Research, analysis and writing - gouv€¦ · Research, analysis and writing Julie-Madeleine Roy ... The guidance-oriented approach to learning pro-motes a career development process

Research, analysis and writingJulie-Madeleine RoyService de la rechercheDirection de la recherche, des statistiques et des indicateurs

Marik Danvoye (2005-2006)Jolicœur et associés

Statistics consultant Ève-Marie Castonguay (2004-2005)Consultant

Technical supportLucie GagnonService des études économiques et démographiquesDirection de la recherche, des statistiques et des indicateurs

Simon GagnonService de la rechercheDirection de la recherche, des statistiques et des indicateurs

Francine CoutureService de la rechercheDirection de la recherche, des statistiques et des indicateurs

English versionDirection de la production en langue anglaiseSecteur des services à la communauté anglophoneMinistère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport

Graphic designCaron & Gosselin communication graphique

© Gouvernement du QuébecMinistère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, 2007 – 07-00051ISBN 978-2-550-49532-1 (PDF)Legal deposit – Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2007

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

1. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2.1 Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2.2 School Staff and parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

2.3 Data Collection Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3.1 Intervention Context, Relevance of the Program and Conditions for Implementation .13

3.1.1 Intervention Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3.1.2 Relevance of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

3.1.3 Conditions for Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

3.2 How the Students Perceived the POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

3.2.1 Favourable and Unfavourable Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

3.2.2 What the Students Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3.2.3 Students’ Opinion of the Relevance of the POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

3.3 The Effects of the POP: An Initial Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

3.3.1 Educators' View of the Effects of the POP and Students’ Needs . . . . . . . . . . . .23

3.3.2 Questionnaire Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

3.4 The Parents’ Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

4.1 Favourable and Unfavourable Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

4.2 Perceived Effects and Contribution of the Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

5. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

THE PERSONAL ORIENTATION PROJECT

FINDINGS DERIVED FROM FIELD-TESTING INVOLVING SECONDARY III STUDENTS

5



This document deals with two research studies carried out by the Service de la recherche of theMinistère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport(MELS) on the field-testing1 of the PersonalOrientation Project (POP).The POP was field-testedin a school board in the Chaudière-Appalachesregion in 2004-2005 and in four school boards in2005-2006, namely one from the Chaudière-Appalaches, Montréal, Estrie and Gaspésie regionsrespectively.

This document is primarily intended for MELSand school system staff who may be interested inthe findings of the field-tests. It outlines theinformation derived from the data provided byschool staff (teachers, school administrators,career counsellors) and Secondary III studentsand their parents on several occasions, with aview to identifying the main trends that emergedfrom the research studies.

The results of the 2004-2005 study should be con-sidered preliminary. It should be noted that whilethe 2005-2006 study is independent of the firstone, it uses similar methodology. The sample usedfor the 2005-2006 study consisted of students from

four Québec school boards from the regions men-tioned above; it was larger and also included control groups. The results of this more extensivestudy provided a broader view of POP implementa-tion and some of its effects.

This report begins with a brief presentation of thecontext of the research project and its objectives.The research methodology, the main findings of the2005-2006 study, and the trends that emergedfrom the 2004-2005 study are then presented. Itends with a discussion of the overall results and ofthe limitations of the study, followed by a generalconclusion.

1. The official implementation of the POP will occur in autumn 2007.Program trials took place between September 2003 and June 2006.

INTRODUCTION

6



GENERAL CONTEXT

In the wake of studies carried out on educationreform and in continuity with those on the guidance-oriented approach to learning, emphasishas been placed on the importance of academicand career information in enabling students toproperly prepare for the increasingly numerous andcomplex challenges encountered in today’s society.Once they enter the labour market, these youngpeople will face situations that require them to bedisciplined, creative and resourceful. The educationreform reaffirms the role of the student as the mainarchitect of his or her own learning. With propersupport from various educators, students buildtheir understanding of the world and learn todefine themselves as unique persons, in terms oftheir needs, potential and aspirations.

The guidance-oriented approach to learning pro-motes a career development process that fits intoa continuum. Starting at the end of elementaryschool, students are gradually encouraged toidentify their fields of interests, abilities and apti-tudes, and to discover the academic and workingworlds. In its 2003-2004 annual report on the state and needs of education, the Conseil

supérieur de l’éducation pointed out that thecareer development process begins well beforestudents embark on a specific educational pathleading to a specific career.2 The report also men-tions that the Québec education system mustoffer students the opportunity to make choices,test their abilities and validate these choices.

SPECIFIC CONTEXT

The Personal Orientation Project (POP) is an individual learning approach within the careerdevelopment process undertaken by the student inthe context of the secondary-level QuébecEducation Program and the guidance-orientedapproach to learning. As part of this structuredprocess that emphasizes concrete exploration andwhose objective is to facilitate the exploration ofcareer options, students take a proactive approachto developing their identity and learn to build theirown academic and career plan. The POP allowsstudents to develop and integrate their competen-cies through concrete situations and practicalactivities. The educational approach associatedwith the POP is a socioconstructivist one that isstructured, yet flexible enough to accommodatethe needs of individual students.3 As indicated inthe description of the program, the POP marks animportant stage halfway through secondaryschool, and is part of a career-development processthat was introduced with the implementation ofthe guidance-oriented approach.

2. Conseil supérieur de l’éducation, Rapport annuel 2003-2004 : L’éducation à la vie professionnelle : valoriser toutes les avenues, 2005.3. Québec. Ministère de l’Éducation, Québec Education Program, Secondary Cycle One. Ministère de l’Éducation, Gouvernement du Québec, 2004.

1. CONTEXT

7

This program is therefore part of the new Basicschool regulation for preschool, elementary andsecondary education, and reflects the new frame-work for student services.4 Starting in fall 2007, theyear in which the education reform is to be imple-mented in Secondary III, the POP will be includedin the subject-time allocation table as an optionalcourse for students in the general education pathand as a compulsory course for students in theapplied general education path. A program designcommittee led by the Ministère de l’Éducation, duLoisir et du Sport (MELS) was in charge of validat-ing the orientations of the POP.This committee wascomposed of representatives of schools and schoolboards and experts from the world of academia.

The committee’s work made it possible to iden-tify the two competencies targeted by the POP,namely, Carries out a process of career explo-ration and Contemplates his or her learning andwork possibilities.

In 2003-2004, the MELS carried out a pilot projectto field-test the POP. The field-testing was doneover a period of ten hours with a group of 28Secondary III students in a comprehensive highschool in the Chaudière-Appalaches region. Thepurpose of the field-testing was to determine the project's feasibility. A questionnaire on students’ career aspirations and plans5 was used to gatherthe data.

In 2004-2005, a research study was conducted toevaluate field-testing of the POP; this time,a larger number of students were involved. Theobjective of this study was to identify aspectsthat needed adjusting, with a view to improvingthe POP and meeting students' needs as effec-tively as possible. The MELS wanted to identifythe conditions essential to the implementation ofthe POP in order to identify its strengths andweaknesses so as to improve the written qualityof the actual program.

In 2005-2006, a new study was carried out involving students from four different francophoneschools in four different regions. The purpose ofthis study was also to evaluate field-testing of thePOP and it provided a broader and more completepicture of the conditions that are conducive to POPimplementation.The use of control groups added acomparative aspect in terms of career guidanceand vocational identity.

The objectives of the two studies were:

1. Achievement of the first objective made it possi-ble to document the types of action taken byteachers, career counsellors and school board participants with respect to the POP, as well asthe context in which this action was taken during the field-tests.



4. Québec. Ministère de l’Éducation, Complementary Educational Services:Essential to Success. Ministère de l’Éducation, Direction de l’adaptationscolaire et des services complémentaires, 2002.

5. Chantale Beaucher. Questionnaire sur les aspirations professionnelles etles projets professionnels, Université du Québec à Montréal, 2004.

8



2. To assess certain effects of POP field-testing onstudents and the respective contribution of eachinvolved partner (teachers, career counsellors,school board participants6, school administra-tors, parents).

In brief, the POP:

• is a personal career development process thatis adapted to the needs of each student

• is a structured classroom approach thatallows for the exploration of different careerpaths

• focuses on hands-on learning and real-worldwork experience

• marks an important stage within the careerdevelopment process undertaken by the stu-dent in the context of the secondary-levelQuébec Education Program and the guidance-oriented approach to learning

6. Personnel designated by their respective school boards to coordinate the POP field-testing in their school

9

A mixed methodology was used to gather informa-tion from the participants in the research studies.The qualitative data was collected in 2004-2005 bymeans of semi-directed interviews and journals,while the quantitative data was gathered bymeans of two standardized questionnaires thatwere administered to the students.A questionnairewas also administered to the parents of the stu-dents taking part in the research study. A similarmethodology was used in 2005-2006 with agreater number of participants from four differentQuébec school boards. In addition, control groupswere used, composed of students who were notinvolved in the POP field-testing process, but fromthe four participating school boards.

Here is a brief presentation of the students andthe professionals who took part in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 research studies, as well asa description of the tools that were used.

2.1 STUDENTS

In 2004-2005, all of the students participating inthe field-test attended a secondary school in theChaudière-Appalaches region and were enrolledin Secondary III. The students who took part in

the study were enrolled in regular classes (fourclasses) or in other types of classes7 (two classes).Given that this was a field-testing project, the sixclasses did not all receive the same number ofhours of POP instruction. Lastly, boys accountedfor the majority of the participants, representing61% of the sample population.

In 2005-2006, four secondary schools in four dif-ferent French school boards took part in the POPfield-testing project. All of the students received100 hours of POP instruction and were enrolled inSecondary III. Note that in 2004-2005, both educa-tors and students commented on the positiveimpact of offering 100 hours of POP instruction,since it gave students enough time to embarkupon a career development process and made itpossible to ensure follow-up of the activities. Thecollected data show that the students whoreceived less than 100 hours of POP instructionsaid they did not have enough time to completequality projects and noted that there was a lack offollow-up between courses even though thesewere sometimes several days apart.

Depending on the setting, the classes fell into oneof two categories: regular classes (12 classes) andother types of classes (four classes). Most of the students in the control groups were enrolled in regular education. Boys accounted for 44% andgirls for 56% of the student sample involved infield-testing the POP.

2. METHODOLOGY



7. These include classes of students with slight academic delays and those inthe technology stream.

10



2.2 SCHOOL STAFF AND PARENTS

In 2005-2006, 12 teachers participated in the POPfield-testing project and in the research study. Thecareer counsellors in each of the schools concernedalso participated in the project, as did schooladministrators (Secondary III principals and vice-principals). Lastly, the school board participantsinvolved in implementing the POP were also partof the staff targeted by the study. More than 25staff members from the participating schools andschool boards took part in the study.

The parents of the students involved in the POPfield-testing project were also invited to fill out a questionnaire at the end of the schoolyear. In 2004-2005, nine staff members from theschool board chosen to field-test the POP tookpart in the study, as well as the parents of theparticipating students. The following table pro-vides a more detailed picture of the settings ofthe participants in 2005-2006.

Type of setting

Size of school

Types ofclasses

School 1

Semirural

± 1 800 students

9

7 (146 students)

5 regular classes (optional POP)

2 other typesof classes

(compulsory POP)

3 (52 students)

School 2

Rural

± 90 students

4

1 (10 students)

1 regular class(compulsory POP)

1 (17 students)

School 3

Rural

± 700 students

6

4 (72 students)

2 regular classes (optional POP)

2 other typesof classes

(compulsory POP)

1 (21 students)

School 4

Urban

± 1 400 students

8

4 (74 students)

4 regular classes(compulsory POP)

2 (24 students)

Number of staffinvolved

Number ofclasses

Number ofcontrol groups

Table 1: Description of Settings (2005-2006)

11

2.3 DATA-COLLECTION TOOLS

To meet the objectives of the study, differenttypes of data were collected in 2004-2005 and in2005-2006.

Two standardized questionnaires were adminis-tered to the students on two occasions duringthe year. The first8 measures the following dimen-sions: meaning and importance of work andcareer readiness. The latter dimension includescareer planning attitudes (steps taken, factorsconsidered, preferred occupation and job search)and career exploration activities (persons andsources consulted and activities carried out). Thesecond9 consists of 18 true-or-false statementson the topic of vocational identity. The MELSobtained permission to use these tools.10

The students were interviewed in groups on twooccasions. From six to eight students per groupwere selected randomly to participate in thisdata-collection process. The questions coveredthree main themes: the intervention context, therelevance of the POP and the effects of the POP.

On two occasions, individual interviews were con-ducted with the teachers, career counsellors, schooladministrators and school board participantsinvolved in implementing the POP. The purpose of

these interviews was to determine the contribution of these partners to the POP field-testing project and to obtain their comments onthree topics: the intervention context, the rele-vance of the POP and the effects of the POP.

The teachers and career counsellors also kept ajournal, in which they recorded information on anumber of POP class periods. In addition to pro-viding a general assessment of the POP, thisinformation concerned planning, the nature ofthe activities conducted and the context of eachperiod.

A questionnaire was mailed out to the parents ofthe students taking part in the POP researchstudy. It consisted of two parts, one dealing withthe parents’ opinion of the POP as such and theother requiring them to provide details on theirinvolvement in their children’s career develop-ment process. In all, 99 parents (or 58% of allparticipants) completed this questionnaire in2004-2005 and 166 parents (50% of all partici-pants) returned the duly completed question-naire in 2005-2006. In this type of study, a rate of participation greater than 40% is considered satisfactory.



8. M. Gingras and P. Dupont. Questionnaire sur l’éducation à la carrière,Sherbrooke, Centre de recherche sur l’éducation au travail, Université deSherbrooke, 1991.

9. J.-G. Ouellette. Échelle d’identité professionnelle, Université deMoncton, New Brunswick, 1984. Adapted translation of VocationalIdentity Scale, by J. L. Holland, D. C. Daiger and P. G. Power, California,Consulting Psychologists Press, 1980.

10. Although the teachers evaluated their students throughout the POPfield-testing process, the students’ academic results were not analyzed for the purposes of this study.

13

Below is an overview of the findings of and maintrends emerging from the studies carried out onthe POP field-testing project.

These are the main findings of the analysis ofdata collected from the different classes of par-ticipants involved. These results are not defini-tive: it will be possible to measure the trueimpact of the POP in greater detail only in theyears following its official implementation. Thestudies will nonetheless have made it possible toshed light on the conditions that are conduciveto implementation of the POP in a field-testingand assimilation context.

3.1 INTERVENTION CONTEXT,RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAM ANDCONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

3.1.1 INTERVENTION CONTEXT

The following findings highlight the factors that,according to the school staff interviewed, charac-terized the implementation of the POP

Resources

Below is an overview of educators’ comments onthe various material resources used in the POPfield-testing project.

Experiential toolsExperiential tools are a key feature of the POP.These resources allow students to perform con-crete, practical classroom simulations of thetasks related to a given trade or occupation. Eachtool is related to a field of interest (e.g. trades andoccupations in the health sector). In 2005-2006,roughly 15 of these tool kits (experiential tools)were available on the Répertoire PPO11 Web siteand most of them came with a box of materials.

The use of experiential tools remains an importantaspect of the field-testing process, to the extentthat students are encouraged to discover a trade oroccupation through actual practice, notably byhandling materials.A few teachers have suggestedthat schools be given a certain amount of latitudein acquiring the tool kits. While school staff did notquestion the usefulness of these experiential tools,they did point out ways in which they could beused more effectively.



3. RESULTS

11. Is the French version of POP Index that was used by experimentalschools. The POP Index did not exist for part of the time that some ofthe field-testing took place. The 15 tool kits were those developed forfield testing in the French sector.

14



Espace PPO This interactive discussion site (forum), visitedmainly by school board participants, was not usedvery much by the teachers, mainly because of timeconstraints and concerns about the informationposted. Given the experimental nature of the POP,some educators confirmed the need to have accessto discussion tools such as Espace PPO so that par-ticipating schools could share their experiences.They also mentioned that Espace PPO will beincreasingly used when all the school boardsimplement the POP program.

Répertoire PPO Aside from the Repères site, which was frequentlyvisited all year long, the Répertoire PPO was oneof the most frequently used POP resources in fall2005 and winter 2006. The members of the schoolstaff who were interviewed, as well as the stu-dents, would like to see a greater variety of tradesand occupations featured in the index. Some ofthem also mentioned the importance of checkingthe references on a routine basis. Lastly, severalteachers suggested that the Répertoire PPOinclude a section devoted to possible job sha-dowing experiences.

Students’ journalsThe electronic or paper journals described in fall2005 were used by all the POP students and con-sidered useful by the teachers since they made it possible to track the students’ career development

process. Although some students found it tediousto record information each period, others said theyappreciated being able to review completed activi-ties. During 2005-2006, some school boardschanged the way information on the POP periodswas indexed, while others simply abandoned thisexercise altogether.

Roles of the Participants

Each educator involved in field-testing the POPprovided a description of his or her role in theprocess both in 2004-2005 and in 2005-2006.Thedescriptions are given below.

School administratorsThe school principals interviewed were mainlyresponsible for organizing resources: integratingthe POP into the subject-time allocation and thestudents’ timetables; choosing the teachers whowould be involved in field-testing the POP; over-seeing budget planning (purchasing materials);and freeing POP teachers from their regularduties so that they could prepare their coursesand attend training sessions.

School board participantsThe school board participants were mainlyresponsible for supporting teachers with respectto pedagogical approach and course planning.

15

Practically speaking, the role of the school boardparticipants was to meet with the teachers atleast once every cycle at the beginning of theschool year to help them draw up their courseoutlines, integrate the instructional approachspecific to the education reform and the POP pro-gram (assimilation of the two competencies inthe program), and develop evaluation tools. Therole of the school board participants over thecourse of the year, then, was to respond to theneeds of the teaching staff.

TeachersThe teachers had the most contact with the stu-dents while the POP was being field-tested. Incontrast to the traditional instructional approach,the teachers said that the POP allowed them toplay the role of guide, facilitator and coach inhelping the students develop the two competen-cies of the program. Most of the teachers inter-viewed felt that the main difference between thetraditional instructional approach and that of thePOP was that the latter encouraged students tobe more autonomous in their career develop-ment, exploration and reflection process, notablywith respect to finding information.

As a result of their initial experience with the POP,the teachers, who were again interviewed in winter 2006, seemed to have better integratedthe role of guide and coach required by the

POP instructional approach.A number of them alsoreported playing the role of intermediary for theirstudents between the world of education and theworld of work. However, some of the teachers saidthey had noted the importance of also providingmore structure for students whose motivationflagged at times and who needed help renewingtheir interest in the career development process.

Career counsellorsThe career counsellors felt that their main rolewas to support the teachers, especially withrespect to academic and occupational informa-tion, and some of them even helped with courseplanning. This support was less frequent in win-ter 2006, as the teachers expressed fewer needsin this regard. They also said that they had theopportunity to meet with the POP students on anindividual basis, if the students so wished. In thisregard, they indicated that their approach withtheir students had changed somewhat: ratherthan give them the information directly, theirinvolvement was now more geared to providingstudents with the tools they needed to workindependently in finding answers to their ownquestions.

Pedagogical Approach and Evaluation

The educators interviewed provided details onhow they guided students during the POP field-testing process.



16



In 2005-2006, it was possible to identify twoways in which teachers began the year: someused a computer-based resource explorationapproach that from the outset emphasized aknowledge of tools, while others used an explo-ration approach that from the outset emphasizedthe importance of self-knowledge. However,these two approaches are not mutually exclusive;they are simply a way of distinguishing betweenthe ways in which students undertook the POPprocess in 2005-2006. In fact, the majority of stu-dents carried out activities aimed at increasingself-knowledge and became familiar with com-puter-based tools at the beginning of the year.

By assisting students in their career developmentprocess as needed, the teachers interviewedseemed to have taken on the role of guide andcoach, which went hand in hand with the POPapproach. They nonetheless mentioned that theysometimes found it difficult to answer all of thestudents’ questions, as they were all working ondifferent projects. The teachers also pointed outthat subject-based instruction was required inwinter 2006, especially in the case of the lessautonomous students for whom the approachdid not provide sufficient structure. Given thatthis approach required personal effort and agreat deal of autonomy, these students may havebeen somewhat disoriented, causing them tolose their motivation in the long run.

A school board participant said that theapproach used in the 2005-2006 field-testingmay have given students too much leeway andthat the POP would probably have to consist ofmore structured learning situations that wouldbe evaluated in accordance with a definitetimetable.

In this regard, more structured complementaryactivities were devised by teachers in order toincrease the motivation of certain studentshalfway through the process and to supportthose students who were somewhat less com-fortable with this approach. In SCHOOL 2, thestudents built a wooden puppet, in order todevelop a work method and to test their manualskills. In SCHOOL 3, the students were asked todivide up into teams to conduct research into anunknown occupation chosen from a list providedby the teacher and to present their findings inclass.

With regard to the evaluation of the two compe-tencies in the program, no major problemsemerged during the 2005-2006 field-testing, incontrast to the field-testing of the previous year,when the student evaluation method was not aswell defined. At the beginning of the year, theteachers stated that they kept a record of theirstudents’ work in a journal or used similarrecord-keeping tools. Likewise, some teachersused additional methods such as one-on-one

17

interviews, evaluation charts, a questionnaire,peer evaluation, evaluation of oral presentations,and so on.

However, some teachers mentioned that a fewstudents regularly asked whether the activitiescarried out in the course "counted," or if thework they did or a research topic was "okay."This indicated that these students had not neces-sarily understood the evaluation procedure asso-ciated with the POP, since some of them regardedevaluation as a certification exercise and did notrealize that in the context of the POP, it is viewedas a way of constructively reviewing work inprogress. This observation was also made in 2004-2005. It should be remembered, however, that thevast majority of the students taking part in thisstudy were not familiar with the type of evaluationused in the POP and, more generally speaking, thatadvocated in the Policy on the Evaluation ofLearning associated with the education reform.

3.1.2 Relevance of the program

The feedback provided by teachers and other edu-cators involved in the POP shows that they arecommitted to this new pedagogical approach.Similarly, they seem convinced that this is a viableway of helping students carry out a rational careerdevelopment process.

Teachers and career counsellors emphasized theimportance of familiarizing students with the characteristics of the Québec school system (e.g. prerequisites, fields of study with limitedenrollment) and with specific features of the working world (e.g. placement rates, shortages incertain occupations), since it seems that they hadnot necessarily acquired this knowledge beforeenrolling in the POP, despite the guidance-orientedapproach to learning used in their schools.

As regards the suitability of this approach forSecondary III students, the majority of the educatorsinterviewed felt that the formula used in the 2005-2006 field-testing was appropriate. All were convinced that it was important for Secondary IIIstudents to begin thinking about their careeroptions before the end of Secondary III, and also toacquire more information about the school systemand the labour market. In fact, Secondary III is a pivotal year during which students have to choosecourses that may influence the educational pathsthey might take. However, some educators haddoubts about whether some Secondary III studentswere mature enough to make these vocationalchoices. Some educators suggested that studentsbe able to enroll in the POP at any time betweenSecondary III and Secondary V.



18



3.1.3 Conditions for implementation

Favourable conditions

As regards school organization, it should bepointed out that most of the school administra-tors interviewed raised questions concerning difficulties relating to the development of timeta-bles, especially when POP courses involved twomerged time slots, since this factor affected theorganization of the timetable for all Secondary IIIstudents in the school. However, this type oforganization is not prescribed in the programand, for field-testing purposes, some schoolboards did not have merged time slots. InSCHOOL 3, these difficulties were circumventedby creating fixed classes for all Secondary III stu-dents.

One idea was to create teams of teachers as soonas possible (before June) in order to provide themwith more complete training as well as more timeto organize the POP in their school. It was sug-gested that this be done by defining specific rulesfor using the POP in conjunction with different sub-jects or clearly establishing rules for recruiting ateacher before assigning workloads. This entailsusing the POP in conjunction with the subjects ofthose teachers interested in the program rather thanrecruiting teachers from the subjects associated withthe POP.

A number of educators in SCHOOL 3 andSCHOOL 4 emphasized the value of having acareer education teacher on the POP team, par-ticularly because career education teachers havean inside knowledge of educational and careerchoices.

Two initiatives taken by the school administrationin SCHOOL 3 and SCHOOL 4 were felt to haveplayed a role in creating favourable conditions forthe POP. The first involved giving POP teachersmore time off from their regular duties than thatprovided by the MELS and the second involvedfreeing these teachers at the same time so thatthey could meet and share their experiences. Itshould be noted that the field-testing ended inJune 2006 and that these teachers were releasedfrom their regular duties as part of the field-testingproject. However, when the program is officiallyimplemented in 2007-2008, no release time will begiven by the MELS in any of the schools.

In another connection, the classrooms intendedfor the POP should be assigned in such a way asto allow students to use the computers and carryout exploration activities that involve handlingvarious types of materials that may be messy. Ithas been suggested that activities related to thelogistical organization of the POP be undertaken:putting together the tool kits, acquiring computerequipment and equipping the classrooms. Some

19

educators have suggested that specifications out-lining minimal requirements in terms of space andmaterials be defined beforehand, in order to avoiddelays and ensure that the classroom meets therequirements of the program.

Some school boards experimented with alternativesolutions in order to get around difficulties relatedto physical organization. In SCHOOL 3, the POPcourse schedule was set up so that the existingcomputer lab could be used. The POP classroomwas therefore set up next door to the computerlab, which allowed students to use the school’sexisting resources. In SCHOOL 2, carrying out themessier activities in the old IT classroom also madethe situation easier.

Some educators spoke to the importance for schoolboards to provide more human resources for com-puter support. Some also mentioned the need tohave a sufficient number of computers, since twostudents sharing one computer could give rise toproblems if they are not working on the same topicor using the same tools at the same time. In theiropinion, it would be ideal to have two computersfor every three students.

Educators also indicated that it was crucial to provide more time for the acquisition of tool kitmaterials and, ideally, to entrust this task to an assistant. Some educators suggested that the

MELS be responsible for providing the tool kits.With respect to purchasing the materials for thetool kits, a number of educators were critical of thefact that this task had not been assigned to oneperson at the beginning of the year. Thus, besidesSCHOOL 3, where an assistant helped the teacherspurchase the materials at the beginning of theyear, the task of ordering the materials fell to theteachers, thereby reducing the time allotted tocourse planning. In addition to being responsiblefor purchasing materials, the teachers mentionedthe importance of being familiar with the materialsin order to be able to answer students' questions.In SCHOOL 2, the task of purchasing certain mate-rials seemed more difficult, given the school's loca-tion (rural area far from a large city).

Regardless of the solution proposed, all concernedsaid that looking for and purchasing the tool kitmaterials was a tedious task. In winter 2006, theteachers interviewed also said that the acquisitionof materials is really an ongoing task, since thepopularity of a tool kit is likely to increase as soonas a student in the class has experimented with it.Several teachers also said they had to replacematerials during the year.



20



Training of Educators

Below are the main comments made by educatorsconcerning the training offered by the MELS.

All the educators felt that the daylong trainingsessions prior to the field-testing had been useful,but most of them said that the training period hadbeen too short. The various educators interviewedfelt that factors related to the actual POP field-testing (course logistics and use of tools) had notbeen adequately addressed in the training.

From an educational standpoint, some of theteachers suggested that the training include morecontent related to POP class management.

All of the teachers and school board participantsinterviewed attended a meeting on evaluation.They felt that the meeting was useful, but tooshort. They especially appreciated the fact that themeeting gave them an opportunity to exchangeevaluation chart models and discuss their POP-related experiences with teachers from the otherschools.

The career counsellors and certain teachers special-izing in career education emphasized that, in acontext where any teacher could be asked to teachthe POP, it would be necessary to provide these

teachers with the vocabulary and concepts specificto academic and career information to enablethem to guide students in their career developmentprocess. Note that in 2004-2005, it was pointed outthat teachers needed to be offered trainingthroughout the school year in order to ensure abetter understanding and integration of the con-cepts involved.

3.2 How the Students Perceived the POP

Below is an overview of how the students perceived their experience of the POP.

3.2.1 Favourable and unfavourableconditions

In general, the aspects of the POP that the studentsappreciated the most had to do with the very structureof the suggested process, namely that they: could carryout activities autonomously; had an opportunity toresearch topics of interest to them;could work in teams;had more practical than theoretical content; had anopportunity to reflect on their learning and career path;had teachers who were open and available; could usecomputers; could carry out actual tasks using experien-tial tools;and had an opportunity to take part in studentjob shadowing programs. The classroom organizationwas often mentioned as a significant element of thePOP compared to the other courses the students weretaking.

21

In winter 2006, the repetitive nature of the careerexploration activities emerged as one of the lesspopular aspects of the POP. Thus, even though anumber of the students enjoyed the leeway theywere given, a similar percentage felt that theirinterests were not diverse enough to enable themto carry out more than one or two explorationactivities. Moreover, some students said that theywould have preferred to have more structure, sincethe absence of a schedule and the lack of evalua-tion caused them to be less focused on the tasks athand. This seems to contradict the findings fromthe fall 2005 data collection. It should be noted,however, that most of the students had neverexperienced a situation similar to that of POP and,more generally, the education reform. It is possiblethat over time students came to view the fact thatthey were responsible for their own learning as amore demanding and difficult "task" than theyhad anticipated at the beginning of the year.

In the schools where two students shared a computer, some felt that they had wasted timewatching their classmate work, especially whentwo team members did not have the same field of interest. In regards to computer tools, students alsocommented on the Répertoire PPO, which theyviewed as incomplete. In particular, in fall 2005, thestudents in SCHOOL 2 pointed out that the tradesand occupations they were interested in were not included in the index (e.g. forestry and fisheries).

On the other hand, the students in SCHOOL 4 werecritical of the information in the index and found itmore difficult to navigate the site.12

3.2.2 What the students learned

At the beginning of the year, students most often men-tioned that they had developed self-knowledge.Several students said they had a better idea of theiraptitudes, interests, strengths and weaknesses. Someeven said that their involvement with the POP hadallowed them to understand the relationship betweencareer choice and personal characteristics.

The second category of learning had to do with computer knowledge.A number of students said theyhad improved their ability to do Web-based research.Three of the students interviewed even said they hadlearned how to use a computer in the POP course.

The third category of comments had to do with theacquisition of information on occupations and tradesand the discovery of methodological tools. A numberof students said they had discovered the existence ofoccupations and trades of which they had beenunaware until then, while others indicated havinglearned about the various aspects of looking for a job,whether it be drawing up a résumé, writing a cover letter or preparing for an interview.

12.This site (in French) is still under construction and a number of othertools will be posted by the fall of 2007.



22



Students also realized the importance of undertakinga career development process, notably the need tohave an alternative plan, to remain open to the variousacademic and career paths, and to develop an abilityto reflect on their progress which, over time, will allowthem to determine whether a given trade or occupa-tion is appropriate for them.

3.2.3 Students’opinion of the relevance of the POP

Most of the students interviewed felt that the POPcourse was useful in that it helped them to develop a clearer idea of the occupational field(s)they were interested in.

Some students mentioned that the POP courseenabled them to get to know themselves betterand to define their qualities and aptitudes, therebyhelping them make a more informed vocationalchoice. Others said that the process of exploringdifferent trades and occupations and perhaps evendiscovering the existence of new occupationsthrough this program would help them make acareer choice that is right for them.

A few students said that such search tools asRepères13 or job-search Internet sites will prove themost useful later in their career development

process and in their search for employment, whileothers emphasized the fact that the POP coursetaught them about the practical aspects of lookingfor a job (drafting a résumé and cover letter, etc.).

Students who had the opportunity to be involved ina job shadowing experience (approximately onethird of the students interviewed in winter 2006 inSCHOOL 1 and close to half of the students inSCHOOL 3) viewed the experience as an opportu-nity to find information that would help them clarify their objectives and expectations withrespect to an eventual career choice and to testtheir interest in a particular field by comparing theirinitial idea of it with reality.

As regards more immediate concerns, a few stu-dents also said that finding out about the trainingrequirements of certain jobs in the context of thePOP would help them choose their courses. Somestudents added that their research projects hadmade them aware of the importance of academicprerequisites, motivating them to put more effortinto their other courses. In addition, some of themindicated that they had become more autonomousand resourceful.

13. A comparable search tool used by most of the English school boardis Career Cruising.

23

3.3 The Effects of the POP: An Initial Overview

Given the field-testing and application context inwhich the study was carried out, it cannot pro-vide a complete and definitive picture of theeffects of the POP on the students. The resultspresented below provide an indication of the fac-tors that appear to have influenced the students.It was the participants’ perceptions, recorded bymeans of interviews, that made it possible todocument the implementation of the POP.

The different educators interviewed felt that cer-tain factors in particular may have influencedstudents’ interest during the POP field-testingprocess. They also pointed out that students havespecific needs, notably with regard to academicand career information, and that the POP shouldgive them the tools they need to meet theseneeds. Lastly, nearly two thirds of the parents ofstudents who took part in the POP field-testingprocess felt that the course met their children’sneeds.

The results from the student questionnaires of2005-2006 also tend to show that the POP had apositive influence during the year. Although theresults were comparable to those of the students inthe control group in fall 2005, the POP students

stood apart from the control group in winter2006 by achieving generally higher results in allaspects of the career readiness dimension. Thiswas also noted in the data analysis of 2004-2005, where a significant increase was noted inthe results for this section.

3.3.1 Educators' view of the effects ofthe POP and students’ needs

From the comments of the different educators, itcan be noted that certain factors appear to havehad an impact on students’ interest in the POP.

Choosing the POPOverall, the teachers who worked with the POPstudents expressed fewer reservations than otherteachers with respect to the enthusiasm of thesestudents for the POP approach, which wasreflected in the students’ evident involvement inthe activities.

Students’ educational pathAccording to the teachers, students who expe-rienced greater difficulties of an educationalnature also tended to be less involved in theactivities. In SCHOOL 3, however, offering stu-dents enrolled in other types of classes activitiesinvolving self-knowledge seemed to increase



24



their level of interest. This was also mentionedwith respect to the students enrolled in othertypes of classes in SCHOOL 1.

Familiarity with the approachIn SCHOOL 3, where three of the four classes thathad a scheduled POP course had been exposed toeducation reform since Secondary I, studentsshowed a greater involvement in the activities.Furthermore, some of the educators in the otherschool boards involved in field-testing the POP feltthat the students who had been exposed to theeducation reform without interruption since ele-mentary school probably found it easier to under-stand the POP approach, which is focused on get-ting students to develop their autonomy and to beresponsible for their own learning.

Students’ level of maturityIn fall 2005, a number of teachers said that themore mature students were more readily inter-ested in the POP; this maturity seems to have beenmore characteristic of the girls than the boys. Itshould be noted that the difference with respect todegree of involvement between the boys and thegirls was again raised by the teachers in winter2006, when they indicated that the less maturestudents seemed to have more difficulty seeingvalue in the POP.

In another connection, educators identified stu-dents’ needs with respect to information andcareer guidance in the following areas:

• academic information. Some of the stu-dents were not familiar with or did notfully understand concepts that are crucialto their education (e.g. the meaning of pre-requisite, the impact of their choice ofcourses on their academic progress, themeaning of limited-enrollment courses)

• career information (concepts related totrades and occupations: placement rate,salary, working conditions)

• self-awareness (interests, competencies,aptitudes, skills)

• exploration of trades and occupations(learning about occupations previouslyunknown to them), handling of materials,experimentation (comparing their impres-sions with the reality of the working world)

Students’ needs in terms of guidance in the class-room were also identified. Some studentsseemed to lack the maturity to act autono-mously, as required under an approach that callsfor such a degree of responsibility.

25

A number of teachers also stressed how impor-tant it was for the school to continue to providebasic information on how the school systemworks within a structured framework, as thefamily and the teachers of the other subjectscould not be the only sources of information inthis regard.

It should be mentioned that the educators’ perception of students’ needs in 2005-2006,coincides with the information gathered in 2004-2005.

3.3.2 Questionnaire results

This section presents the main conclusions drawnfrom the results of the questionnaires completedby the students in fall 2005 and winter 2006. It alsohighlights how these conclusions relate to thehypotheses made by the educators who were inter-viewed, with respect to the factors that may haveinfluenced the level of interest of the studentsinvolved in the POP field-testing process.



The two questionnaires contained a total of 114 distinct items.Eleven indicators and sub-indicators were calculated, as follows:

• Meaning and importance of work (22 questions) • Attitudes towards career exploration (24 questions)• Career readiness (74 questions) Persons and sources consulted (11 questions)• Attitudes towards career planning (50 questions) Activities carried out (13 questions)

Steps taken (13 questions) • Vocational identity (18 questions)Factors considered (17 questions)Preferred occupation (9 questions)Job search (11 questions)

The questionnaire results were analyzed using the following segmentation variables: the students’ participation in exper-imental or control groups, their gender, the type of class they were enrolled in, and their educational aspirations.

The analyses carried out were based on results obtained for each of the questionnaires (fall 2005 and winter 2006) takinginto account the segmentation variables as well as the change in results from one data collection period to another.14

14. The differences between the results, taking into account the segmentation variables, were considered significant when the Student T Test for the scoreobtained a variable that differed significantly for a subcategory of respondents (95% threshold) from that obtained for all the respondents in the fall 2005data collection (n = 433). The same method was used for the winter 2006 data collection (n = 416). Likewise, the differences between the fall 2005 datacollection and the winter 2006 data collection were considered significant when the chi-square of the score obtained for the subcategory of respondentsdiffered significantly (95% threshold) from that obtained for all the questionnaires administered in fall 2005 and winter 2006 in this subcategory.

26



All the respondents scored highest on the meaningand importance of work15 indicator in fall 2005 andwinter 2006. The increase in the score obtained forthe general career readiness16 indicator from onedata collection to the other was considered statis-tically significant. The increase observed in thescore obtained for the career exploration attitudessub-indicator was greater than that for the careerplanning attitudes sub-indicator. No significantchange was observed with respect to vocationalidentity.

It should be noted that there was a positive corre-lation among all of the indicators, with the excep-tion of the meaning and importance of work andvocational identity indicators, which varied inde-pendently, in both fall 2005 and winter 2006.Excluding these two dimensions, the students whoobtained an above-average score on any of theindicators tended to obtain an above-averagescore on the others as well.

Here is an overview of how the results changedbetween the two data-collection periods of fall2005 and winter 2006, according to the differentsegmentation variables.

POP students and control group students

In contrast to the fall 2005 results, the winter 2006results show significant differences between thecontrol group and the POP students. The POP stu-dents obtained significantly higher scores foralmost all of the indicators and sub-indicatorsrelated to the career readiness dimension. Higherscores were also observed between the two datacollection periods, constituting a very significantchange.

The different types of classes involved in thePOP field-testing process

In winter 2006, the different types of classes thatwere involved in field-testing the POP did notnecessarily differ from one another in the sameway as in fall 2005. Whereas in fall 2005 the students from the regular classes who had cho-sen the POP differed from the other subgroups byscoring below average on the different indica-tors, in winter 2006 the students who had chosenthe POP differed from the others by scoring wellabove average on the sub-indicators steps takenand preferred occupation. Furthermore, this groupof students also showed statistically significant dif-ferences with respect to most of the sub-indicators

15. This section of the questionnaire deals with students' beliefs concerning the importance and meaning of work, whether paid or not.16. This section of the questionnaire deals with career planning attitudes (steps taken, factors considered, preferred occupation and job search) and

career exploration activities (persons and sources consulted and activities carried out).

27

of the career readiness dimension in the first andsecond data collections.

In winter 2006, the students from the regularclasses for whom the POP was compulsoryobtained an above-average score on the generalcareer readiness indicator, while those from theother types of classes differed from the othersubgroups by scoring lower on the importance ofwork indicator, even though overall they hadscored higher on career exploration attitudes. Itshould be mentioned, however, that for thesesubgroups, the differences observed were gener-ally not statistically meaningful.

Variations observed according to genderand academic goals

As in fall 2005, the winter 2006 findings revealedthat the students who had not yet defined theiracademic goals scored the lowest on most of theindicators. Moreover, the girls scored lower thanthe boys on most of the indicators.

Proportionally more girls were planning to gointo pre-university education, in both the spring2005 and winter 2006 data collections, whilemore boys than girls were attracted to second-ary-level vocational training. Students planningto enroll in a secondary-level vocational training

program tended to obtain above-average resultson all the indicators and sub-indicators assessedin the winter 2006 data collection, and a statisti-cally significant difference was recorded for threeof these items (career readiness indicator, andpreferred occupation and activities carried outsub-indicators). Note, however, that these stu-dents had already obtained relatively high resultsin the fall 2005 data collection. It can be hypoth-esized that the effect on the boys’ high scores ofhaving to make a career choice sooner couldexplain the variation in the scores observed interms of gender.17 Of the students planning toenroll in secondary-level vocational training,nearly one third were from other types of classesthan regular classes. These students’ interest invocational training was likewise evident in 2004-2005.

Between the fall 2005 and winter 2006 data collections, only the girls exhibited significantchanges with respect to academic goals.Proportionally more girls were undecided withrespect to academic and career paths in fall2005; this proportion dropped from 25% in thefall to 13% in the winter. These results are simi-lar to those observed in the 2004-2005 study, inwhich the percentage of girls undecided abouttheir academic goals dropped by more than halfbetween the fall and the winter data collections.



17. Keep in mind, however, that the questionnaire items dealt with thestudents’ perception of their knowledge of a given aspect, as thequestionnaire did not measure their actual knowledge of the differ-ent items evaluated.

28



Note, however, that the girls recorded the largestgains between the fall 2005 and winter 2006 collections, with a significant increase in thescores having been observed for seven indicatorsand sub-indicators compared with two sub-indi-cators for the boys. It could be hypothesized thatthe process appears more appropriate for thegirls than for the boys. However, the gains recorded for the girls between the two phases ofdata collection for the different indicators couldalso be due to the fact that they were propor-tionally more numerous in clarifying their aca-demic goals during the year. It should also beremembered that the students who chose thePOP recorded a significant increase in theirresults for the sub-indicators of the career readiness dimension. Girls made up two thirds ofthis subgroup. Based on the analyses carried out,it was not possible to determine which of thesevariables made the biggest difference.

Summary

To sum up, following the two data collections, itappears that in fall 2005, sociodemographic factors such as gender, type of class and region18

as well as academic goals had more of an impacton the results than the student category (POPstudent or control group student). In winter2006, significant differences between the POPclasses and the control group appeared, and the students involved in the field-testing process

recorded a significant increase in their results—in contrast to those in the control group—for thedifferent aspects of the career readiness dimen-sion. In particular, the girls and the POP studentsshowed more significant differences. However,students who planned to enter a secondary-levelvocational training program tended to obtainabove-average results on the different indicators.Proportionally more boys than girls planned toenroll in vocational training. Given that the different classes were not homogeneous, it can-not be determined in a statistically significantmanner which of the variables is the most significant, as the number of observations for thesubgroups precludes the determination of theseparate contribution of each of these compo-nents. In 2004-2005, significant progress wasnoted with respect to the career readinessdimension, for both the boys and the girls.

3.4 The Parents’ Perceptions

A total of 166 parents completed and returned theparents’ questionnaire in 2005-2006. The responserate was 50%, since 329 questionnaires had beensent out. Some 87% of the respondents had a childin a regular class. In most cases, the questionnairehad been completed by the mother. In this type ofstudy, a response rate greater than 40% is consid-ered satisfactory.

18. Each of the regional groups was composed of varying proportions ofstudents from the control group, the optional regular POP group, theregular compulsory POP groups and other types of classes. Even if sig-nificant differences were observed at the regional level for all of therespondents, the limited number of observations precludes the identi-fication of regional variations for similar groups

29

Just over one third of the parents said that theyhad not received any information about the POP.Of the parents who reported receiving informationon this program, 72% said they had first heardabout it from their children. More than one thirdsaid they had received a letter or a brochure, 13%had heard about the POP from the school and 8%said they had attended an information meeting atthe school.The latter proportion is 23% in SCHOOL3. Moreover, 49% of the parents said that the infor-mation provided answered all of their questions.

Of the parents who were partly dissatisfied withthe information received and those who reportednot receiving any information on the POP, morethan half would have appreciated knowing moreabout the students’ learning process and the objec-tives of the POP. Nearly three quarters of the parents who took part in the study said they hadheard about the projects their children were carrying out as part of the POP. Nearly two thirds ofthe parents felt that the POP activities met thecareer development needs of their children eithervery much or somewhat.

The parents’ perceptions of the influence of thePOP were mixed. In particular, the parents whoparticipated in the study noticed the influence ofthe POP on their children’s ability to work on aproject (55%) and on their knowledge of thelabour market (53%). Some regional variations

nonetheless appeared in the scores obtained. Forexample, with respect to self-knowledge, 71% ofthe parents in SCHOOL 4 noticed that the POP hadan impact on their children, compared with 30% inSCHOOL 1.

More than two thirds of the parents said thattheir children had responded positively to thePOP. One parent in five nonetheless indicatedthat his or her child was indifferent to the POP,with negative reactions (it was of no interest,useless, etc.) reported by 13% of the parents. Itshould be mentioned, however, that the POP wascompulsory for some students.

More than half of the parents felt that they hadmore discussions than before with their childrenconcerning their career path. It should be notedthat only 6% of the parents said that they hadfewer such discussions with their child.

Note that these results are similar overall to thoseobserved in the 2004-2005 research study.



31



According to the information gathered from thedifferent participants during the 2005-2006 POPfield-testing process, complemented by the infor-mation collected in 2004-2005, certain factorsthat appear to be conducive to program imple-mentation and that confirm its relevance can beidentified

4.1 Favourable and UnfavourableConditions

Both in fall 2005 and winter 2006, the financialsupport provided by the MELS was one of themain facilitating elements identified by the dif-ferent educators interviewed. The clarity of theinformation provided by the MELS and the speedwith which budgets were allocated were alsomentioned.

Moreover, members of two of the school boardsthat took part in the field-testing process men-tioned the benefits of having certain facilities attheir disposal: SCHOOL 3 had access to a com-puter lab, a reference centre as well as smallrooms that could be used for storage and formessier or noisier activities, and SCHOOL 2 hadaccess to a classroom equipped with computers

for about 10 students and an old IT classroom, thatwas still equipped with tools that could be used forthis course. By contrast, SCHOOL 1 and SCHOOL 4,which did not have these types of facilities,pointed out that their POP classrooms were notadequate for the needs of the course. The teachersin SCHOOL 1 suggested that specifications definingthe minimum requirements for the facilities bedrawn up in time for the provincewide implemen-tation of the POP in 2007. In SCHOOL 4, there wererequests to enlarge the classroom and make someadditions (e.g. installation of a telephone line, asoundproof barrier) in anticipation of continuedfield-testing.

In SCHOOL 3, other facilitating elements of a tech-nical nature were identified, i.e. the fact that anassistant was available to organize the classroomand order material for some of the tool kits and thefact that the computer facilities required for thePOP could be provided at a low cost by using existing resources, i.e. the school’s computer room.

The teachers in SCHOOL 4 mentioned that thematerials used for hands-on activities and con-crete experimentation had a positive influenceon the students’ level of interest, since some ofthe experiential tools had piqued their interestonce they had seen a classmate use them.

The educators in SCHOOL 2, SCHOOL 3 andSCHOOL 4 all mentioned the active involvementof the POP teachers and professionals, the way

4. DISCUSSION

32



they complemented each other, their cohesive-ness and their desire to ensure the success of thefield-testing process, by endeavouring to solve allthe problems that arose. Some educators men-tioned that choosing to take part in this field-testing process was an important factor in ensur-ing this cohesiveness. In addition, in SCHOOL 4,the teachers felt that the team benefited fromthe fact that the school board participant hadsimulated the dynamics within a POP class withthem. The two schools with the largest groups ofstudents involved, i.e. SCHOOL 1 and SCHOOL 4,mentioned the importance of freeing teachersfrom their regular duties so that they couldorganize the implementation of the POP.In SCHOOL 1, the fact that teachers had alreadyfield-tested the POP in 2004-2005 and that dis-cussion had taken place between these teachersand those field-testing the POP for the first timein 2005-2006 were cited as favourable factors inthe field-testing process.

Lastly, the fact that a school participated in theguidance-oriented approach to learning was alsomentioned as a favourable factor in the field-testing process in all schools concerned. Someeducators also felt that the POP provided a goodopportunity to experiment with the new curricu-lum. In this regard, the team in SCHOOL 3, whosePOP students had already been exposed to the

education reform in secondary school, indicatedthat this experience was a factor that helped stu-dents adopt the POP approach. In SCHOOL 3 andSCHOOL 4, the teachers’ personal interest inincorporating the POP approach was also mentioned as a factor that facilitated the field-testing process. It should be remembered that infall 2005, some commented on the fact that themajority of POP students were not very familiarwith the new curriculum and that some mayhave been overwhelmed by the suggestedapproach, since they were accustomed to beingclosely monitored in their schoolwork.

As regards the desired improvements, all theschools mentioned the shortage of humanresources to install the computer equipment or topurchase the materials for the tool kits. In particular, problems related to the lack of com-puter support from their respective school boardswere raised in both fall 2005 and winter 2006 inSCHOOL 2 and SCHOOL 4. The teachers and thestudents in SCHOOL 4 and SCHOOL 1 were alsocritical of the fact that two students had to sharethe same computer. In SCHOOL 3, computer sup-port was, however, mentioned as a factor facili-tating the POP field-testing process. Also, the factof having a POP assistant who was familiar withcomputers, at least during the first year of imple-mentation, seems to be a solution worth

33



considering for all schools that will be imple-menting the POP in 2007. Some even suggested creating a POP assistant position along the samelines as a technician position for science labwork.

In SCHOOL 1, the fact that the POP is not associated with any field of teaching covered bythe collective agreement was mentioned as afactor that could create certain organizationaldifficulties. It was suggested that rules for assigning POP periods to different fields of teaching be defined or that rules be establishedto recruit POP teachers before officially assigningworkloads. Still, in fall 2005, some educators alsomentioned that they would have liked the POP tobe included in their job description or that theamount of time allocated for the POP beincreased in their job description.

Many also mentioned the demands involved inhaving to supervise approximately 30 studentsworking on different projects. Thus, the teachers inSCHOOL 1 and SCHOOL 4 who were alone insupervising groups of 20 or more students saidthey had had some difficulties in meeting theneeds of students in the POP class. In SCHOOL 3,the teachers who worked with normal-sized classes (about 30 students) under a team teachingsystem said they had appreciated the collaborative teaching approach. Thus, even if the suggested

approach emphasizes that students be auton-omous and responsible for their own learning, the teacher must nevertheless support students in theirefforts and solve technical difficulties as they arise.

In winter 2006, a number of educators also men-tioned that, in a field-testing context, the struc-ture of the POP gave students too much leewayand that the suggested approach for this coursewould have to include more structured activitiesat the start of the school year in order to guidethe students more effectively, to help them develop a work method and to expand theirfields of interest.A school board participant men-tioned the importance of creating resourcesspecifically designed to develop the second com-petency in the POP program. This competencyinvolves the students’ ability to contemplatetheir learning possibilities and to reflect on theircareer exploration process.

In SCHOOL 3, the fact that students were in fixedclasses made it easier to incorporate the POPinto the school timetable. Although allocatingthe two periods back to back for the POP classwas regarded as a facilitating factor in fall 2005,some teachers in winter 2006 identified it as afactor that could also hinder the field-testingprocess, since certain students ultimately foundthat this double period was too long.

34



Lastly, the vast majority of educators interviewedfelt that Secondary III was the best time to under-take the type of career development process out-lined in the POP program. They all felt thatSecondary II students are not mature enough tocarry out such a process. Furthermore, it wouldbe too late to initiate this process in Secondary IVor V because students must make choices inSecondary III that will have an impact on theeducational options subsequently available tothem. But while educators mentioned that someSecondary III students are not mature enough toundertake the POP process, the vast majorityacknowledged the importance of allowing stu-dents to think seriously about their options inSecondary III. Some educators suggested makingthe POP compulsory between Secondary III andSecondary V, as this would allow students tochoose the moment at which they undertake thisprocess based on their needs and level of voca-tional maturity.

Several educators were critical of the fact that thePOP was offered only on an optional basis to stu-dents in the general education path, especiallyconsidering that students usually have very little knowledge of the school system. Some alsoinsisted that efforts to lower the dropout rateshould not focus solely on high school students,since the rate at which CEGEP-level students

drop out or change programs is also a definiteconcern. Moreover, many also pointed out that itwould be worthwhile to offer the POP on anoptional basis in Secondary IV and V, in order toenable students who wish to do so to continuethe process they began in Secondary III.

However, educators working with students forwhom the POP was compulsory said that it wasmore difficult to get these students to develop aninterest in the POP approach. Also, certain educa-tors were somewhat apprehensive about students unlikely to remain very involved in thecareer development process, since not all stu-dents are ready to contemplate serious questionsabout their future. The various educators inter-viewed suggested that implementing more struc-tured activities and ensuring that studentsacquire basic information about the school system were possible solutions to help these lessinterested students benefit from the POP. In addi-tion, educators in SCHOOL 1 mentioned that thePOP experience in 2004-2005 revealed that somestudents, who did not seem ready to undertakethe career development process when they wereexposed to the POP, were able to get organizedone year later by drawing on what they hadlearned the preceding year.

35



4.2 Perceived Effects and Contribution of the Partners

As regards the benefits of the POP, the educatorswho were interviewed generally felt that the POPprogram allowed students to undertake a conscious career development process that is bothpersonal and adapted to their needs. In their opinion, the main advantage of the POP is that itoffers students an opportunity to become involvedin a process that takes their own interests intoaccount. Through the projects they carry out, stu-dents become aware of their interests, skills andaptitudes and learn to analyze themselves anddevelop their critical judgment; in short, studentsgradually develop an approach for conductingresearch and exercising their critical judgment,which, according to the educators interviewed, willbe useful to them throughout their lives.Thus, evenif students are not ready to choose a career, theycan acquire tools enabling them to make aninformed career choice when the time comes.

By encouraging students to start thinking inadvance about the choices they will have to make,notably with respect to their education, the POPprogram allows them to become aware of the various educational and career paths available tothem, and teaches them that they will be respon-sible for making their own choices. The POP empowers the student, who becomes the mainactor in his or her career development process.

Some educators also mentioned that the POPgives meaning to other school subjects, since aknowledge of the educational paths that lead todifferent trades or occupations gives students abetter idea of how they can concretely apply theoretical knowledge acquired in the classroom.

One educator emphasized that the leewayafforded by the POP allows students to developaccording to their own vocational maturity,without having to compare themselves to others.In contrast, some educators said that while thePOP gives students a lot of leeway, teachers muststill provide guidance, since both students whoare motivated by the POP and those who do nottake to it must be able to benefit from it. In thisconnection, it was suggested that more struc-tured POP activities be added in order to helpstudents understand the process.

As regards the findings from the student question-naires, it seems that the POP students stand apartfrom the control group students because theyobtained significantly higher results on the different components of the career readinessdimension. It appears that the POP has a certaininfluence on how students come to make betteracademic and career choices, on their knowledge ofwhich factors they should take into consideration,

36



on the fields that interest them, the requirementsassociated with these fields, and so on. Morespecifically, it appears that the students who optedto participate in the POP showed the greatestimprovement in results, as did the girls. There weremore girls in the classes that opted to take part inthe POP. This raises the question of whether thegirls have greater needs with respect to careerdevelopment. The girls were also more undecidedwith respect to their educational goals in fall 2005.It appears that the POP helped these girls betterdefine their plans, since the rate of indecision fellby half in winter 2006.This appears to indicate thatthe POP influences the setting of education andcareer goals. These results may also be explainedby the fact that girls mature faster than boys.

It should be noted, however, that as in fall 2005,the boys had already scored higher on the differentitems covered in the questionnaires. In addition, agreater percentage of boys than girls planned tocontinue their education with a view to earning aDiploma of Vocational Studies (DVS). It can behypothesized that these boys are more in tune withthe factors involved in making a career choice,since they opted for training that would allowthem to enter the labour market more quickly.These higher scores could be explained in part bythe fact that these students needed to make acareer choice sooner. This theory is supported by

the conclusions drawn in a study carried out inQuébec (Perron, 1967).19

Lastly, the comments revealed that, despite theadjustment period required by students who werenot very familiar with the learning process in thePOP, most students acknowledged the importanceand relevance of this process. They understand theneed to obtain information about different tradesand occupations, to know themselves, to exploreand experiment in order to compare their percep-tions of the labour market with reality so that theycan ultimately make an informed career choice.However, it is essential that teachers remain com-mitted to the students and that they continue toguide them in light of their needs so that the students feel they are receiving the support theyneed in a process that is seldom linear (e.g.frequent changes of heart, a promising option turning out to be less worthwhile than expected).These moments of doubt, uncertainty and hesita-tion sometimes undermine student motivation.Therole of both the teacher and the guidance counsel-lor will therefore be to guide students in a some-times more structured manner, so that they canreposition themselves in their career developmentprocess.

19. J. Perron. "Quelques facteurs de décision vocationnelle en fonctionde l’imminence du choix à faire" in R. Charest and J. Perron.Problèmes d’orientation (p. 31-38), Montréal: Corporation des psy-chologues de la province de Québec.

37

The research studies made it possible to assessthe POP field-testing process. Certain limitationsmust, however, be taken into account. First, the2004-2005 research study focused on groups ofstudents in one school only from a relativelyhomogeneous community characterized by afavourable socioeconomic environment (socio-economic indicator = 3).20 The small number ofstudents from classes other than regular classesmade it necessary to group the data for statisti-cal processing purposes. It should also be men-tioned that the pre-experimental protocol without a control group provides informationsimilar to that resulting from a case study.

The use of control groups in 2005-2006 made itpossible to better measure the program’s effectson the participating students with respect to cer-tain aspects of the tools used. It should be noted,however, that the groups of students involved infield-testing the POP, as well as the controlgroups, were heterogeneous (mainly with respectto gender and type of class). Moreover, noEnglish-speaking group was represented ineither of the research studies. Lastly, it should benoted that participation was on a voluntarybasis, just as it had been in 2004-2005.

With respect to the questionnaires and themethodology used, the results were affected bycertain elements. First, it can be assumed that thestudents who completed the questionnaire on twooccasions were influenced by their responses in thefirst questionnaire. In addition, a social desirabilityfactor may have influenced the responses of certain students, particularly when the statementsreferred to beliefs rather than knowledge. The twostandardized questionnaires were initially sup-posed to be administered to Secondary V students.Furthermore, some questions intended for graduates may have been interpreted differently bySecondary III students. Lastly, the physical layout ofthe POP classroom (students grouped into teams)when the questionnaires were filled out may haveinfluenced the conditions under which the questionnaires were administered, particularly in2004-2005.



5. LIMITATIONS

20. In two thirds of cases the socioeconomic index takes into account themother's low level of education, and in one third of cases it takes intoaccount the percentage of families in which neither parent works fulltime. The resulting data make it possible to assign each school adecile rank of 1 to 10. Rank 1 represents the most favourable socio-economic situation, and rank 10, the least favourable.

39



The comments provided by educators, studentsand parents, as well as the findings from the different questionnaires, paint a positive picture ofthe POP field-testing process. In a context some-times complicated by technical and other consid-erations, as well as by legitimate questions thatarose during the field-testing process, the POP canbe considered to meet the set objectives, accordingto the portrait that emerged from the field-testingin both 2005-2006 and 2004-2005.The majority ofeducators and parents had a positive perception ofthe POP, because they felt that the program fostersstudents’ commitment to a conscious career devel-opment process. As well, the findings from the twoquestionnaires show how the POP influences stu-dents in terms of career readiness. It should beremembered, however, that in a field-testing andapplication context such as the one experienced bythe participants, it is essentially a matter of docu-menting the conditions facilitating implementationand the perceived effects. It is only in the long termthat we will be able to assess in greater detail thetrue impact of the POP on the students themselves.

Adequately appointed POP classrooms and thediversity of available experiential tools appear toaffect the students’ commitment to the POP as well as the commitment of the teachers who workwith them. The allocation of 100 hours to the POP

also appears to have a positive effect on students’commitment to the process. In this regard, theinformation gathered shows that the POP requiresa particular type of school organization, whichmust be properly planned in order to meet students’ needs, in a context where teachers constantly interact with them.

The comments made by students, educators andparents with respect to student guidance andsupervision put into perspective the challenge forall concerned to make the transition from a tradi-tional educational approach to a more open onethat requires students to be autonomous andtake charge of their own learning. Nonetheless,students do need guidance at every stage of theirdevelopment, and teachers must be able toassume the role of guide, facilitator and coach.Accordingly, teachers must be adequately and sufficiently trained with respect to the require-ments and specifics of the pedagogical approachadvocated by the POP and, more broadly by theeducation reform. In addition, teachers must beable to make appropriate decisions that take intoaccount the needs expressed by students, andthey must be able to adapt their teaching if necessary, notably to help students who are lesscomfortable with the autonomy required by thePOP process. Ultimately, the commitment of theparticipants and respect for individuals’ facility inmastering this approach, along with the new cur-riculum in general, are essential to the POP andits smooth implementation.

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beaucher, C. Questionnaire sur les aspirations professionnelles et les projets professionnels, Université du Québec àMontréal, 2004.

Bouchard, S., et al. Recherche psychosociale : pour harmoniser recherche et pratique, Québec: Presses de l’Université duQuébec, 1998.

Bujold, C. and M. Gingras. Choix professionnel et développement de carrière, second edition, Montréal: Gaëtan MorinÉditeur, 2000.

Conseil supérieur de l’éducation. Rapport annuel 2003-2004 : L’éducation à la vie professionnelle : valoriser toutes lesavenues. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec, 2005.

Gauthier, B., et al. Recherche sociale, De la problématique à la collecte de données, Québec: Presses de l’Université duQuébec, 2003.

Gingras, M., and P. Dupont. "Les besoins des finissants de l’école secondaire en matière d’éducation à la carrière", Lessciences de l’éducation pour l’ère nouvelle, Université de Caen, 1990.

.Questionnaire sur l’éducation à la carrière, Sherbrooke, Centre de recherche sur l’éducation au travail, Université deSherbrooke, 1991.

Ouellette, J.-G. Échelle d’identité professionnelle, University of Moncton, New Brunswick. Adapted translation of VocationalIdentity Scale by J. L. Holland, D. C. Daiger and P. G. Power. California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1984.

.Étude des relations entre l’identité personnelle, l’identité professionnelle et l’attitude professionnelle, doctoralthesis. Québec: Université Laval, 1984.

Perron, J. "Quelques facteurs de décision vocationnelle en fonction de l’imminence du choix à faire" in R. Charest and J. Perron. Problèmes d’orientation (p. 31-38), Montréal: Corporation des psychologues de la province de Québec, 1967.

Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation. Making Dreams Come True. Achieving Success Through the Guidance-OrientedApproach. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation, 2002.

.Complementary Educational Services: Essential to Success. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation, 2002.

.Québec Education Program: Secondary Cycle One. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation, 2005.

.Direction de la formation générale des jeunes. Personal Orientation Project. Québec Education Program. Workingdocument, 2004.

.The Guidance-Oriented School: An Evolving Concept. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation, 2000.

.The Guidance-Oriented School: A Preliminary Assessment. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation, 2001.

Québec. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. Service de la recherche. A Look at Vocational Training: A Surveyof Secondary Cycle Two Students. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, 2005.

Québec. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. Direction de la recherche, des statistiques et des indicateurs.Indices de défavorisation. Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, 2005.

Québec. Education Act: R.S.Q., c. I-13.3, s. 447.

Québec. Regulation amending the Basic school regulation for preschool, elementary and secondary education. Québec:Gouvernement du Québec, 2005.

Roy, É. La démarche d’enseignement et d’apprentissage : document d’information à l’intention des enseignants ducours Projet personnel d’orientation (PPO). Commission scolaire de la Beauce-Etchemin, 2004.

POP Index: <http://repertoireppo.qc.ca/>

20-2046-01A

Documents

Research, analysis and writing - gouv€¦ · Research, analysis and writing Julie-Madeleine Roy ... The guidance-oriented approach to learning pro-motes a career development process