Are Students Expectations that placement adds value

ASET Annual Conference

RP5

Are Students Expectations that placement adds value to their qualification being met? Gabriella Parkes Harper Adams University College

1: Introduction

Universities are tasked by the Higher Education Funding Council

( HEFC ), to produce ‘employable’

graduates who will make a positive contribution to the economy and society. This goal has been articulated in many government reports 1 over the years, and the use of a placement year 2 is universally supported as a means of doing this. Alan Milburn notes, in his 2012 review of ‘Fair Access to Professions’ that internships are more critical now than they were even three years ago, to finding employment, and that ‘’Over a third of this year’s graduate vacancies will be filled by applicants who have already worked for the employer as an undergraduate’’. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) sees itself as the end consumer of the products of HE and consequently an influential stakeholder. It has produced two reports outlining its wishes for HE in the UK: Employer Involvement – CBI Stepping Higher (2008), and, in collaboration with Universities UK: ‘Future fit; Preparing graduates for the world of work’ (2009). Figure 1 is an extract from this report. Research shows ( Maher 2004) that tourism students look to the placement year to provide the top three factors, and there have been several studies :Polixeni and Milonopolous (2004), Solnet and Robinson ( 2007) Hjalger ( 2003), Wallace ( 2002) on the value of the sandwich year, on the delivery of ‘employability skills’ in the curriculum. This report focuses on Tourism courses, and the views of students involved in placements on such courses.

1

Robbins (1963), Dearing (1997), Leitch review (2006), Burgess (2007) Rammel (2011) and Oakleigh Consulting and CRAC ( 2011). 2 students undertaking a one year structured work period with organisations to gain credit which counts towards their degrees. 2

University of Chester, Chester Campus, 4th – 6th September 2012


Figure 1: Important factors when recruiting graduates (%).

Source: Future fit. CBI 2009

In the UK 29% of students undertake a work placement 3 (ASET 2007). This compares with the European average of 55%, France at 72% and Germany 80%. Dearing (1997) recommended that every student should be given the opportunity to undertake a placement. The introduction of the £9000 tuition fees may change the status of placements. Students face increased pressure to earn money, both during their course, and soon after graduation. The inclusion of a placement year lengthens their course by one year; delaying their entry into paid employment, adding to their debts, and also incurring a tuition fee, albeit reduced, for the placement year. Students and their parents must perceive that a placement year that gives a competitive advantage when hunting for graduate level employment, and earning potential. 2: The Tourism degree as a route to employment 2.1: What is employability? Employability is not the same as gaining employment, and maintaining employment, (Yorke 2006) but clearly it does enhance these things. Rae (2007) notes that universities can use the employability of their graduating students in marketing courses to new intakes.

3

Might be thick and thin sandwiches


ASET Annual Conference The Quality Assurance Agency uses measures of this when ranking universities. ‘including how many students, and how soon, get jobs after graduation’. This becomes a double edged marketing tool, when the newspapers produce their league tables which universities cannot influence. Research at Oxford Brookes University amongst tourism students attending visit days (students who have been offered provisional places) demonstrates that ‘getting a good job’ on graduation is one of the primary motives for choosing a course. They rely on evidence of past graduates’ performance in securing jobs to reassure themselves that they will be able to achieve their aim ( Maher 2004). The most authoritative results to define ‘employability’ are from Yorke and Knight, who developed a list of 39 graduate attributes : personal qualities, core skills and process skills (see Appendix 1), which have subsequently been adopted by The ESECT Team to comprehensively describe employability, and by Maher, the Chair of PATH 4, in her 2004 study for the HEANHL of 300 students from Oxford Brookes University on their perceptions of the importance of their set of skills to their career development. 2.2 Do placements enhance employability? It would seem from research that employers are looking for ‘experience , experience , experience’ and expect that new graduates should have some. Beavan & Wright (2006). found that 81% of their study respondents -123 employers - saw placement as a good way of a student obtaining valid experience. The results were even higher from employers who engaged with HEIs in providing work placements. The New Statesman reported, in 2003, the results of a NCWE study, that two thirds of employers offered work placements in the hope of finding permanent staff. But undergraduates are so aware of the value of work experience that there is even ‘cut-throat competition ...for unpaid internships’ (Hibbert 2003) Hibbert, writing in the New Statesman in 2003, observed that on-the-job experience can be very useful, as well as being an essential first rung on the career ladder . Interns found they had enhanced their basic administration, research and report-writing skills.

Many Tourism and related degree courses offer periods of work placement

to enhance the

employability of students, as part of their programme of study, In 2009 17.4% of ‘Tourism Management’ 5courses offered a sandwich year in a subject search using UCAS , rising to 33.9% in 2012 6. 2.3. Does a placement year actually enhance student Employability?

4

5 6

Placement Administrators in Tourism and Hospitality

357 such degree courses listed in 2009 261 courses listed under Tourism Management in 2012


ASET Annual Conference Several studies have attempted to answer this thorny question, but very few for tourism graduates. In 2008 Freane reported the results of a survey by the Association of Graduate recruiters 7, who, she found, were abandoning academic measures of ability and degree classification, in favour of leadership and communication skills. More recruiters were asking for work experience and /or relevant competencies. At times the skills gained through placement were considered more valuable than the degree classification of the student. Wallace (2002) found that placement students were three times more likely to gain a first class degree, and twice as likely to get a 2.1.or above, than non sandwich students 8. Dale (2008) compared the Employability Performance indicators (EPI) 9and Job Quality indicators (JQI) 10

as used by HESA, between students who had done a sandwich degree and students who had not. 11.

She found that students who had done a placement year were 3.1% more likely to have found a job with in the first 6 months of graduating, experienced a 22% increase in their job quality and were earning on average £1500 more than their counterparts who had not undertaken a placement. This shows a very disappointing impact on six month employment, but better for wage difference. 3: What do students want from placement? In her study of tourism undergraduates, Maher ( 2004 ) discovered that students chose to study sandwich degrees in order to get better paid jobs on graduation and to improve their prospects of finding appropriate experience after graduating. Bowes & Harvey (1999) observed that undergraduates realise the potential benefits of work experience, and students surveyed in the Student Satisfaction Survey, conducted at the University of Central England, commented that the most important outcome of their time at university was ‘ the work-experience element’. They listed the placement, contacts gained through placement, group work, practical experience and seminar presentations as the most beneficial parts of their degree. Placement is seen as providing a ‘tool kit for life’, which comprises of employability skills, adaptability, and a ‘head start in graduate recruitment.’ (CBI’s 2009) Leslie and Richardson (2000) listed four benefits to students of work placements: reducing risk of choosing the wrong career, the opportunity to build a bank of contacts who may assist in finding employment later, experience and projects that can enhance the students’ Curriculum Vitae and ‘skills acquisition and opportunities to practice and apply existing skills and/or theory in real job 7

242 graduate recruiters interviewed. However this study was confined to Chemistry graduates at one university so may not accurately represent Tourism students from SHU and HAUC. 9 EPI measures the numbers of graduates who are employed, undertaking further study or unemployed. 10 JQI reflects the type of occupation, such as non graduate occupations, traditional graduate occupations 11 Her sample was 3430, 2006 graduates from DeMontfort University, from a range of subject faculties 8


ASET Annual Conference settings’ It has also been suggested by Coco (2000) and Knouse et al (1999) that placements can ‘lessen the shock of transition from university to employment’. The National Students forum, in their 2009 report expressed concern for their members, who would be entering a depressed and therefore more competitive labour market. They hoped that students doing work placements would have superior However, in ‘work-related skills and knowledge,’ and so would be ‘in the best possible position when seeking employment.’ 4. Do students perceive that they are realising their expectations? Waryszack compared the perceptions of three groups of students on their tourism/ hospitality placements. One from Melbourne, one from Sheffield and one from Muenchen12 , He was looking for differences between the different nationalities. He found that students perceived different benefits and had differing views on the value of their placement depending on the friendliness and level of support they were given by their supervisor and fellow employees. Purcell and Quinn (1995) surveyed 704 former students who had completed various hospitality degree courses. Their results confirmed earlier findings that graduates complained of having little opportunity to develop managerial skills. In 1993 Barron and Maxwell found that students had expectations of their future placement year, in terms of ’’ career opportunities, training, financial rewards, and job satisfaction’’. However, on their return from placement this had been replaced by negative views on all these measures. The message is the same as Purcell and Quinn: students were not achieving their expected benefits from their placement year. Due to the new financing regime in England, Busby (2003) notes that students require a greater level of benefit and satisfaction from their placement year, due to the heavier price they have to pay for adding a year to their studies and delaying becoming earners. Many students are expecting to gain employability skills whilst on placement. But studies by Gault et al (2000), Lam and Ching (2007) and Lu (1998) found that students felt they had not enhanced their communication, leadership or analytical skills. Callan ( 1997) also reported that few felt they had improved their self reliance, ability to work with others or ‘specific operational skills’, but in the same

12

The three groups of students were as follows: Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, N=46; Fachhochschoole Muenchen, Germany, N=37; Sheffield Hallam University, U.K., N=60.


ASET Annual Conference study he observed that ‘students did report enhanced communication skills, ability to work with others and self reliance’’. 5. The Research 5.1 Research questions and Objectives This study will explore the expectations of two groups of Tourism students of the Value Added by placement to themselves as potential employees. Student perceptions of their actual experiences will then be analysed and their level of satisfaction appraised and compared with expectations, trying to detect any common factors that could be influencing this. Value Added is measured in terms of 30 employability skills identified by Knight and Yorke. See Appendix 1. In addition, the results of the primary research will be compared to the themes emerging from the literature review, and their impact on the students surveyed, measured. 5.2 Objectives 1. Identify and compare students’ expected and actual skills gains from placement 2. Measure their perceived skills gained from placement and overall level of satisfaction from the year. 3. Compare these skills gains and level of satisfaction against certain variables, such as gender, personality, parental influence and prior experience that emerged from the review of literature as possible influences on the success of placements. Detect patterns and draw out possible causative factors. 5.3 Primary data collection 5.3.1 Strategy All tourism degree students returning to HA and SHU in 2009 from placement were sampled, 47 in all. A Grounded theory approach 13 was adopted, although questionnaires were substituted for interviews. These produced a mixture of qualitative and quantitative results. The sample was later expanded to include the returning cohort in 2010 for HAUC, a step towards ‘theoretical saturation’ (Glaser and Strauss1967) the goal of grounded theory strategy. Emerging themes were compared to the observations and theories generated by the authors of the reviewed literature. Much of the research is based on the subjective interpretation of their 13

An inductive research strategy which develops a theory from the collected data, which is obtained either by observation or interview.


ASET Annual Conference experiences by the returning students. Meaning that a ‘phenomenological ‘ strategy 14 had to be followed. ( Denscombe 2004) Part of the survey was aimed at trying to observe the impact of different personal factors on the student’s perception of their placement, for instance personality type and previous experience. For this purpose the questionnaire included a simple extroversion/ emotional stability test, as designed by Eysenk (1975) to try to discern any relationship between personality type and perception of placement. The sample was chosen for ‘convenience’, to suit the researcher’s place of work and place of study. Hence there is a risk of bias in the results and limited scope for generalised conclusions. 6: Methods of research. Returning tourism students from the two HEIs, were surveyed using an administered questionnaire. This has the advantage of enabling the research to focus on a small range of results and enabling analysis of the ‘subtleties and intricacies’ ( Denscombe 2004) of the chosen respondents 6.1 Questionnaire A questionnaire was constructed to discover student expectations, and post placement thoughts on what they had gained from their year in work. Questions were included to test variables that. various authors had considered might affect the benefit a student perceives they gain from the placement. These variables were: the students’ prior experience of work, the role played by their parents in obtaining the placement, gender, academic attainment, their purpose for choosing a sandwich degree in the first place and employer factors ( Kwan 2005,Ju 1999, Begg 2006). The Likert scale 15 was used in the questionnaire to try to enable a numerical analysis of certain factors, like skills gain, which was based on Knight & Yorke’s descriptors. Shown in Appendix 1 Figure 2: Sample Question using the Likert scale Please grade your placement from 0-5 where

14

excellent

5

good

4

satisfactory

3

disappointing

2

poor

1

awful

0

Phenomenology deals with the ways that the respondents interpret their experience. Consequently

their perceptions will colour this interpretation; this strategy recognizes there are m multiple realities, depending on the diversity of the human beings under study. 15 Respondents were asked to measure their gain in skills on an ordinal scale.


ASET Annual Conference 7: Analysis of results When asked why they chose to study a sandwich degree, students overwhelmingly said ‘for experience’, only 4 responses specified that they would have a competitive advantage in the job market by having a superior CV than most other new graduates. See below. Figure 3: Question 5: Give your two main reasons for choosing to study a sandwich degree course.

better degree grade money irrelevant knowledge enjoyment family tradition travel skills make contacts CV put studies into practice aid career decisions Employability experience

1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 7 7 27 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

reasons for chosing sandwich degree

The option of putting theory into practice is recognised by them as a benefit, but enhancing skills was not a reason for doing a sandwich degree for 44/47 students. It is worth noting that only one student mentioned money as a reason for choosing a sandwich course, and this totally disagrees with the assertion of Theil and Hartley (1997) that students chose it because they needed to earn money in their year in work to finance their education. 7.1 Objective 1: Identify and compare student’s expected and actual skills gains from placement. Expected benefits were compiled into 13 categories. See Appendix 2. For example answers such as:

‘confirmed career aspirations’, HA 22 ‘I learned that the hospitality industry is not the industry for me’ SHU 4 were put into the ‘career guidance’ group of responses. Which confirms that placement can prevent the student making the wrong career choice.

‘not to be easily offended, stay calm & receive constructive criticism’ SHU 19 in USA hotel University of Chester, Chester Campus, 4th – 6th September 2012

ASET Annual Conference was put into the ‘skills improvement’ group. Not all respondents could think of 5 benefits, which is why there are not 245 responses. It is clear that three expected benefits were particularly popular. See Appendices 2 and 3. The underlying assumption is that these are all things which will improve a student’s employability. As Beggs et al., 2006 stated, some students were expecting employment after the placement, but in this study only 8 of the 47 mentioned this in their 5 expected benefits.

Some benefits were very specific, and hence not frequent: ‘’to live in America’’, and ‘’to work for Marriott abroad’’. ‘’Marriott discounts’’. Several students were looking on placement to provide personal benefits, like: ‘’ gain independence’’, ‘’experience living abroad’’, ‘’moving away from home’’, ’’confidence in myself’. Figure 4: Comparison between expected and actual benefits as perceived by students on their return to university.

Expected vs actual benefits expected placement benefits

Actual peceived benefits 27

new & improved skills industry understanding experience

14 8

met new people /friends

team work

0

technical knowledge

0

9 8

qualifications

6

career guidance

6 0

7 10

6

contacts

11

6

work abroad job on graduation

26

13 12 12

confidence

responsibility

28

15

5 3

7 8


40


Figure 5: radar chart of ‘actual benefits’ superimposed over ‘expected benefits’. new & improved skills industry understanding experience

job on graduation 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

work abroad contacts responsibility

Actual perceived benefits expected placement benefits


career guidance

confidence

qualifications technical knowledge

team work

Here the overlapping area shows where expectations are met or exceeded, areas where the red ‘expected’ area is outside the blue ‘actually achieved ‘ area, this shows expectations not being met. There are 6 measures where expectations are not met and 7 where they are being met.

Figure 6 : benefits anticipated and experienced expectations

team

technical

qualificat

met/

work

knowledg ions

exceeded

skills

e

responsib new &

meet

confiden

ility

improved

new

ce

skills

people / friends

Blue>red expectations

career

experien

industry

job on

not met

guidance

ce

understa

graduatio

nding

n

red>blue

contacts

working abroad

There were some benefits that none of the students anticipated: team work, technical knowledge and responsibility. This reflects the fact that inevitably some aspects of the jobs, were new to students so they did not know exactly what to expect, and the parts of working as a full time long term part of the work force resulted in benefits that the students – who had mainly worked in part time positions before, had not expected. This does partly agree with Purcell and Quinn (1995) who noted the disappointment of placement students with respect to career opportunities, training and money, but


ASET Annual Conference their survey revealed a perceived lack of

responsibility in the placement post, while these tourism

student’s expectations were more than met. Callan ( 1997 ) observed that students felt their placement lacked stimulation and challenge, not so for the SHU, HA students, and Lam and Ching’s 2007 study recorded total disappointment on all counts – again not reflected in the results of this study. Begg ( 2006) stated that the students expected responsibility, which the study students did not, but which they did perceive that they had been given. Figure 7 .Showing the difference between expectations and perceived actual benefits.

Expected - Actual benefits. 15 10

DIFFERENCE

5 0 -5 -10 -15

BENEFIT

It appears that students’ expectations of gaining experience and industry understanding were not realised, as shown in figure 7. This is due to students becoming aware of the scale and complexity of the industry, and grasping that their level of knowledge was still small compared to the total.

Areas where expectations were exceeded include: technical knowledge, team work, new and improved skills and meeting new people and making friends. 7.2 Objective 2: Measure students’ perceived skills gained from placement and overall level of satisfaction from the year. 7.2.1 Skills gain Students recorded their perceived skill levels before and after placement using a numerical scale 1-5, where 1= poor, 2= adequate, 3=good, 4=very good and 5=excellent, for 30 skills based on Knight


ASET Annual Conference Yorke’s 39 skills set as used by Maher (2004) and Nield (2006) in their research into student employability in. The skills grouped in to Personal, Core and Process skills.

Appendix 4 shows the average perceived increase in each skill. All students recorded improvements in all skills, as all the values are positive, Figure 8: mean skills gain over the placement year Average % increase in all skills 24.1 16.9 21.4 21.7

Affecting you personally Core skills Process skills Overall

Details of the individual skills are shown in Appendix 4 The average improvement in their personal skills ( interpersonal ) was 24.1% practical :21.4% and people skills ( communication)16.9%. Nield (2006) noted that students felt all the attributes were equally important to their employability, but self confidence emerged as ‘’underpinning’’ all the rest, since without this the student could not acquire and develop the rest of the skills/attributes. Figure 9: greatest and smallest skills gains.

Highest skills gains confidence in ability to deal with challenges in employment awareness of own strengths and weaknesses prioritising tasks according to their importance in the business

Mean difference between before and after

ability to work independently ability to work affectively under pressure

Mean differen ce

As a %

As a %

Lowest skills gains

1.75

34.90

ability to work in an efficient and structured way

0.75

14.90

1.62

32.34

writing clear reports, letters

0.75

14.90

0.74

14.88

0.72

14.46

0.62

12.34

0.62

12.34

1.49

29.78

1.36

27.24

1.32

26.38

listening affectively taking out key points taking key points from written materials willing to learn using numbers accurately & affectively

Having ranked the skills gains it was possible to observe which skills showed the biggest and smallest average gains. See Appendix 4.


ASET Annual Conference The biggest gain is confidence in the work place. The improvement in students self awareness is very marked, and a valuable skill to enhance employability ( Nield 2006). The next three largest improvements are obviously related to the experience gained from working and also would make the student more employable. Maher found that her study of hospitality students that they gained least in ‘ emotional intelligence’’, which can be compared with Yorke and Knight’s ‘sensitivity to colleagues’ moods and feelings’, in this study this was the 8th lowest gain, which does confirm Maher’s findings. She expressed concern over the low skill levels for ‘initiative, stress tolerance and self confidence’, in students graduating from Oxford Brookes University. However, this study of SHU and HAUC students indicates the value of the placement year in enhancing these very skills, which are seen as ‘key attributes for career success ( Maher 2004) as these were some of the biggest gains.

The skills which the placement adds to least do seem to be ones that have been developed to some degree already through the learning process of studying for a degree; these are reading, writing, listening and willingness to learn. The group of skills that improved the most were those termed ‘personal skills’ which are focussed on working with others and as part of a team. These results are very encouraging for showing the value of placement in the eyes of the student participants but it must be remembered that the results are based on the student’s own perception of their new skill levels, and could be inaccurate due to their subjectivity.

7.2.2 Overall level of satisfaction from the year. Students were asked rate their placement in terms of achieving expected Value added. This was measured numerically from 0 – 5, where 0 was awful and 5 was excellent. 16 The results are shown below in figure 10. Figure 10: Placement grades Overall

2

3

4

5

placement score

Disappointing

Satisfactory

Good

Excellent

frequency

1

1

25

20

%

2.1

2.1

53.2

42.6

16

The score was an amalgam of 6 measures: socially at work, enjoyment of the job, new skills learned , observed theory in practice, team work ,career guidance


ASET Annual Conference SHU student 2 was the only one to be dissatisfied, and she was the only student to record a fall in confidence after placement. She evidently had faced difficulties and the danger of a small study such as this, is that individual cases can distort the overall results. As well as her loss of confidence she also did not show gains in 27 of the other 28 skills.

HA student 44 recorded a grade of 3, but he was involved in a serious work related accident. He did however record large skills improvements in the personal and practical sections, so did feel his year placement added value to his employability. In the question on problems 44 wrote:

A massive staff change around half way through the placement caused huge changes not for the better and many staff left .........Rolled dumper – breaking bones etc. Took 6 months to get back to work. This helps to explain the grade he gave, but happily his experiences are untypical of placements generally. This distribution of grades did not lend itself to more elaborate analysis of spread or deviation from the mean, as it was so clustered at the high grade end. This shows that these students perceived that their placement year had added significant value to their skills base and they felt more employable as a result of doing it. 7.3 Objective 3: What factors affect perceived value added? Various authors made connections between different factors and the likely success of a placement. Kwan ( 2005 ) suggested that parental influence on the choice of placement was an influence. Ju ( 1999 ) , Barron ( 2007) suggested that previous work experience affected the extent to which students benefitted. Bakalis and Joiner (2004) and Beggs et al 2008 suggested factors like student attitudes and personality as being important in the success of a placement. Other factors researched here, include gender, home or abroad placement Several studies considered that the size and structure of the employer and method of supervision are also relevant. However these factors were outside the scope of this study, which focuses on the student side of the relationship. Ayres 2006, cites Riley and Ladkin 1994 ‘’ Individuals are influenced by the social, ethnic and gender categories to which they belong, and the concept of a career is closely linked to a person’s individual identity and range of experiences as they move through their working life’’.

7.3.1 Personality


ASET Annual Conference Using a much abbreviated version of Eysenk’s 1975 personality profiling tests,

students were

measured for extra/intro version and emotional stability. The distribution was then compared with the placement grades to see if there was any correlation. Did extroverts add more value than introverts? Students were grouped into four categories: stable extroverts, stable introverts, emotional extraverts and emotional introverts. See appendix 5

Figure 11: Average placement grades by personality type Emotional

Stable extroverts

extroverts

Emotional

stable introverts

introverts

N

17

18

7

5

Mean grade

4.6

4.5

4

4.2

A chi squared test was performed to see if the students’ personality type affected the grade they gave. Figure 12: chi squared test - does personality affect the placement grade? N= 47

Critical value

Degrees of freedom

Significance level

Pearson chi squared

20.62

6

0.01

With this chi squared critical value the chances of this table occurring purely by chance is only 1% and is therefore significantly significant! (Saunders 2004). It is therefore valid to expect extroverts to perceive their placement as more rewarding than introverts. And more stable individuals to grade their placement higher than less stable individuals 17. See Appendix 5. 7.3.2: By UCAS score Research of other cohorts had explored the relationship between this and undergraduate academic performance ( Stanford-Billington 2007).

17

For calculations see Appendix 10


ASET Annual Conference Figure 13: correlation between UCAS score and placement grade.

Overall placement mark

6 5 4 3

placement mark

2

Linear (placement mark)

1 0 0

100

200

300

400

UCAS score

The data was tested to find any correlation between the grade given by the student and their UCAS score. Pearson’s rank correlation was used, the co efficient of correlation was -0.088. A very weak negative correlation – the more qualified the student the more likely they were – marginally – not to have such a good experience. This figure was affected by the low score of one well qualified student, and the fact that several could not remember their entry grades to university and so had to be excluded from the analysis, and were probably the least qualified of the group. 7.3.3 Previous work experience? Several writers had suggested that previous experience of work affected a student’s perceptions of placement ( Walmsley et al 2006), so the skills gains of those that had previous experience was compared with that of those who hadn’t, using ANOVA analysis of variance, as calculated by SPSS. There were more than 30 in the sample so it is a suitable tool of analysis. Skills with a probability of less than 0.05 would show statistical significance, so prior experience did predispose the respondent to better or lower gains. However this only occurred once, for ‘’ prioritising tasks ....’’. So it would not seem to make a difference whether students had prior work experience to the other 29 skills, to their benefits in terms of skills improvement. 7.3.4 Gender As above, ANOVA analysis was done; this showed no statistically significant differences in skills gain for any of Knight and York’s Skills measures.


ASET Annual Conference The average grade given by the seven male students was 4.32, and for the forty female students: 4.43, the small number of males made further statistical analysis impractical. So all that can be observed is a very small positive difference in the grade given by the females. 7.3.5 Overseas The thirty five students who did placements in the UK gave it an average grade of 4.5 with a standard deviation of 0.54. The twelve who went overseas gave an average grade of 4.2 with a standard deviation of 0.82. 33% of overseas placements were graded ‘excellent’ compared to 46% of domestic ones. This suggests that the risk of going overseas are greater than staying at home – even the student who went to Disney World, Orlando, Florida only graded their experience at 4.5. 8: Conclusion This study demonstrates that the sampled students perceived that value had been added to them as potential employees. In the 30 skill areas measured, all perceived improvements. In a few cases these did not exceed expected gains, but overall the result exceeded expectations. ( JK Rowlings 2007) The findings are made even more interesting by the fact they do not agree with the findings of other studies by Ju (1999), Gault (2000), Callan (1997) and Lam (2007), who found that students were dissatisfied by their placement year and did not feel it had added any value to their course. On the contrary, almost all SHU and HAUC students were very pleased with their experience and considered that they had significantly gained in all the skill areas outlined by Knight and Yorke ( 2004 ) The third objective, comparing skill gains and satisfaction levels with personal characteristics, found that only intro/extroversion have a significant influence. Gender, previous experience and institution attended were not found to have a significant effect on perceived skill gains. This study shows that students at these two HEIs are achieving or exceeding their expected benefits from placement in over half of the areas considered, and although there were some areas, like job offers and contacts, that did not meet the expectations, they overwhelming graded placement as a good/excellent year. Therefore the HEIs can infer that they are succeeding in delivering more employable graduates, as required by the Department for Education and the CBI. Dearing (1997) stated that the skills that employable graduates should have are : communication, enterprise and working with others. It is apparent from the results of our study that students perceive that they have gained these particular skills from the placement year and that this has made them more employable. Therefore, these HEIs are adding value to their students through the placement year.


ASET Annual Conference Appendix 1 Higher Education Academy. Enhancing Student Employability Coordination Team Learning & Employability Series 1, Embedding employability into the curriculum By Mantz Yorke, Peter T Knight 2004 Aspects of employability, with elaborative comments. The acquisition of disciplinary understanding and skills is assumed: note that their application is listed as item 30.

A. PERSONAL QUALITIES 1 Malleable self-theory: belief that attributes [eg intelligence] are not fixed and can be developed. 2 Self-awareness: awareness of own strengths and weaknesses, aims and values. 3 Self-confidence: confidence in dealing with the challenges that employment and life throw up. 4 Independence: ability to work without supervision. 5 Emotional intelligence: sensitivity to others’ emotions and the effects that they can have. 6 Adaptability: ability to respond positively to changing circumstances and new challenges. 7 Stress tolerance: ability to retain effectiveness under pressure. 8 Initiative: ability to take action unprompted. 9 Willingness to learn: commitment to ongoing learning to meet the needs of employment and life. 10 Reflectiveness: the disposition to reflect evaluatively on the performance of oneself and others. B. CORE SKILLS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Reading effectiveness: the recognition and retention of key points. Numeracy: ability to use numbers at an appropriate level of accuracy. Information retrieval: ability to access different sources. Language skills: possession of more than a single language. Self-management: ability to work in an efficient and structured manner. Critical analysis: ability to ‘deconstruct’ a problem or situation. Creativity: ability to be original or inventive and to apply lateral thinking. Listening: focused attention in which key points are recognised. Written communication: clear reports, letters etc written specifically for the reader. Oral presentations: clear and confident presentation of information to a group Explaining: orally and in writing [see also 20, 35]. Global awareness: in terms of both cultures and economics. C. PROCESS SKILLS

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Computer literacy: ability to use a range of software. Commercial awareness: operating with an understanding of business issues and priorities. Political sensitivity: appreciates how organisations actually work and acts accordingly. Ability to work cross-culturally: both within and beyond the UK. Ethical sensitivity: appreciates ethical aspects of employment and acts accordingly. Prioritising: ability to rank tasks according to importance. Planning: setting of achievable goals and structuring action. Applying subject understanding: use of disciplinary understanding from the HE programme. Acting morally: has a moral code and acts accordingly. Coping with complexity: ability to handle ambiguous and complex situations. Problem solving: selection and use of appropriate methods to find solutions. Influencing: convincing others of the validity of one’s point of view Arguing for and/or justifying a point of view or a course of action Resolving conflict: both intra-personally and in relationships with others. Decision making: choice of the best option from a range of alternatives. Negotiating: discussion to achieve mutually satisfactory resolution of contentious issues. Team work: can work constructively with others on a common task.


ASET Annual Conference Appendix 2 Student answers to question asking for 5 benefits they felt they obtained from placement. Not all students could think of 5 so only a total of 171 responses were made. List of students benefits from placement Number of students listing this benefit, as a % of all Actual benefits responses given new skills 19%

Sheffield Harper Hallam Adams University students students 19 13

All students 32

industry understanding

9%

5

10

15

experience

8%

6

8

14


8%

7

6

13

confidence

7%

8

6

12

team work

5%

7

2

9

improved skills

5%

4

5

9

technical knowledge

5%

5

3

8

qualifications

4%

5

2

7

contacts

4%

0

6

6

responsibility

4%

4

2

6

career guidance

4%

3

3

6

living abroad

3%

0

5

5

diff cultures

3%

0

5

5

discounts

2%

0

4

4

independence

2%

0

4

4

theory into practice

2%

2

2

4

job offer

2%

2

1

3

training

1%

2

0

2

fun

1%

1

0

1

money

1%

0

1

1

work life balance

1%

0

1

1

part time job offer 4 future

1%

1

0

1

accommodation

1%

1

0

1

use own initiative

1%

0

1

1

employability

1%

0

1

1 171


ASET Annual Conference Appendix 3 Expected and Actual benefits. Numbers of responses for each benefit. Some grouping of benefits has been done by the researcher. Expected benefits from placement.


ASET Annual Conference Appendix 4 Students marked their skills before and after placement, using a 5 point scale. Here is shown, Actual value added - Expected value added, to show the perceived improvement in skills as a result of the placement year. This is shown both as a fraction of the maximum score of 5, and as a percentage.

Effect on you personally

Difference between mean skills scores before and after placement

% improvement over the year.

1.21

24.26

1.62

32.34

1.75

34.90

1.36

27.24

0.83 1.13

16.60 22.56

1.32

26.38

1.17 0.62

23.40 12.34

1.04

20.86

confidence that existing attributes can and will improve awareness of own strengths and weaknesses confidence in ability to deal with challenges in employment ability to work independently sensitivity to colleagues moods and emotions Adaptability ability to work affectively under pressure ability to take the initiative willing to learn ability to reflect and evaluate own and others performance

affect on your people skills taking key points from written materials using numbers accurately & affectively ability to work in an efficient and structured way ability to think creatively to be original or inventive listening affectively taking out key points writing clear reports, letters presenting clearly to a group explaining issues affectively orally and in writing global understanding

average of all

1.20

0.72

14.46

0.62 0.75

12.34 14.90

0.96

19.16

0.74 0.75 1.11

14.88 14.90 22.12

1.09 0.89

21.70 17.88


average % of all

24.09%

0.85

16.9


affect on your practical skills computer literacy using a range of software understanding business issues and priorities understanding politics of how organisations work prioritising tasks according to their importance in the business using specialist knowledge from my course coping with complex situations ability to solve problems influencing or persuading others resolving conflict between issues or between people decision-making - able to choose the best option from a range of alternatives working constructively in a team

Overall average increase

0.83

16.60

1.23

24.68

1.24

24.80

1.49 0.85 1.17 1.06 0.85 0.96

29.78 17.02 23.40 21.26 17.02 19.14

1.04

20.86

1.06

21.28

1.08

1.07

21.44

21.69

Appendix 5 Chi squared Observed values disatisfied stable extrovert emotional extrovert stable intovert emotional introvert

good 0 0 1 1 2

8 6 2 5 21

excellent 10 11 2 1 24

18 17 5 7 47

expected values

stable extrovert emotional extrovert stable introvert emotional introvert

disatisfied good excellent 0.77 7.60 9.19 0.72 7.60 8.68 0.11 2.23 2.55 0.30 3.13 3.57

Chi stable extrovert

dissatisfied good observed value expected value

o-e sqrd (o-e)2

0

8

10

0.77

7.6

9.19

-0.77

0.4

0.81

0.5929

0.16

0.6561

0.77

0.021053

0.0713928

1

0.00277

0.0077685

(o-e)/e th

excellent

th

University of Chester, Chester Campus, 4 – 6 September 2012

1.010539


emotional extrovert

observed value expected value

o-e (o-e)2 /e

stable introvert


o-e (o-e)2 (o-e)2/e

emotional introvert


o-e (o-e)2/e

0

6

11

0.72

7.6

8.68

-0.72

-1.6

2.32

0.5184

2.56

5.3824

0.72

0.336842

0.6200922

1

2

2

0.11

2.23

2.55

0.89

-0.23

-0.55

0.7921

0.0529

0.3025

7.200909

0.023722

0.1186275

1

5

1

0.3

3.13

3.57

0.7

1.87

-2.57

0.49

3.4969

6.6049

1.676934

7.343259

10.5918

chi sqrd

20.62

Bibliography 1. Atkins, M J (1999) Oven ready and self – basting: taking stock of employability skills. Teaching in Higher Education , 4(2) 2. Ai-Hwa Quek ( xxxx) Learning for the workplace: a case study in graduate employees’ generic competencies, Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 3. Barnett, R. (1990) The idea of Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE / OUP 4. Barron, P and Maxwell, G. (1993) Hospitality Management Students’ image of the Hospitality Industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5 (5), v- iii. 5. Beaven, Z & Wright, R. (2006) Experience! Experience! Experience! Employer attitudes to arts & event management Graduate employability. International Journal of Events management Research. Vol 2, No 1. www.ijemr.org 6. Beggs,B.A., Ross, C.M., and Knapp, J.S (2006) Internships in leisure services: An analysis of student and practitioner perceptions and expectations. Schole, 21, 1-20 7. Beggs, Ross and Goodwin (2008) A Comparison of Student and Practitioner Perspectives of the Travel and Tourism Internship a. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 5(2), 4-13


ASET Annual Conference 8. Bibbings, L. (2001) LTSN Liaison Officer for Tourism. Tourism Degrees and Employability – Creative Tension in Curricula. Link 1 . Learning and Teaching Support Network 9.

Bowes, L and Harvey, L (1999) “The Impact of Sandwich Education on the activities of graduates 6 months post graduation”. The Centre for Research into Quality, The University of Central Birmingham

10. Busby. G 1994, Tourism Education or Tourism Training for the 1990s? Journal for Higher Education 18 (2) 11. Busby, G. (2003) Tourism internships: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational education and training, 55(3), 319-334 12. Busby, G Brunt, P Barber S: Tourism sandwich placement, an appraisal – Tourism Management – March 1997 issue 2 pp 105-124 (review of the literature on sandwich tourism management courses, small scale survey, benefits of sandwich to students & employers) 13. Callan, R, J. (1997) Supervised work experience in Europe: a profile of UK Undergraduate Perceptions. International journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 9 (1) : 35-39 14. Carter. A D, (1993) Developing and maintaining placements in small business environments. Paper presented at Enterprise in Higher Education Conference 1993 University of Plymouth 15. Casado, M. A. (1992) Student expectations of Hospitality jobs. Cornell HRA Quarterly, 33 (4), 80 – 82. 16. Confederation of British Industry (2009) Future fit: preparing graduates for the world of work. Beacon Press. http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/news/fullstory.php?id=242 accessed 3.3.10 17. Connolly, P & McGing,G : Graduate education and hospitality management in Ireland – International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management – 2006 Vol 18 issue 1 pp 50-5 18. Clarke Charles , January 2003, The future of higher education. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 19. Cooper, C. & Westlake, J. (1989) Tourism teaching in the 1990s, Journal of Tourism Management, March 1989. 20. Coco, M (2000) Internships: A try before you buy arrangement. Advanced Management Journal 65(2): 41-46 21. Dacre Pool, L. and Sewell, P. (2007) The key to employability: developing a practical model of graduate employability. Centre for Employability, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK Education þ Training . Vol. 49 No. 4, 2007 pp. 277-289, Emerald Group Publishing Limited 22. Dale M (2008) Do placements improve undergraduate employability? Paper delivered at ASET Conference 2008. De Montfort University


ASET Annual Conference 23. Damoglou, T., Bennett, M. (1994), "Integrating industrial placements and personal development", in Sneddon, I., Kremer, J. (Eds),An Enterprising Curriculum – Teaching Innovations in Higher Education, HMSO, Belfast, 24. Dearing Report, July 1997, “Higher Education in the learning society” 25. Denscombe, M. ( 2004 ) The good research Guide, for small scale social research projects. Open University Press. 26. Department for Education and Skills, 2002, Extending opportunities, raising standards, London 27. Dickinson, M . 2000 "Giving undergraduates managerial experience", Education + Training, Vol. 42 Iss: 3, pp.159 - 170 28. Dolton, P J & Vignoles, A .(1997) The incidence and effects of over education in the UK labour market, Economics of Education Review. 29. Doyle K: Making work placement work – Leisure & Hospitality Business – 18/10/2001 p.16 30. Eysenck H.J.and.Wilson G (1975) Know your own personality, Maurice Temple Smith, London. 31. Frean. A (2008) Upper second loses a degree of kudos as bosses settle for 2:2s. The times 8.7.08,. News International 32. Gault, J, Redington. J, Schlager, T. (2000) Undergraduate business internships and career success: are they related? Journal of Marketing education 22: 45-53 33. Gianna M & Pierce P: The rhetoric and reality of structured tourism work experience: a social representational analysis – Tourism Recreation Research -2007 Vol 32 issue 2 pp 2128 34. Glaser, B Strauss, A. ( 1967) The discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine 35. Griffiths.H & Randall.M ( undated ) Careers in Leisure – Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management, ILAM House, Lower Basildon, Reading, Berkshire. 36. Higher Education Funding Council for England (updated 2009) HEFCE strategic plan 200611. 37. Hjalager.AM (2003) Global Tourism careers? Opportunities and Dilemmas facing higher education in tourism. Journal of Hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism. 38. ILO (2003 ) employment and human resources in the tourist industry in Asia and the pacific Briefing paper for an Tripartite Regional Meeting to be held in 2003 39. Jafari, J. (1997) Tourismification of the profession: Chameleon job names across the industry. Progress in tourism and hospitality Research 3, 175-181 40. Ju, J. Emenheiser, D.A.Clayton, H.R and Reynolds, J.S (1998/1999). Korean students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their internship experiences in the hospitality industry


ASET Annual Conference in Korea. Asia Pacific journal of Tourism Research 3(1): 35-43 Kapoor, T. (2000) Internships inspire careers in lodging. AAHOA Hospitality, 5(6), 71-73. 41. Keep, E & Mayhew, K. (1996) Economic demand for higher education – a sound foundation for further expansion? Higher Education Quarterly, 50(2), pp 89-109. 42. Kinnear, T.C. and Taylor, J.R. 1996. Marketing research: an applied approach. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. 43. Knouse, S. B, Tanner, j.r. AND Harris, E.W. (1999). The relation of college Internships, College Performance and Subsequent Job Opportunity. Journal of Employment Counselling 36(1): 35-43 44. Lam , T. And Ching, L. ( 2007) An exploratory study of an internship program: the case of Hong Kong students. International journal of Hospitality Management 26 ( 2) : 336-351 45. Lambert (2003) Review of Business-University Collaboration, HMSO, St Clements House, 2–16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. www.lambertreview.org.uk 46. Professor Lammy. D, Lambert. R, Trainor,R , 2009, Future fit Preparing graduates for the world of work, CBI & UUK ,dept 4 innovation universities and skills, Universities UK. 47. Lee D, Cha S, Kim J , 2004, Why students select certain programs and competencies in the curriculum. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol 3, Issue 1, pgs 33 – 45. 48. Leslie D:1991. The Hospitality Industry, industrial placement and Personnel Management – Service Industries Journal – vol 11 issue 1 pp 63-74 (Little B, 2007 :'Squaring the Circle?', ASET Conference Proceedings 2007 49. Maher A.( 2004) . Oven ready and self basting? Taking stock of employability skills. Link11, Higher Education Network for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism. 50. McMahon U & Quinn U: Maximising the hospitality management student work placement experience – a case study – Education & Training 1995 vol 37 issue 4 p 13 51. Morris, Estelle 2002 14Ð19: extending opportunities, raising standards, consultation document. 52. Moscardo G and Pearce P, 2007, The Rhetoric and Reality of structured tourism work experiences: a social representational analysis, Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 32(2), pg 21_28 53. Mullen, R, 2005, Back to the future. Caterer & Hotelkeeper, Vol. 195, Issue 4384 Database: Hospitality & Tourism Index 54. National Students forum (2009) Annual report 2009. 55. Nield. K, 2006. Enhancing hospitality graduate employability. The Hospitality Review 52


ASET Annual Conference 56. Polixeni, Milonopoulos and Anastasiou 2004, Producing Graduates for the tourism industry in Greece: A case study. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education. Vol 3 No 2 57. Powell-Williams, K. Pierce, D. (1998-2000) Working with Higher Education and Oliver Fry, NCWE (1998-1999) The placement tutor’s handbook. A guide to higher education institutions on arranging placements and a compendium of current best practice in the uk. This work was originally produced under contract with the DfEE. The National Council for Work Experience Manchester 58. Purcell, K and Quinn, J. (1995). Hospitality Management Education and Employment Trajectories. Oxford School of Hotel and Catering Management 59. Rae, D (2007) Connecting enterprise and graduate employability. Challenges to the higher education culture and curriculum? Education + Training. Vol 49 No 8/9.pp 605-619 Lincoln Business School, University of Lincoln. 60. Robbins, Lord (1963) Higher Education Report of the Committee, London HMSO Cmnd 2154 61. Robinson, E, (1968) The New Polytechnics, Penguin 62. Rodriguez, C M & Gregory, S 2005 Qualitative study of transfer of training of student employees in a service industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 2005; 29; 42 63. Rothwell, A. Herbert. I. Rothwell, F,( 2008) Self perceived employability: construction and initial validation of a scale for university students. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Elsevier. 64. Sanders, C and Stothart ,C. (2006). Leitch: tie learning to work, Times Higher Education 65. Saunders, M, Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2003) Research methods for Business Students. Prentice Hall. Pearson Educational Limited. 66. Sausman, C & Steel, J. (1997) The contribution of Graduates to the economy: report No 7 of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education ( London ,HMSO) 67. Solnet D & Robinson R & Cooper C: An industry partnership approach to Tourism education – Journal of hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism – May 2007 Vol 6 issue 1 pp6670 (for a new strategic approach to industry engagement) 68. Stuart-Hoyle, M. 2003 The purpose of undergraduate tourism programmes in the United Kingdom. Journal of hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism, vol 2, No 1. 69. Prof Trainor, R, (2008) Stepping Higher: Workforce development through employer-higher education partnership. CBI. Universities UK HEFCE 70. Tribe. J. 2003. Editorial: The Future of Higher Education in Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism, Chair of the Editorial Board Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education


ASET Annual Conference 71. Wallace R ( 2002) A sandwich year can seriously damage your chances of obtaining a poor degree. Paper presented at ASET European Conference Cambridge UK – Integrating work and learning in Europe. 72. Walmsley. A, Thomas,R. Jameson,S. (2006) "Surprise and sense making: undergraduate placement experiences in SMEs", Education + Training, Vol. 48 Iss: 5, pp.360 - 372 73. Waryszak R Z: 2000 Before, during and after – Journal of Cooperative Education –, Vol 35 issue 2/3 pp84-95. (data from students in 3 universities about their placement) 74. Wickens, Forbes and Tribe (2006) Listening, Understanding and Responding to Leisure and Tourism Undergraduates. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 5(2), 4-13 75. Wilson, R A. (1995) Prospects in the labour market for the highly qualified (Coventry, University of Warwick Institute for Employment Research). 76. Yin. R.K.(2002) Case Study Research design and methods. Third ed. Applied social research methods vol 5 . Sage publications.

77. Yorke,M and Knight, P (2004) Embedding employability into the curriculum. Learning and employability series. LTSN Generic Centre. 78. Yorke, M., & Knight, P. (2004). Embedding Employability into the Curriculum. York LTSN 79. Zopiatis A. (2007) Hospitality internships in Cyprus: a genuine academic experience or a continuing frustration? Intercollege, Nicosia, Cyprus International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 65-77 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Presentation

Research Paper Are student expectations of “Adding Value” to their employability being met by choosing a course with a placement year?

Context of Research Governments and the CBI have tasked HEIs to Add Value to graduates by improving their employability. Work placements have been encouraged as a means of doing this. Students embark on placement years expecting to become more employable (Atkins, Maher, Moores & Reddy - 2011) This paper examines whether student expectations of their placement year are being satisfied.



Research Question. . . Do students think placements will add value to their employability? Are students satisfied with their experiences of placement? Do students perceive that their placements “Added Value”? Did work placements meet student expectations?

1. ‘’Oven ready and self basting’’ - M. Atkins 1999

2.

3. The Impact of Sandwich Education on the Activities

of Graduates, Six Months Post- Graduation

Value added by placement– previous findings . . . . • This study focussed on Tourism and Countryside Management students doing a thick sandwich degree course at two English HEIs. • Students – Rodriguez. . . Students are Theory Y • The existing research of student satisfaction is divided .... • Influential variables were revealed. . . . .

HEI intended Student Benefits from placement. • Apply the theory gained through their studies in a commercial or professional environment . • Acquire knowledge and experience to underpin studies in the later stages of the course . • Acquire practical, interpersonal and business skills needed in the workplace . • Develop an appreciation of management skills. • Provide experience on which to base future career plans.

Research Sample. Piloted . Focus group. Questions... Why did you chose a sandwich degree? What benefits did you expect? What benefits did you actually experience ? How satisfied were you with your placement experience? What skills did you acquire?

Methodology Steps to ensure accuracy and consistency. Avoid bias. Perception vs remembered expectations. Multi method and triangulation. Limitations.



Reasons for choosing a sandwich degree. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Travel Experience Skills Put studies into practice Employability Make contacts Enjoyment Enhancing CV

responsibility reference for future independence fun dissertation break from studying training putting theory into practice discounts benefit for final year study increased employability earn money gain qualifications work abroad meet new people job on graduation career development contacts confidence gain experience skills industrial knowledge

Expected benefits from placement

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7%

15% 16% 16% 0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

EXPECTED BENEFITS FROM PLACEMENT

employability use own initiative accomodation part time job… work life balance money fun training job offer theory into practice independence discounts diff cultures living abroad career guidance responsibility contacts qualifications technical… improved skills team work confidence met new people… experience industry… new skills

1%

Actual benefits experienced

1% 1% 1%

Students were asked to list 5 benefits they had actually experienced from their placement.

1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%

‘confirmed career aspirations’, HA 22

2% 3%

‘I learned that the hospitality industry is not the industry for me’ SHU 4

3% 4% 4% 4% 4%

5% 5% 5% 7% 8% 8% 9% 19%

Analysis of benefits…. Fun? Money? Employability? Expected: Experience Skills Knowledge Unexpected: Meeting people Confidence

Value Added through gaining skills. Employability skills.... What are they? Mantz Yorke and Peter T Knight: 2004, developed a list of 39 skills grouped into 3: Personal, Core and Process. Commonly recognised as a comprehensive definition of employability, and referenced in the review of literature in many previous reviews of employability. Maher 2004, Nield 2006. Students recorded their perceived skills level before and after placement using a numerical scale. 1 = poor . . . 5 = excellent the difference for each skill was averaged across the 47 students, and the values were analysed.



The most improved and least improved skills ... Highest skills gains confidence in ability to deal with challenges in employment awareness of own strengths and weaknesses prioritising tasks according to their importance in the business ability to work independently ability to work affectively under pressure

Mean difference

As a %

34.90

ability to work in an efficient and structured way

0.75

14.90

32.34

writing clear reports, letters

0.75

14.90

29.78

listening affectively taking out key points

0.74

14.88

27.24

taking key points from written materials

0.72

14.46

Overall placement score

0.62

12.34

Frequency 1

1

25

20

%

2.1

53.2

42.6

As a %

1.75 1.62 1.49 1.36 1.32

26.38

willing to learn using numbers accurately & affectively

0.62

12.34

• SHU student 2 was the only one to be dissatisfied......................., and she was the only student to record a fall in confidence after placement. SHU student 2 worked in a Chinese hotel, and experienced significant cultural challenges. She had felt discriminated against and unsupported by the staff who were too busy and inexperienced with placement students to help her adapt and integrate.

• HA student 44 recorded a grade of 3, but he was involved in a serious work related accident. He did, however, record large skills improvements in the personal and practical sections, so did feel his year of placement added value to his employability. In the question on problems, 44 wrote: A massive staff change around half way through the placement caused huge changes, not for the better, and many staff left .........Rolled dumper – breaking bones etc. Took 6 months to get back to work.

Personality type • Using a simplified personality profiling test, based on Eysenk’s test, students were categorised into 4 types: • Average placement grade, by personality type: Emotional

Stable

Emotional

Stable

extroverts

extroverts

introverts

introverts

17

18

7

5

Mean grade 4.6

4.5

4

4.2

No.

Overall satisfaction

Lowest skills gains

Mean difference between before and after

• Students were asked to rate their placement in terms of achieving expected “Value Added”. • Ratings were scored from 0 – 5, where 0 was awful and 5 was excellent. The results are shown below. The score was an amalgam of 6 measures: socially at work, enjoyment of the job, new skills learned, observed theory in practice, team work and career guidance. 2

3

4

Disappointing Satisfactory Good

2.1

5 Excellent

Influential variables • The literature review had exposed several potentially relevant variables to explain why there were differences in student perceptions: – Personality type – UCAS score – Previous work experience – Gender – Overseas or UK placement – Living at home

Does personality type influence the placement experience? • YES! • Chi squared tests showed that the chances of this result occurring purely by chance was only 1% and is therefore a result of personality type! (Saunders 2004). It is therefore valid to expect extroverts to perceive their placement as more rewarding than introverts. And more stable individuals to grade their placement higher than less stable individuals. • But .. Small sample.



UCAS score

Previous work experience? Using Anova tests, students with previous work experience were compared with the total cohort for variations in skills gains in the 39 skills. But, what exactly is ‘previous work experience’?

• Using Pearsons rank correlation a weak negative correlation was measured.

Does gender make a difference? Using Anova tests, variations in skills gains in the 39 skills were compared between male and female students ... And placement scores were compared. Mean Male score was 4.32 Mean female score was 4.43

Overseas or UK placement China, USA, New Zealand. 22 students had overseas placements, gave an average score of 4.2 with a standard deviation of 0.54 35 students had UK based placements and gave their placements an average score of 4.5 with a standard deviation of 0.82



Conclusions. In terms of perceived value added from placement, this cohort were very satisfied. Their skills gains were universally positive. Expectations were met or exceeded. This disagrees with previous studies of Tourism placements students. Contented students perform better in their placement, and were more valued by their employer.
