Evidence for Career Learning Frameworks

I find the whole arena of career learning frameworks rather complicated. My first challenge is that there are quite a few of them, and they are not, as far as I can see, collected together in one neat little document that I can look through. 

Then comparisons between them are tricky. They often overlap - sometimes using the same terminology, and sometimes using similar terms which might be synonymous, but might not. Other frameworks differ from each other so dramatically that it's hard to compare. Then then are some which have been devised for particular age groups, and it's hard to know to what extent they can be generalised.

But my biggest challenge is that there doesn't seem to be any (can this be right?) evidence that one framework is more effective than an other. So what criteria can we use to make a decision about which to choose? Not only is there this absence of an empirical base to distinguish one framework from another, there is also a lack of evidence to support the use of the particular elements of the frameworks. Take self awareness, for example. This is one of the most widely used elements contained within career learning frameworks, and is very well established as a key tenet of career education. But there is no evidence that a high degree of self awareness actually links to individuals getting a job, or getting a good job. 

There is plenty of published evidence of the factors that do link to positive outcomes from career interventions, and I was wondering, what would an evidence based career education framework look like?

Liu et al. (2014) have conducted a meta-analysis incorporating the findings from 47 studies looking at nearly 10,000 job seekers and this gives us a great starting point. Based on this (and some other studies) I have devised Yates's 5 Step 5 S Evidence Based Career Learning Framework, guaranteed (not really) to get participants into jobs.

Running throughout the framework are motivational elements (motivational interviewing and future time perspective) and active learning - getting participants to actually do stuff, not just sit and listen.

Step 1: Strategy
To be effective and job search needs to be strategic, with a good emphasis on planning. Participants need to start off identifying what job they want, which we might do through a Possible Selves intervention, which helps participants identify what kind of future they want and how to get there.

Step 2: Self efficacy
No job search is going to be very successful if the individual doesn't believe in themselves, so the sessions will include a number of exercises aimed at boosting job search self efficacy. Participants will be asked to share stories of success (their's or others'), will be encouraged to set themselves a lot of small goals that they can achieve, we might do a few cognitive behavioural exercises to help get rid of negative thoughts and the sessions will have a positive and encouraging tone to them.

Step 3: Social support
Job searches are most successful when people feel supported, so I will get participants to identify people who might be able to give them support and ask them to think about how they might harness this more effectively. I will also set up the career sessions in such a way as to encourage the participants to be a support for each other.

Step 4: Skills for job search
Participants need to learn the nuts and bolts of job hunting, so will be give the opportunity to find out where vacancies are posted (and encouraged to use a range of sources) and to think about what information they need and where they could find it. Participants will be encouraged to think about the the factors that lead to job satisfaction (being good at a job, having colleagues you like and having lots of variety).

Step 5: Self presentation
Participants will think about the way they want to come across on paper and in person and develop their best CV and practice interview skills.

So, what do you think? It's a bit tongue in cheek - I'm not really proposing that this 'back of an envelope' career learning framework should take the place over far more thoughtful and considered frameworks. But I'm quite intrigued by this. I wonder if it would work? 

Liu, S., Huang, J. L., & Wang, M. (2014). Effectiveness of job search interventions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1009-1041

Should career group sessions always be interactive?

I'm thinking a lot at the moment about the best way to teach career education. Career training courses advocate an interactive approach to group sessions, with information interspersed with interactive exercises. My experience though suggests that in practice, career sessions tend to end up being more information based and lecture style than interactive. My view is shaped by my own practice, and my observation of colleagues, and although I'm sure there is probably a lot of really excellent interactive practice going on that I haven't come across, I wonder if in general our career group sessions should be more interactive?

Colleagues I speak to give a range of reasons for lecture style input: it's client expectations, it's big groups, it's time pressures. And this all has made me question whether this is actually the best way - are interactive exercises actually helpful? What makes me think they are any better than lecture style?

So I've found a paper. Michael (2006) has done all the hard work for me, and provides a summary of the evidence that active learning works. Michael's agenda is slightly different from mine. He is looking for the best way to teach science to University students whereas I am after good practice for career education. But even though we are not teachers, we are still in the business of getting our clients to learn, so I think there is a lot we can take from this evidence.

Michael comes out very much in favour of active learning, and feels strongly that not enough of it is seen in university education at the moment.  In his introduction he goes as far as to say "it would be difficult to design an educational model that is more at odds with current research on human cognition that the one that is used in most colleges and universities".

He presents the 'big five' findings from learning research which to my mind, make a pretty compelling case for keeping career workshops interactive.
1. Learning is all about integrating new information with old. We start with what we already know and add anything new we learn to what is there already. If new information is presented without any reference to existing information, then students don't have the opportunity to integrate the new with the old and learning is less effective.
2. Learning facts is different from learning to do something. Simply teaching the facts does not equip students to do anything with the facts. So telling students that filling their CVs with power words is a good idea is different from equipping them to change their CVs; they need to have a go at doing it and then get feedback on their efforts in order to develop the ability to do anything with the facts.
3. Transferring knowledge from one context to another is surprisingly difficult. Giving an example of how something should be done (eg hearing an excellent interview answer on its own does not allow students to see how they themselves should answer a question). Students need to see how they themselves would answer a tricky interview question in order to understand how to use the information.
4. People learn better when they learn together. Talking and listening to others leads to better learning than sitting and listening to a lecture.
5. Putting ideas into words helps people work out what they think.Interactive exercises allow people to talk about their ideas and in articulating them, their thoughts develop and crystalise.

If these really are the key findings from a generation of research about learning, then I think we need to pay attention. There hasn't been very much research into what works in a career context, but evidence in a range of academic disciplines seems to suggest that this is simply how people learn - and there is nothing to suggest that learning about careers  is any different from any other kind of learning.

My confidence is restored. Career sessions should always be interactive. They should always get participants to think about where they are now, and to build on their current position. They should include exercises where they put their own thoughts into words and share those words with others, and they should allow students to try out the skills they're focusing on, not just tell them the theory.


Michael, J. (2006) What's the evidence that active learning works? Advanced Physiological Education  30, 159 - 167