project ready 2019

ProjectReady2019Helpingyoungpeople

preparefortheirfuture

PreliminaryProgramReport

2019ProjectReadyPreliminaryProgramReportPreliminaryProgramReport

–2–

2019ProjectReadyProgramEvaluationReportJanuary2020 Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisreportmaybereproducedorutilisedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,oranyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromtheCentralRangesLocalLearningandEmploymentNetwork.TheviewsexpressedinthispaperarethoseoftheauthorsandarenotnecessarilythoseoftheCentralRangesLocalLearningandEmploymentNetwork.ReportcommissionedbytheCentralRangesLocalLearningandEmploymentNetworkReportpreparedby: DrLindyBaxter DrTimStrohfeldtContact: LenaWay IndustryEngagementOfficer [email protected]©2020CentralRangesLocalLearningandEmploymentNetwork


–3–

Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary 4Affirmation,confirmation,andrecommendationsforongoingprogrammaticimprovement 5Affirmations 5Confirmations 5Recommendations 5Program 5Evaluation 5

Introduction 6ProjectReadybackground 6Aim 6ProgramDescription 7

Methodology 8Quantitativedatacollection 9Qualitativedatacollection 9

EvaluationandDiscussion 9Studentsurveys 9Statisticaltestsofthestudentsurvey 10

Self-efficacy 12Pathwaystoemployment 14Mindset 16ProjectReadypedagogy 17Schoolattendance 18Limitationsofthedata 19

ReferenceList 21Appendix 22

ProjectReadystudentsurveyquestions 22


–4–

Executive Summary TheCentralRangesLLENinitiative,ProjectReady,supportedsomeofthemostdisengagedYear10 studentsdeemedmost at riskof leaving school inYear10and consequentlynotcompletingtheirsecondaryeducation.Thedataavailableforthisevaluationindicatemanyof theprogram’s statedgoalsarebeingmet. Studentsarediscovering theirpassionsandstrengths, building self-worth and resilience, understanding and identifying possibletrainingandemploymentpathwaysanddevelopingworkreadinessskills.EightschoolsranProjectReadyin2019.Participatingstudents’affirmedthebenefitsoftheprogramintheYear10curriculum.Studentssaidtheprogramproducesincreasedlevelsofself-efficacy, greater knowledge of pathways, and improved understandings and thecapacity to articulate their future employment aspiration. In addition, participation inProject Ready may be helping to encourage students to remain at school. Studentattendance, a proxy for disengagement, shows that Project Ready students’ attendancedeclinesovertheyear.However,thedeclineinattendanceisonlyslightlygreaterthanthestudent population at each school (Australian Curriculum Assessment & ReportingAuthority (ACARA), 2019) and less than might be expected for students most at-risk ofbecoming further disengaged and dropping out of school. Whether students remain atschool in Years 11 and 12, undertake further training and education, or move into theworkforce was beyond the scope of this research and would be valuable inclusions insubsequentevaluations.Inthe2019ProjectReadyprogramevaluation,students’evaluationandprogramfeedbackindicated overwhelmingly that they enjoyed the program. The pedagogy used byfacilitatorscreatedasenseofsafetyandrespect forstudents inwhichrelationshipswerebuilt, and communication and confidence flourished. Students explained that increasedconfidenceandcommunicationskillshelpedtheminschoolandsocialsettings,andintheircapacity to perform well in interviews. These were among the most commonly statedstudentoutcomesof theprogram. Byparticipating inProjectReady, studentsweremoreableto identifytheirpassionsandstrengths.Atcompletionoftheprogramstudentswereable to report their future employment goals and were able to articulate education andtrainingpathwaysthatpavethewaytowardsthem.WhileProjectReadyprovidedastructuredprogramwithmodulesspecificallydesignedtoprepare students for theworkforce, it is onlyoneof the factors contributing to students’positive outcomes. However, students attribute their personal, educational andemployment gains to their involvement in the Project Ready program. One studentcommentedthat theprogramhadtaught themto“takeallopportunitiesyougetbecauseitcould be the start to something amazing. You can be anything you want” (S1). For adisengaged student, identified by the school as at risk of further educationaldisengagement, or termination of engagement with education entirely, such statementsdemonstrate a changed approach and mindset. Specifically, the student expressedexcitementat futurepossibilities. Importantly, thestudent indicatedtheirre-engagementwith education and training and had achieved a greater conception of pathways toemployment. While not yet a universal response, understanding the causes for this thisstudents'changedperceptionswouldallowgreaterfocusonsuccessfactors,combinedwithanimprovedunderstandingofhowtogeneralisethisprogramtoalternateornewcontexts.


–5–

Affirmation, confirmation, and recommendations for ongoing programmatic improvement Affirmations, confirmations, and recommendations provide useful characterisations topreçistheevaluationofProjectReady.AffirmationsManystudentswhoparticipated inProjectReadyreportenhancedself-worth,evidenceofgrowthmindsets, renewedpositiveattitudes towardseducation, andclearerperspectivesoftheirfuturecareerdirectionsandemploymentopportunities.ConfirmationsStudent-centred pedagogies appear to have contributed to an environment whererestorativere-engagementoccurredamongtheseformerlyeducationallydisengagedyouth.Recommendations

Program#1. ThepositiveoutcomesofProjectReadyhighlightthevalueofcontinuingtheprogramat

the eight CentralRanges region secondary schools. The students participating in the2019 program developed confidence and found pathways to further training andemploymentpathways,bothstatedaimsoftheprogram.

#2. Project Ready shows promise to benefit similarly disengaged students at othersecondary schools. Extending the program to include disengaged students in otherschoolcontextswill likely increasethepotential forthosestudentstoalsobecomere-engagedwithschoolandderiveotherpositiveoutcomessimilartothestudentsinthisstudy.

#3. TheProjectReadyprogramshouldbeevaluatedannually.Theresearchshouldevaluatewhethertheprogram’saimsarebeingmetandincludestudents’ learning,attendance,school retention, and post-school trajectory. Additionally, the research shouldcontextualisethepedagogical,theoretical,andpracticalapproachestotheprogram.

EvaluationWhilethe2019programindicatednoteworthyshiftsinindividualparticipantperspectives,moreisrequiredaspartofastrategicandsystemicevaluationofProjectReady.Thiswouldinclude the use of validated research instruments to provide internally consistent, valid,and reliable questionnaires that could be used to determine causes of student gains andattitudinal changes. There is also a need to track students’ trajectories longitudinally todetermine the long term influence on students' attainment of their career of choice.Longitudinal evaluation of causal factors contributing to students’ improved approachesandwellbeingwouldalsobeuseful. Further,suchinformationwouldservetoinformanddirect future program-level reforms, and quality improvement strategies at the currentsites.


–6–

Information obtained from validated, theoretically-based instruments would allow thecontribution of the project to participant's lives to be communicated and contextualisedmore broadly. At present, there is evidence the program produces improved attitudinalapproaches among students, although thewhy and how remain beyond the reach of thecurrentdatacollections.Havingthecapacitytoevaluateanindividual'sgrowthinresponseto the program requires the ability tomatch student responses, reflections, and perhapswork in pre-, during, and post-program evaluations. Introducing the capacity to matchindividualstudentswillleadtotheabilitytoevaluateindividualgrowth.Likewise,trackingstudents will reduce variability inherent within groups, and improve the resolution ofcausal factors contributing to students' growth. Current approaches limit the capacity tomaximiseoutcomesamongexistingandfutureparticipantsintheseschoolsandbeyond.

Introduction LocalLearningandEmploymentNetworks (LLENs)wereestablished tobuild sustainablepartnershipswith educationproviders, industry and local communities.While they buildlinks forstudents to futureemploymentandsupportstructuredworkplaceopportunities,they have a particular focus on young educationally disenfranchised youth at risk ofdisengagingfromschool.WhileLLENshavefocusedinitiativesattheprimaryschoollevelandhaveintroducedprogramssuchasPassionsandPathways(Harvey,2018),theCentralRanges LLEN has concentrated efforts at the secondary school level, when students aremaking the decision to remain at school, or not. TheCentralRanges LLENhypothesisedthattargetedinterventionduringat-riskstudents’secondaryschoolingcouldcreateapivotpoint from which students’ educational trajectory might be positively influenced. Theinitiativewas for students to participate in a program at Year 10 as away to encouragestudents’tocompleteyear12oritsequivalentandprovidestudentswiththeknowledgeofpossiblepathwaysandqualificationsrequiredforfutureemployment.ProjectReadywastheCentralRangesLLEN’skeystrategy. Theprogramtargetedsupportfor themostat-risk,educationallyvulnerable,andchallengingsecondaryschool students.Theprogramwaspilotedin2017andhasbeenmodifiedineachsubsequentyear.By2019,eightof the15secondaryschools in theCentralRangesregionparticipated in theProjectReadyprogram.LikemanyotherVictorianschools,theCentralRangesschools–AlexandraSecondary College, Broadford Secondary College, Gisborne Secondary College, KynetonHigh School, Seymour College, Seymour Flexible Learning Centre, Wallan SecondaryCollege, and Yea High – enrol educationally at-risk students (Goss & Sonnerman, 2017).TheCentralRangesschools,seekingtosupporttheirmostvulnerablestudents,participatedinProjectReadyasawaytofacilitatehigherlevelsofschoolengagementandlearningandtohelpstudentstofindvocationalpathways.

Project Ready background AimProjectReadywasdesignedtopositively impactthemostdisengagedYear10studentsbybuilding their self-worth and resilience and cultivating their passions to identify, aspire,and plan career pathways. These outcomes encourage students to remain at school to


–7–

completeYear10andre-enrolforthefollowingyear/s. Integraltotheprogramdesignistherecognitionoftheneedforstudentstounderstandandidentifypotentialtraineeships,apprenticeships and other job pathways, and to develop the skills required to be work-ready.TheCentralRangesLLENidentifiedYear10asthetargetyearlevelfortheirProjectReadyprogram,theyearpriortothetwoyearsoftheVictorianCertificateofEducation(VCE)that“providesthediversepathways for furtherstudyortrainingatuniversityorTAFEandtoemployment” (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA), 2020a, para. 1).GovernmentdatademonstratethestudentretentionratedeclinesfromYear10toYear12(ACARA,2019c).Whileseniorsecondaryschoolattritionincludesstudentswhomoveintotraineeships, apprenticeships or early employment, there remain Year 10 students wholeave school without further-education pathways and with little or no opportunities forsecure,well-remuneratedemployment.BenefitsaccrueforstudentswhocompleteYear10andre-enrolthefollowingyearbecauseYear 11 offers the first opportunity for students to experience Vocational Education andTraining (VET) subjects, such as building and construction, community services, andhairdressing. VET subjects present opportunities “to improve … skills, knowledge,employment opportunities, financial outcomes and education pathways” (VCAA, 2020b,para. 1),which lead to a range of diverse qualifications and employment. It is thereforeimportantforstudentstoremainatschool,becauseitprovidesthemwithgreatereconomicand social wellbeing, and as low-skilled jobs disappear, the need to attain educationalqualificationsincreases(ACTGovernment,2020).ProgramDescriptionThe Project Ready program employs a holistic approach to teach students and isdeliberatelydifferent incontentanddelivery to regularclassrooms.CentralRangesLLENstaff considered that disengaged students would derive potentially greater educationalbenefitwhenclasseswereconductedinwaysthataddressedstudents’needsinadifferentway.TheProjectReadyprogramthereforetakesanalternativeeducationalapproachfromthose typically found in most regular secondary school classrooms. The Project Readyphilosophy was to offer classes that were “delivered in an uplifting, inspiring, open andnon-judgementalway”(CentralRangesLocalLearning&EngagementNetwork(CRLLEN),2020,p.5),andaccordingly,adefinedsetofguidingprinciplesweredevisedtoensuretheProject Ready program would be delivered to students in all schools with pedagogicalconsistency.TheCentralRangesLLENsoughtfundingtoemployfacilitatorstoconducttheProjectReadyprogram. Facilitatorswerenotteachersanddidnothaveteachingbackgrounds. Lackingpreviousteachingexperience,facilitatorswerelesslikelytoreverttotraditionalinstructionstyles than seasoned teachers (McArthur, 2015). The facilitators were selected, amongother reasons, for their capacity to initiate and sustain relationships with students whowere disengaged and likely to be experiencing challenging life circumstances, low self-esteem, mental health and wellbeing issues, low literacy and numeracy levels, or withundefinedcareerpathwaysorgoals(CRLLEN,2020). Facilitatorswereinitiallytrainedtoconduct Project Ready classes. Classes were relatively informal, with the students andfacilitatorsittinginacircle–anegalitariantechniquetomakeallmembersfeelequal.Thisinformal instructional style was intended to support and encourage students to join ingroup discussions. To comply with schools’ legal obligations, Project Ready classes all


–8–

required the presence of a supervising teacherwho did not directly participate in groupactivities.The 2019 Project Ready program was designed as a stand-alone subject in the Year 10schoolcurriculum.Itwasforstudentswhowereidentifiedbyschoolstafftobeamongthemosteducationallyat-risk,basedoncriteriaoutlinedbytheVictorianGovernment(2019).Once identified, students were interviewed and counselled by school staff for theirsuitabilityforProjectReady.Theprogramconsistedof20classestimetabledforonedoubleperiod aweek, concurrentwith other elective subjects, over Terms 2 and 3 of the 2019schoolyear.Theprogramconsistedofsixmodules:

1. CareerDevelopment2. Self-Discovery3. WorkReadiness4. EnterpriseSkills5. WorkPlacement6. Community/EntrepreneurialProject

Thesixmodules includedrelationshipandteambuildingactivities tobuild trustbetweenmembers, many hands-on activities, and a work-experience placement. As a group,students were guided by the facilitator, as they worked through the six modules insequence,recordingtheirlearninginanaccompanyingworkbook.Theprogramwas specificallydesignedby theCentralRangesLLEN to focuson students’careers, skills for theworkplace,andexperience in local industry. In2019,ProjectReadywasalsoadaptedtomeetthecurriculumrequirementsfortheYear9and10WorkStudiesLearning Area, as defined by the Australian Curriculum Assessment and ReportingAuthority(CRLLEN,2019).

Methodology The2019evaluationofProjectReadybeganwiththeCentralRangesLLENstaffseekingtoidentifywhetherthe2019programaimswerebeingachievedornot.TheoverarchinggoalofProjectReadywas to increase theschool retentionof studentsat riskof leavingschoolduring,orattheendofYear10,andforthemtobebetterpreparedforfutureemployment(CRLLEN,2019).TheProjectReadyprogramaimedtoachievethisbyhelpingstudentsto:

o Discoverpassionsandstrengthso Buildself-worthandresilienceo Understandpossibletrainingandemploymentpathwayso Developworkreadinessskillso Learnenterpriseandentrepreneurialskills

As an initial evaluation tool, the Central Ranges LLEN staff created a survey that wascompletedbystudentspriortobeginningProjectReadyatallschools.Thesurveyswerede-identifiedandnotgivenaunique identifier, so individual student surveyresponsescouldnot be discretely comparedwith any other data collected. Towards the end of the 2019school year, the Central Ranges LLEN commissioned this evaluation of theProjectReadyprogram.


–9–

QuantitativedatacollectionStudents were surveyed twice using an 11 item questionnaire. Questionnaire responseoptionsusedLikert scales ranging from3 to5 stepsperquestion (e.g. a 3 step responseitem could be scaled: poor/fair/good). Students completed the paper-based surveyquestionnairepriortobeginningProjectReady.Theyweresurveyedagainusingthesamequestionnaire on completion of the Project Ready program, or in some cases, when theprogramceasedattheirschoolwithoutstudentscompletingallprogrammodules.Todeterminewhether students’ attendancewas influenced through their involvement inProjectReady,attheendoftheschoolyear,eachschoolprovideddailyattendanceratesforeach school term for eachProjectReady participant. The data also provided evidence ofstudents’ retention inYear10. Alldatawereanalysed inSPSSand includeddescriptives,frequencies,andaprincipalcomponentsanalysis(Pallant,2011).QualitativedatacollectionStudent voice served to triangulate closely with survey data interpretation. Students,facilitators, and supervising teachers provided responses to open-ended questions onpaper-basedforms. Student feedback,devisedbytheCentralRangesLLEN,was intendedas a way of identifying student learning and evaluating the program to inform furthermodification of Project Ready. Two schools provided these data (Broadford SecondaryCollege; Gisborne Secondary College). Facilitator and supervising teacher feedback fromthree schools (Alexandra SecondaryCollege;Wallan SecondaryCollege; YeaHigh School)had a similar intention, as student feedback, although from a different perspective.Feedback of the program informed Central Ranges LLEN’s review and amendments tomoduledesign,pedagogy,andconsiderationofbehaviouralissues.An additional paper-based evaluation form was constructed and was completed bystudents at four schools (Alexandra Secondary College; Broadford Secondary College;SeymourFlexibleLearningCentre;YeaHighSchool)attheendoftheprogram.Theopen-ended short answer questions asked students about themselves; what they had learnedfromtheprogramandhowbeinginvolvedinProjectReadyhadimpactedthempersonally.Qualitative data were explored through thematic analysis using inductive coding and asanalysisprogressed,keythemeswereidentifiedandrefined(Cresswell,2009).Topreservethe anonymity of participants’ comments, specific students are denoted via the term S1,where1 refers to first student firstmentioned in the report. Likewise, a similar namingschemeisusedforfacilitator(F1)andteacher(T1).

Evaluation and Discussion StudentsurveysAll schools involved inProjectReady completed pre- and post-program student surveys.107 students completed pre-program surveys and 87 students completed post-programsurveys.Whileindicatinganattritionrateof18.7%fromProjectReady,itmayalsoincludestudents who ceased attending school. Without being able to identify students, there


–10–

remaingaps inhowto interpret thedisparity instudentnumbers. Attendancedatawereobtainedfor87students,whichmayrepresentonlythestudentswhowereinvolvedattheendof theprogram. Whether thestudents left theprogram,enrolledatotherschools,orsecuredfull-timeemployment,inalmostallcasesthatinformationremainsunknown.Onestudent was reported to have left school as s/he had secured full-time employment.Anothermovedtoaninternship.Twootherswhoremainedinschoolbutlefttheprogramwere reported to have identified career paths and returned to their previous class topursuethem.Totestthesurveyinstrumentasvalidandreliable,afactoranalysiswasconducted.Initialevaluationdemonstratedthesurveyhadthreestatisticallydiscerniblequestiongroupingsconsisting one main group or code (SELF_EFFICACY), and two less substantial codes(PATHWAY_TO_EMPLOYMENT and MINDSET). These three codes flag the existence ofinformativecaserelationships.Unfortunately,thesurveydatadidnotmeetstatisticaltestconditionsforquantitativecase-wiseanalysisbecauseitfailedtoprovideessentialbasesofcomparison. Further analysis of refined data will be required to tease out causalrelationships.

Statisticaltestsofthestudentsurvey

Quality&ValidityAprincipalcomponentsanalysis(PCA)wasfoundtobeasuitablemethodforanalysingtheProject Readyquestionnaire. PCA evaluated the relative contribution of each question andgroupedrelatedquestionstogether.Priortoanalysis,allelevensurveyquestionsneededtobestandardizedtoa5-pointscale.Itwasnotedthatthe3-pointand4-pointquestions(respectivelyQuestion11andQuestions4,5, 6) had lower resolution than the other questions. Inspection of the correlation matrixshowedthatallbutoneofthequestions(Question10)hadatleastonecorrelationcoefficientgreater than 0.3, which is a threshold measure of question quality. Question 10 had lowcorrelation (.235) with the other questions and needs refinement. Notwithstanding, allquestionswereretainedforanalysis.The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy indicates whether linearrelationships exist between items; a requirement for PCA. The overall KMOmeasurewas0.78,whichsupportedPCA. IndividualKMOmeasures forQuestions1,2,3,6,7,8,9&11were all greater than0.7,which classified as good to excellent (Kaiser, 1974). KMOof theremainingquestionswerebetween0.5and0.7,whichKaiser(1974)classifiesaspoor(Q4)tomediocre(Q5&Q10).ItwasnotedthatQuestions4&5correlatedwelltogether,andtherewas an intriguing negative correlation betweenQuestion 10 andQuestion 11. On balance,Questions 4, 5 and 10 were deemed to be substantially informative and were retained.Anothermeasureappliedtoallelevenquestions,Bartlett'sTestofSphericity,wasstatisticallysignificant (p < .0005), meaning that the data was likely factorizable. These preliminaryanalyses supported PCA, but highlighted the need to develop and refine the surveyquestionnairetoimprovevalidityandresolutionofinformation.PCArevealedthreecomponents(questiongroupings)thathadeigenvaluesgreaterthanone;theuniversallyacceptedthreshold.Thethreecomponentsexplained36.0%,12.2%,10.0%ofthe total variance respectively. Visual inspection of the scree plot did not support threecomponents(Cattell,1966),yetathree-componentsolutionmettheinterpretabilitycriterion(arguablythemostimportant).Onbalancethreecomponentswereretained.


–11–

Table1Rotatedcomponentmatrix

Component

1 2 3

Survey Q 9 .837 -.035 -.071

Survey Q 7 .760 .106 -.007

Survey Q 8 .738 .087 -.101

Survey Q 1 .666 .141 .276

Survey Q 2 .634 .224 .293

Survey Q 3 .593 .125 .016

Survey Q6 .591 .241 -.298

Survey Q4 .070 .864 -.010

Survey Q5 .181 .843 .034

Survey Q11 .319 .193 .715

Survey Q 10 .307 .161 -.577

Note:ExtractionMethodwasPrincipalComponentAnalysis,VarimaxRotationwithKaiserNormalization.Shadingandemboldenedvalueshighlightthreegroupsofquestions(components).Question10hadanegativecorrelationwithQuestion11(redfont).

The three-component solution explained 58.2% of the total variance,which is close to thedesired 60-70% lower limit. Varimax orthogonal rotation exhibited 'simple structure' thatsupported coding (Thurstone, 1947). The structurewas intuitively informative, loading ofSELF_EFFICACY itemsonComponent1,PATHWAY_TO_EMPLOYMENT itemsonComponent2,andMINDSETonComponent3.ComponentloadingsandgroupingsoftherotatedsolutionarepresentedinTable1.Questiongroups(components/codes)supportedbyPCAwere:

• GROUP1:Questions1,2,3,6,7,8,9• GROUP2:Questions4,5• GROUP3:Questions10,11(negativelycorrelated).

Reliability:Chronbach’sAlphawascalculatedtotesttheinternalconsistency(reliability)ofGroup1.TheGroup1 SELF_EFFICACY scalehad seven itemswith ahigh level of internal consistency, asdeterminedbyaCronbach'salphaof0.83.Itwasnotpossibletotesttheinternalconsistencyof the other two groups as they only had two items each. The survey would be greatlyimproved by reconstructing groups 2 & 3 with more questions, which would increaseresolutionandallowinternalreliabilitytobemeasured.Althoughproblemswithvalidityandreliabilityof thesurvey instrumentmeantstatisticalanalysesof thepre-andpost-surveyswerenotpossible, analysisof school-levelpre-andpost-surveyswasconductedusingdescriptiveandfrequencies(Fink,2009).The groupings identified in the Principal Component Analysis (self-efficacy; pathways toemployment; mindset) fit neatly with the main aims of Project Ready and were theparticularaspectsoftheprogramtheCentralRangesLLENsoughttoidentifyandevaluate.Other data collected for this evaluation also reveal predominant broad themes of self-


–12–

efficacyandpathwaystoemployment. Studentsreportincreasedlevelsofconfidenceandknowledge of career pathways and skills required to attain employment. As a result,student survey responses, student and facilitator feedback and student evaluation arereportedusingthefollowingthemes.Self-efficacySelf-efficacy, as identified in the PCA, relates to a person’s belief they can enact somecontrol over theirmotivation, behaviour and social environment to produce an outcome(Bandura,1997).OneoftheProjectReadyprogramaimswastobuildstudents’self-worthandresiliencethroughpersonaldevelopmentandcommunity involvement. ProjectReadyclasses that focused on personal development and students knowing themselves wereperceivedbyonefacilitatortobe“verypowerful [although it]tooktimeforstudentstofeelcomfortablewithself-reflection,itbecameastrengthformanystudents”(F1).Students’self-reflection likely contributed to their self-worth, resilience, and confidence, all aspects ofself-efficacy.Sevenitemsinthesurveymeasuredself-efficacy(Table2).Therewasapositive shift inall survey itemsrelating to self-efficacy, indicating thatoverthe period of the program students’ confidence and resilience had increased, whichstudentsattributedtohavingparticipatedinProjectReady.Whilesurveyresponsesmostlyimproved between 9.09% and 15.02%, the question about communication (Question 9)improvedbyonly4.9%.Table22019ProjectReadystudent’spre-andpost-programsurveyresponsestoquestions1,2,3,6,7,8,and9thatrelatetoself-efficacy

Students’pre-andpost-programsurveyresponsestoself-efficacyquestions

Scale

Pre-program

Post-program Change

Change(%)

n=107 n=87 Question1 (1–5) 3.43 3.76 +0.33 +9.62Question2 (1–5) 3.33 3.83 +0.50 +15.02Question3 (1–5) 3.36 3.65 +0.31 +9.23Question6 (1–4) 2.42 2.64 +0.22 +9.09Question7 (1–5) 3.20 3.62 +0.42 +13.12Question8 (1–5) 2.82 3.09 +0.27 +9.57Question9 (1–5) 3.50 3.65 +0.15 +4.29

ThegreatestimprovementwasforQuestiontwo,(15.02%).Thatquestionaskedstudentshow well they understood what they were good at. While it was adifficult question to answer, because the question lacked clarity,students’ post-program responses suggested students believed theyhadgainedmoreinsightandunderstandingabouttheirownstrengthsandskillssincebeginningProjectReady.

“Iammoresocialandconfidentinmyabilities”


–13–

Students’ confidence was directly surveyed in three survey items (Questions 1, 7 & 8).StudentsthatprovidedqualitativedataforthisstudyconsistentlymentionedconfidenceasanoutcomeofparticipatinginProjectReady.Studentsfrequentlystatedforexample,“Iammoresocialandconfidentinmyabilities”(S2)andthatwhathadchangedsincetheybeganthe program was “confidence in talking to others” (S3). One student said they wouldrecommend the program to other students “because it helps with being confident [andbuilding]confidenceinworkingingroups”(S4).Questionone relateddirectly to students’ self-confidenceand survey responses indicatedthatithadincreasedbetweenthebeginningandtheendofstudentsparticipatinginProjectReady. Data from student feedback and evaluation corroborates students’ growing self-confidence. For example students commented that through participating in the programtheyhadgainedsomeself-confidenceorhad“builtalotofself-confidence”(S3). Students’confidence to speak in front of a group of people, canvassed in question eight, improvedduringProjectReady. Some students commented thatoneof themostuseful things theyhadlearnedintheprogramwas“communication[and]talkinginfrontofpeople”(S5).Survey responses for students’ confidence to undertake a jobinterview(Question7)showed thatstudentsweremoreconfident tobe interviewed than when they began the program. Many studentsmadereferenceto thevaluetheyplacedon learningtheskills for jobinterviewsandthatthoseskillslearninProjectReadyhadcontributedtotheirjobreadiness.RecommendingProjectReadytootherstudents,astudentsuccinctlystatedthattheprogramwasa“confidencebooster”(S6).

Student resiliencewas addressed inQuestion 3. The survey item asked students to ratehow well they bounce back from adversity, challenges or setbacks in life or at school.Student responses were higher by almost 10% after they had completed Project Ready.Therewerenoquestionsinthestudentevaluationdirectlyaddressingresilience.However,onestudentmentionedthatthroughProjectReady,theyhadlearntto“nevergiveup”(S7).Rating their ability to communicate with other people (Question 9) in the pre-programsurveyresponses,studentsproducedthehighestscoreofallself-efficacyindicators(Table2). Students’ responses in the post-program survey revealed an increase, albeit thesmallestincreaseofalltheself-efficacyindicators.Itseemsstudentsfeelthattheirmasteryof communication skills had changed less over the course of theprogram than confidence. Interpretation of this question also mayhavevariedamong students fromgeneralday-to-day communicationtomore formal communication (particularly as it follows a questionaboutspeakinginfrontofagroupofpeople).Although student evaluation and feedback questions do not directlyaddress communication, some students reported an increase in theconfidence and ability to communicate with others, listingcommunicationastheirkeylearningfromProjectReady.Keylearningforonestudentwastherecognitionthat“Icangetalongwithanyone”(S5), while another student stated s/he had learnt “to always be myself” (S8). Studentsfrequentlymentionedbuilding friendships,which reliesoneffectivepeer communication,as apositiveoutcome fromparticipating inProjectReady. They report that theprogramhelpedstudentsto“connectwithothers”(S1)and“tobecomefriendswithanyone”(S9).One

ProjectReadyisa“confidencebooster”

“Ihavelearnthowtobecomefriendsandhavemademanyvaluedfriends”


–14–

student reported: “I learnt how to become friends and I havemademany valued friends”(S10)throughtheprogram.Thefinalself-efficacyiteminthesurvey(Question6)askedaboutstudents’knowledgeoflocaljobopportunitiesandstudentresponsesindicatedthatstudentsweremoreinformedthanbeforetheywereinvolvedinProjectReady(Table2).Astudentstatedthats/hehada“better understanding of jobs/opportunities [and a] greater knowledge of what is around”(S11).Theonlyquestionaboutlocalemploymentopportunitieswasinthestudentsurvey,therefore, the students did not specifically mention local jobs in their evaluation orfeedback.Somestudents,however,ratedthecommunityprojectastheirfavouriteactivityandmentioned “workskills/communityskills” as valuable learning developed through theprogram(S12).Therearemanyfactorsoverthecourseoftwoschooltermsthatmaypositively influencestudents’ self-efficacy other than a particular program at school, however, all the datastudents provided attribute improved levels of confidence to theProjectReady program.Overwhelmingly,studentsprovideevidenceofincreasedself-confidence,abilitytospeakinfrontofagroup,presenttoagroup,increasedskillandconfidenceinjobinterviews,andincommunicating with other people. For many students, the increased confidence theygained through the Project Ready program was the major reason students wouldrecommendtheprogramtoothers.Afacilitatoralsoexplained:“studentsgrewinmaturityovertheprogram[and]madesignificantgainsinconfidenceandpositiveoutlook”(F1).PathwaystoemploymentAkeystrategyofProjectReadywasforstudentstodiscoverskills,strengths,andpassionsthat could inform and direct them to potential training and employment pathways.Whetheracareerpathwayrequiredfurtherqualifications,suchasatraineeshiportertiaryeducationprogramornot,stayingatschooltoattaintherequiredentry-leveleducationorcompletesecondaryeducationwasanintendedoutcomeoftheprogram.Surveyquestions4and5relatedtocareergoalsandstudents’pathwaystoemployment(Table3).Table32019ProjectReadystudent’spre-andpost-programsurveyresponsestoquestions4and5thatrelatetopathwaystoemployment

Students’pre-andpost-programresponsestopathwaystoemploymentquestions

Scale

Pre-program

Post-program Change

Change(%)

n=107 n=87 Question5 (1–4) 2.65 2.94 +0.29 +10.94Question6 (1–4) 2.42 2.64 +0.22 +9.09

Question 4, related to whether students had career aspirations or had identified aparticular career. Student survey responses indicate that while initially some studentsalreadyhadcareeraspirations,others remainedundecidedorhad littleknowledgeaboutcareeroptions.However,aftergraduatingProjectReady,studentsurveyresponsesindicate


–15–

10%morestudentshadidentifiedtheirchosencareer.Studentsexplainedtheyweremoreaware of different jobs and had developed “a better understanding of job opportunities”(S10).Many students reported that Project Ready enabled them toidentify an employment goal and thepathway to reach that goal.Some students commented that participating in theprogramhadenabledthemtorecognise“aclearerpathwayfor[the]future”(S5),while othersnoted, “ithadopenedupa lotofpathways”(S2). Allstudents who completed the program evaluation were able todocument their future education and employment pathway. OnestudentrecommendedProjectReady tootherstudents “becauseitisagoodclass tounderstandand figureoutwhatyoucando forajob”(S11).The following item,Question5askedabout theskills trainingandqualifications requiredforfutureemployment.Thisitemshouldhaveconfoundedsomestudents,giventhatitwasprefacedwith:‘Ifyouknowwhatyourcareerpathis…’.Forthosestudentswhosepathwaywasunclear,thisquestionshouldhavebeenredundant. Interestinglythough,allstudentsansweredthequestion.Inaddition,itwasunclearwhetherthequestionwasaskingabouteducation, skills, and training required to qualify to begin employment, that would beundertakenduring thecourseof theiremployment tobe fullyqualified,orboth. Studentresponsesindicatestudents’knowledgeoftheskillsandtrainingrequiredfortheircareerpathwayincreasedby9.09%(Table3).Student feedback and evaluation highlight that the program enabled some students toclarify their pathways. For example one student clearly outlined their pathway:undertakingVictorianCertificateofAppliedLearningstudiesatschool,applyingforapart-time job togainexperience inwelding, and followingupwithanapprenticeship inmetalfabrication.Oneofthebenefitsoftheprograminrealisingacareergoalwasthatit“helpedinfindingawayonhowtogetthere”(S6).Astudenthad“changedclasschoiceforthenextyeartosuit”(S13) more closely align with their career aspirations. Through exposure to otherpossibilities inProjectReady classes, one student had unchangedcareer goals yet was considering additional studies and options.Anotherstudent“alwayswantedtodosport–butnowwant[s]todopsychologyaswell[tobea]mentalcoachforbasketball”(S14).Onestudentcommented, “Idon’tthink[ProjectReady]haschangedmyeducation,justshowedmeotherwaystogetthere”(S15).Formoststudents,ProjectReadyprovidedexposureandguidancetoemploymentpathwaysthatprovidedclarityfortheirfutureandasonestudentreflected,“InowknowwhatIwanttodoandI’mnotso confused about school” (S3). Importantly, many of thesepreviously disengaged students were energised to continue their education, to be “morededicated to it [and]havemoredetermination” (S16) to fulfil career aspirations. Studentresponses indicated that students hadmuch clearer ideas forwhen they left school thanearlierintheschoolyear.Asupervisingteacherexplainedtheoverallpositiveoutcomesofonegroupwerethat themajority of the class “really gained a valuable insight into themselves and workplace

“InowknowwhatIwanttodoandI’mnotsoconfusedaboutschool”

“Itisagoodclasstounderstandandfigureoutwhatyouwanttodoforajob”


–16–

expectations”(S17). These insightscontributedtostudentsrecognisingtheirself-efficacy,whichisevidentinonestudent’srecognitionthat“thebiggestthingIgotfromProjectReadywas that you can control your life” (S18). Project Ready may not have been the onlyinfluencefortheincreasealthoughstudentsattributetheirexperienceintheprogramasacontributingfactor.MindsetThefinalsurveyquestionrelatedtoagrowthmindset,atermcoinedbyDweck(2000)thatrelatestopeoples’underlyingbeliefsthattheyarecapableofsuccess,andthattheireffortsare fruitful. By contrast a fixed mindset describes underlying belief that personalintelligenceandachievementpotentialisfixedandbeyondone’scontrol.Dweckconsidersthat when students have a growth mindset they can increase their achievements byacceptingchallengesputtothemandbylearningfromthem(Dweck,2000;Dweck&Yeager2019). LearningaboutfixedmindsetsandgrowthmindsetswaspartoftheProjectReadyprogram, helping students to perceive that with a growth mindset future potentialitiesgrowandexpand.Table42019ProjectReadystudent’spre-andpost-programsurveyresponsestoquestions4and5thatrelatetostudents’mindset

Students’pre-andpost-programresponsestomindsetquestions

Scale

Pre-program

Post-program Change

Change(%)

n=107 n=87 Question10 (1–5) 4.06 4.17 +0.11 +2.70Question11 (1–3) 1.52 2.28 +0.76 +50.00

The survey question that asked students if they knew what a growth mindset was,(Question11)didnot identifywhetherthestudentsthemselveshadagrowthmindset. Itcouldbearguedthatknowingaboutagrowthmindsetindicatesstudentsattendedclasseswheregrowthmindsetwasdiscussed,althoughthatmaybearlittleornorelationshipwithstudents’ actual perceptions of their own underlying beliefs. In any case, this questionrevealed thatknowledgeaboutgrowthmindset increased throughattending theprogram(Table 4). Additional survey items relating to mindset and questions to specifically askaboutstudents’ownmindsetswouldimprovethesurvey.Question10askedstudentstoratehowimportanttheythoughtitwastocompleteYear12or itsequivalent. Itappearsagreatmanystudentsplacedhighvalueoncompletingtheirformal education prior to Project Ready, which reflects the focus of schools to completeformal education. The post-program survey showed only a small increase in studentsvaluing Year 12 or its equivalent important. While students may value completing theireducation, amore salientquestionmayhavebeen toaskwhether studentswereactuallyconsideringcompletingYear12oritsequivalent.


–17–

This question was negatively associated to the growth mindset, which suggests that asstudentsbuildagrowthmindset,positiveperspectiveforcompletingeducationdiminishes.One interpretation of this apparent conundrum may lie with the fact that while theyconsidercompletingeducationasimportant,somestudentshavedecideditisnotrequiredfortheirparticularemploymentpathway. Amorelikelyexplanationisthetwoquestionsinthecurrentformarelessinformativethanintended,somodificationstothesequestionsforfutureevaluationswouldprovidegreaterinsight.ProjectReadypedagogyTherewere some initial challengeswhenProjectReadywas introduced.At first, studentsdidn’tknowwhattoexpectoftheprogramand“somepeopledidn’treallylikeitatthestart”(S19)becausethewayclasseswereconductedwasquitenew.Somestudentsfelt“confusedatfirst,butthengotcomfortablewithcomingandenjoyedit”(S20). Ininitialclassesitwasreported, “some people in the groups were annoying”, however, students settled into theroutines of Project Ready and they overwhelmingly report “the program worked well,everyonegotalong[and]itwasprettychill”(S21).Thereareanumberofunarticulatedconsequencesoftheprogram.Onepositiveaspectofthe programwas that once students became familiarwith the new context, the studentsperceivedthemselvesdifferently.Onestudentcommentedaboutthe pedagogy: “learning this way, I got to understand thingsfaster”(S9),whileanothercommented,“it’slikeafamily,youfeelrespectedandyoucanlearneasier”(S5).Students report the benefits of Project Ready’smore informalclass setting. Developing over the course of the program,students felt closer to eachother and that theywere in amoresupportive environment than the regular classroom.Interestingly, a supervising teacher said that because studentswere enjoying the classes so much, other students were asking to be recruited into theprogram in Term 3 (T1). In affirming the way Project Ready progressed, anothersupervisingteachernotedthatthefacilitatorwas“quicktobuildrelationshipswithstudentsinapositivemannerandtookonboardtheirsuggestions”(T2).Onewell-researchedandreliablecontributor toeducationalretention,careersuccessandcommunity contribution comes via the capacity to engage socially. That the participantsreport greater social and peer friendship and interactions provided a central theme forcontinued research designed to identify and maximise these outcomes going forward.Students agreed that there were strong relationships built in classes, both with thefacilitator and their peers. They said of theProjectReady, “it’s different because you feelcaredabout”(S9)andtheyreallyenjoyedclassesbecause“therewasmoreone-on-onetimewitheachotherso[it]wasmucheasiertofeellikemyself”(S22).OtherstudentsagreethatinProjectReadyclasses,“youhaveroomtobeyourself”(S23).Thegroupworkwasimportantfor some students because itmade them feel that “I’mnotalone, I’mwith friends” (S24).Safetyand trustamong thegroupswerebuilt through “beingabletotalktopeople” (S22)and the way that “you sit in a circle and there was a lot of talk about emotion” (S1).Friendships were established for students who report that through Project Ready onebenefitwas“Igotclosetofriends”(S25).

“It’slikeafamily,youcanfeelrespectedandyoulearneasier”


–18–

SchoolattendanceIn2019,eightschoolsintheCentralRangesregionofVictoriaparticipatedinProjectReady.Seven schools provided daily attendance data for each school term for the studentswhowereparticipatingintheprogram.YeaHighSchoolprovidednodataandSeymourFlexibleLearning Centre provided daily attendance for Terms 1 to 3. Attendance data werecollectedfor87studentsintotal(Figure1).Government data published on theMy Schoolwebsite reveals that students attendancedeclines during the school year (ACARA, 2019b). Students’ attendance rates are usuallyhigherinSemester1whencomparedwithTerm3(Term4dataarenotpublished),andthispatternoccursin2019MySchooldataforallstudyschools.Students participating inProjectReady produce lower attendance rates than their schoolpeers in each school term. That is hardly surprising as the students in the program areamong themost likely tohave lowanddecliningattendanceandat-riskof leavingschoolaltogether. Atprogram-level,students’dailyattendancedeclinesgraduallyoverthe2019schoolyear,producinganoveralldecreaseinattendanceof3.3percentagepoints,whichisonly slightly greater than attendance declines in any of the school populations (ACARA,2019b). However,whenthedataaredisaggregatedtoschool-levelattendance(Figure2),there are two exceptions that present a different pattern of attendance – SeymourSecondaryCollegeandSeymourFlexibleLearningCentre.

Figure1Aggregatedstudents’meandailyattendance(%)foreachschooltermforallstudentswhoparticipatedinProjectReadyin2019

TheProjectReadystudents’dailyattendanceatSeymourHighSchooldeclinesuntilTerm4when it improves, although remains lower than Terms 2 and 3 attendance. SeymourFlexibleLearningCentreproducesacompletelydifferentpatternwithstudents’attendancesteadilyimprovingovereachschooltermtoTerm3. WhetherthatpatterncontinuesintoTerm4remainsunknownbecausethatattendancedatawasnotprovided.

80.8 78.7 78.1 77.5

0102030405060708090100

Term1 Term2 Term3 Term4Students'dailyattendance(%

)

2019SchoolTerms

2019ProjectReadyAllstudentsdailyattendance-byterm


–19–

Figure22019school-levelmeanattendance(%)forProjectReadyStudentsforeachschooltermforsecondaryschools.

Whenattendancedata are considered at school-level, a consistent patternover the2019schooltermsisnotevident. Schoollevelattendanceratesvaryacrosstermsandbetweenschools, and all remain below the 90% national attendance benchmark (AustralianCurriculumandAssessmentAuthority,2019a),whichiscommendableforstudentswhoareathighriskofleavingschoolandmostlikelytoattendschoolfarlessoften.Limitationsofthedata§ Studentpre-programsurveys,completedpriortobeginningProjectReadywerede-

identifiedwithoutbeinggivennumericalorotheridentifier.Asaresult,surveyandotherdatacouldnotbeanalysedatindividualstudentlevelasthedatacouldnotbeidentifiedandmatchedtoeachstudent.Surveydatawereanalysedatprogram-levelandattendancedatawereanalysedatschool-levelandprogram-level.

§ Thesurveysitemsweretoofewtoenablepatternsofresponsestobedeterminedforunmeasurableconstructssuchasself-efficacyandpathwaystoemployment.Itemsneededtobemorecarefullywordedsothattheywerenottoogeneraland/oropentomisinterpretation.Studentsurveys,however,providedpre-andpost-programstudentdataforanalysis.

§ Thedatacollectedfocusonthe2019ProjectReadyprogramandthestudentsinthecurrentyear,whichprecludesmeasurementoftheprogramaimsofstudents’schoolretentionandpost-schoolpathwaystotraineeships,apprenticeshipsandemployment.

§ Whilesomeschoolsandfacilitatorsprovidedthedatarequestedforqualitativedataevaluation(studentfeedback,teacherfeedback,andstudentevaluation),mostschoolsprovidedsome,althoughnotallthedata,sothedatawerelessrobustthanpreferred.

§ Attendancewascollectedandstudent-matched,althoughmaynothavecapturedallthestudentsintheprogram.Pre-programsurveysnumbered107andalthoughthenumberofpost-programsurveysandattendancearethesame(n=87),suggestinganattritionratefromtheprogramof18.7%.WhileYeaHighschoolprovidedsurveydatabutnotattendancedata,itdoesnotexplainthedifferenceandwithoutstudent-matcheddata,howmanystudentsandwhytheydidnotcompletetheprogramremainsunknown.Theremaybemanyreasons,suchasstudents’leavingtheprogram,moving

0102030405060708090100

Alexandra Broadford Gisborne Kyneton Seymour SeymourFlexi

Wallan Yea

Stud

ents'a+en

dancerates(%)

SecondarySchool

2019ProjectReadyStudents'school-levela+endance

TERM1

TERM2

TERM3

TERM4


–20–

toanotherschool,orleavingschoolaltogether.Availableinformationislimitedtoonestudentbeingreportedasexitingschoolbecauses/hehadsecuredfull-timeemployment.

§ Attendancedatawasprovidedforeachstudentin2019.Theadditionofstudents’attendanceforpreviousschoolyearswouldhaveprovidedausefulbaselinethatallowedcomparisonofeachstudent’sattendanceacrossyearstoidentifywhethertheir2019attendance(andattendanceinsubsequentyears)continuedpreviousattendancepatterns,orchangedinresponsetoparticipationintheProjectReadyprogram.


–21–

Reference List ACTGovernment(2020).Childrenandyoungpeople:Year10–12apparentretention.Retrieved

fromhttps://www.children.act.gov.au/indicators/year-10-12-apparent-retention.AustralianCurriculumandAssessmentAuthority(2019a).NationalreportonschoolinginAustralia

2017.Sydney,NSW:ACARA.AustralianCurriculumandAssessmentAuthority(2019b).Myschool.Retrievedfrom:

https://www.myschool.edu.au/.AustralianCurriculumandAssessmentAuthority.(2019c).Apparentretentionratesforstudents,

year10-12bystate/territoryandsector2018.Retrievedfrom:https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-data-portal/apparent-retention#View1.

Bandura,A.(1997).Self-efficacy:Theexerciseofcontrol.NewYork,NY:Freeman&Co.Cattell,R.B.(1966).Thescreetestforthenumberoffactors.MultivariateBehavioralResearch,1(2),

245-276.CentralRangesLocalLearning&EngagementNetwork.(2019).ProjectReady:Helpingyoungpeople

preparefortheirfuture2019.Wallan,VIC:CentralRangesLocalLearning&EngagementNetwork.

Cresswell,J.W.(2009).ResearchDesign:QualitativeandQuantitativeandmixedmethodsapproaches.(3rded).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Dweck,C.S.(2000).Self-theories:Theirroleinmotivation,personality,anddevelopment.Philadelphia,PA:PsychologyPress.

Dwek,C.&Yeager,D.S.(2019).Mindsets:Aviewfromtwoeras.PerspectiveonPsychologicalScience.14(3),481–496doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166.

Fink,A.,(2009).Howtoconductsurveys:Astepbystepguide(4thed.)ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Goss,P.&Sonnerman,J.(2017).Engagingstudents:Creatingclassroomsthatimprovelearning.

GrattanInstituteReportNo2017-01.Retrievedfromhttps://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Engaging-students-creating-classrooms-that-improve-learning.pdf.

Kaiser,H.F.(1974).Anindexoffactorialsimplicity.Psychometrika,39(1),31-36.McArthur,J.(2015).Matchinginstructorsandspacesoflearning:Theimpactofspaceon

behavioural,affectiveandcognitivelearning.4(1),1–16.Retrievedfromhttp://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/766.

Pallant,J.(2011).SPSSsurvivalmanual:AstepbystepguidetodataanalysisusingSPSS(4thed.).CrowsNest,NSW:Allen&Unwin.

Thurstone,L.L.(1947).Multiplefactoranalysis.Chicago,ILL:UniversityofChicagoPress.VictorianCurriculumandAssessmentAuthority.(2020a).VCEcurriculum.Retrievedfrom

https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/curriculum/vce/Pages/Index.aspxVictorianCurriculumandAssessmentAuthority.(2020b).VET:Vocationaleducationandtraining–

getVET.Retrievedfrom https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/studentguides/where-to-now/Pages/VET.aspxVictorianStateGovernment.(2019).Educationandtraining:Identifyingstudentsatriskof

disengaging.Retrievedfromhttps://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/behaviour/engagement/Pages/identify-students.aspx


–22–

Appendix

ProjectReadystudentsurveyquestions

1. Howconfidentandpositivedoyoufeelaboutyourself?2. Howwelldoyouunderstandwhatyouaregoodat?3. Howwelldoyouthinkyouareabletobouncebackfromadversities,challengesor

set-backsinyourlifeoratschool?4. Doyouknowwhatyouwanttodowhenyouleaveschool?5. Ifyouknowwhatyourcareerpathyouwouldliketofollow,doyouknowwhat

skills,trainingorqualificationsyouneed?6. Howmuchdoyouknowaboutlocaljobopportunities(e.g.businessesor

organisationsaroundyourareathathirelocalpeople)?7. Howconfidentorpreparedwouldyoufeelifyouhadtoundertakeaninterviewfor

ajob?8. Howconfidentdoyoufeeltospeakinfrontofagroupofpeople?9. Howwouldyourateyourabilitytocommunicatewithotherpeople?10. Howimportantiscompletingyear12oranequivalenttoyou?(Equivalent

completionsincludeVCALorSBAT)11. Doyouknowwhatagrowthmindsetis?


–23–


–24–

project ready 2019

Documents