Search Results

Although the National Targets for Education and Training [NTET] in England and Wales include indicators for lifelong learning, and the progress towards the targets set for these indicators has been lauded by politicians and other observers, much of this apparent progress is actually accounted for by changes in these same indicators at Foundation level. However, once the ‘conveyor belt effect’, of passing increasingly qualified 16-18 year-olds into the working-age population instead of less qualified 60 and 65 year-olds, is taken into account, then progress in qualifying those of working-age is much less. In fact, there is then very limited evidence that lifelong learning targets have had any impact at all. Certainly work-based training has not increased, and may even have declined over the last decade, while some socio-economic inequalities in adult participation in education and training have worsened. The paper examines this apparent weakness for the current approach and its implications for the measurement of progress, in the light of a research review carried out for the National Assembly of Wales. It therefore asks increasingly important questions about targets, such as what they are for, and whether those who set and monitor them are aware of their deficiencies and artificialities.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

In the context of existing 'quantitative'/'qualitative' schisms, this paper briefly reminds readers of the current practice of testing for statistical significance in social science research. This practice is based on a widespread confusion between two conditional probabilities. A worked example and other elements of logical argument demonstrate the flaw in statistical testing as currently conducted, even when strict protocols are met. Assessment of significance cannot be standardised and requires knowledge of an underlying figure that the analyst does not generally have and cannot usually know. Therefore, even if all assumptions are met, the practice of statistical testing in isolation is futile. The question many people then ask in consequence is - what should we do instead? This is, perhaps, the wrong question. Rather, the question could be - why should we expect to treat randomly sampled figures differently from any other kinds of numbers, or any other forms of evidence? What we could do 'instead' is use figures in the same way as we would most other data, with care and judgement. If all such evidence is equal, the implications for research synthesis and the way we generate new knowledge are considerable.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less

This paper begins by questioning the narrow definition of learning used in much present writing concerning lifelong learning, which tends to focus on the purported economic and societal benefits of prolonging and widening participation in formal education and training programs. In contrast, much valuable and non-trivial learning already goes on, and has always gone on, outside formal programs of instruction. This is true both at work and at leisure. Using evidence from a study of patterns of participation in adult learning in South Wales from 1900, the paper argues that if such informal learning continues to be ignored by proponents of a learning society, as it has been by the authors of recent green papers, for example, then the result may be an unnecessary exclusiveness in definitions of a learning society, and an unjustifiable reliance on certification as a measure of learning.

Published abstract reprinted by permission of the copyright owner. Show less