Page 46

TABLe 5.7 did you have a chance to evaluate or give feedback on the guidance you received by using any of the following?

49 In some cases the teachers had not taken into account the fact, that some of the mature students had a long break between their previous experiences in education before entering their current programmes. Respondents rated their perceived involvement in the guidance process on a scale of 1-7 where 1 meant very passive and 7 very active. The value 4 indicates a neutral opinion, neither being particularly passive nor active. Figure 5.2 shows the mean rating of respondents in relations to their demographics. As the figure shows, the users felt that they participated rather actively in their guidance process and rated their participation on average as 5.2 out of 7. There were no statistically significant differences in the average ratings with respect to age or residence, but women perceived themselves as being more active participants (5.4) than men did (4.8) and those who had finished vocational education (upper secondary level) rated themselves on average as more actively involved in their guidance (5.6) than those who had other levels of education (5.1-5.2). There were differences between age groups as well, both the oldest (4.6) and the youngest (5.1) age groups felt that they were less active than other age groups (5.6-5.7).

5.4. evaluation of guidance – sharing of information (level 2) Approximately half (49%) of the respondents had been asked to evaluate or give feedback on the guidance they had participated in verbally or by e-mail to the counsellor (see table 5.7). One-third (28%) had been given the chance to rate the service by online survey and one out of five (18%) had been asked to fill in a paper/pencil

questionnaire. Phone surveys and feedback or evaluation given verbally or by e-mail to the supervisor(s) of the service were rare (3-5%). More than one-third (35%) of the respondents had not had a chance to evaluate or give feedback at all. According to the managers, practitioners and clients in the focus group discussions, clients usually have a chance to evaluate the guidance service formally. The evaluation is carried out e.g. through web-based questionnaires or paper-and-pencil surveys by the education providers or the labour administration. The clients and practitioners reported that the clients also had the opportunity to give feedback informally and directly to the counsellor/teacher. The focus group discussions, therefore, are not in line with the relatively high percentage of the respondents who did not have the chance to evaluate or give feedback on the guidance. Those users who had been offered a chance to evaluate or give feedback on the service were asked if they thought it would be likely that their feedback would result in improvements in the guidance service (see figure 5.3). The question was asked on a scale of 1-7 where 1 meant very unlikely and 7 very likely. As the figure shows, the users on average felt that it was somewhat likely that their feedback would have a positive impact on service improvements (mean=4.7). There were no statistically significant differences in the average ratings with respect to age, residence or education, but those who had post-secondary or tertiary education (4.9) or vocational education (4.8) were more positive towards the possible impact of their feedback than those of lower level of education (4.4).

Results in Finland

Profile for NVL Nordvux

Voice of users  

This present evaluative research, titled Voice of users – promoting quality of guidance for adults in the Nordic countries, examines both th...

Voice of users  

This present evaluative research, titled Voice of users – promoting quality of guidance for adults in the Nordic countries, examines both th...

Advertisement