren, L, and Weedon, E 2009. “Equity and lifelong learning: lessons from workplace learning in Scottish SMEs”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28:6 777-795. Swain, J and Hammond, C 2011. “The motivations and outcomes of studying for part-time mature students in higher education”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30:5, 591-612. Read More