Skip to main content

Preparing Students for the School-to-Work Transition: A Systematic Review of Research on Secondary School-Based Vocational Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Research Approaches on Workplace Learning

Abstract

The school-to-work transition is a critical step in the careers of vocationally educated graduates. Preparing graduates for this transition could help them obtain a permanent high-quality job. Preparation within the school, focusing on the development of personal resources, is considered essential. Accordingly, the aim of this systematic literature review is to integrate findings concerning vocational outcomes and personal resources and structural factors of secondary vocational education influencing these outcomes. Results of the summative content analysis of 36 articles indicate that obtaining a secondary vocational education degree reduces the risk of unemployment. Jobs filled by these graduates are often fixed-term and require lower levels of skills. Nevertheless, these students seem to be poorly prepared as they do not possess strong personal resources, such as professional functioning and career development skills. Concerning structural factors, attending a public school and following a specific vocational programme both help when finding a job.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These search terms were included because this study is part of a broader project focusing on the transition of students with different vocational educational degrees. Each study has its own focus within the transition. Whereas this study focuses on outcomes of the school-to-work transition, the study of Grosemans, Coertjens, and Kyndt (2017) focuses on learning during the transition from higher education to work.

  2. 2.

    References marked with an asterisk were included in the analysis.

References

References marked with an asterisk were included in the analysis.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Vermeire .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix A: Critical Appraisal Qualitative and Mixed Method Studies

 

Type of studya

Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?

Is a qualitative/mixed methods methodology appropriate?

Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?

Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research

Were the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?

Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?

Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?

Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?

Is there a clear statement of findings?

Overall quality rating

Study

 

Criteria for appraising qualitative research

Baranowska et al. (2011)

QL

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

H

Okano (2004)

QL

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

M

Philips et al. (2002)

QL

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

H

Verhaeghe et al. (2015)

MM

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

H

  1. Note. Each research study was confronted with every question in the checklist and could be only answered with yes (Y) or no (N). Whenever there was no information available around a specific criterion, it was assumed that the researcher did not take it into consideration. Conclusively, every research was given a quality rating. This rating depended on how they scored on the questions:
  2.  (L) Low: 0–3 times answered yes
  3.  (M) Medium: 4–6 times answered yes
  4.  (H) High: 7–9 times answered yes
  5. If the answers in the first three questions were negative, the study should be excluded, and could be identified as fatally flawed
  6. aQL Qualitative study, MM Mixed method study

1.2 Appendix B: Critical Appraisal Quantitative Studies

 

Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?”

Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?

Was the recruitment strategy well described?

Was the sample representative of the source population (no selection bias) and was the response rate acceptable?

Was the selection of explanatory variables based on a sound theoretical basis?

Is the questionnaire valid and reliable?

Have confounding factors been considered?

Is there a clear statement of the findings?

Are the findings generalizable to the source population?

Overall quality rating

Study

Criteria for appraising quantitative research

Ainsworth and Roscigno (2005)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Arum and Shavit (1995)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Audas et al. (2005)

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

M

Baay et al. (2014a)

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

M

Baay et al. (2014b)

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

M

Béduwé and Giret (2011)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

H

Baert et al. (2013)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Bernardi (2003)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Bertschy et al. (2009)

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

H

Bieri et al. (2016)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

H

Bonnal et al. (2002)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Brinton and Tang (2010)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Cooke (2003)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Corrales-Herrero and Rodríguez-Prado (2012)

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Crawford et al. (1997)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Creed et al. (2010)

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

H

Genda and Kurosawa (2001)

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

M

Han and Rojewski (2015)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Iannelli (2004)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Iannelli and Raffe (2007)

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

H

Kim and Passmore 2016

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Kogan et al. (2013)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

H

Koivisto et al. (2011)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

H

Lopez-Mayan and Nicodemo (2013)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

McGinnity et al. (2005)

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Paleocrassas et al. (2003)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

H

Riphahn and Zibrowius (2016)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

H

Shavit and Müller (2000)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

H

Soro-Bonmatí (2000)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Verdú et al. (2008)

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Witte and Kalleberg (1995)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

Wolbers (2007)

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

H

  1. Note. Each research study was confronted with every question in the checklist and could be only answered with yes (Y) or no (N). Whenever there was no information available around a specific criterion, it was assumed that the researcher did not take it into consideration. Conclusively, every research was given a quality rating. This rating depended on how they scored on the questions:
  2.  (L) Low: 0–3 times answered yes
  3.  (M) Medium: 4–6 times answered yes
  4.  (H) High: 7–9 times answered yes
  5. If the answers in the first three questions were negative, the study should be excluded, and could be identified as fatally flawed

1.3 Appendix C: Study Characteristics

Author(s)

Year

Country

Participants

Study type

Methodology

Research question

RQ1

RQ2

RQ3

Ainsworth and Roscigno

2005

USA

Subsample of the 14489 participants

QN

National Survey

x

  

Arum and Shavit

1995

USA

6980 participants

QN

High School and Beyond data set.

x

  

Audas et al.

2005

Hungary

3132 participants

QN

Longitudinal data

x

  

Baay et al.

2014a

The Netherlands

685 participants

QN

Longitudinal data

 

x

 

Baay et al.

2014b

The Netherlands

591 participants

QN

Survey

 

x

x

Baert et al.

2013

Belgium

4390 participants

QN

Sonar Survey

x

  

Baranowska et al.

2011

Poland

16431 participants

QL

Polish School Leaver Survey (face-to-face interviews)

x

 

x

Béduwé and Giret

2011

France

2170 participants

QN

Generation 98 Survey

x

 

x

Bernardi

2003

Italy

7058 participants

QN

Italian Household Longitudinal Survey

x

  

Bertschy et al.

2009

Switzerland

642 participants

MM

Longitudinal survey (TREE)

x

  

Bieri et al.

2016

Bulgaria

1006 participants

QL

Individual interviews

x

  

Bonnal et al.

2002

France

1399 participants

QN

Survey: “Panel mesures jeunes” from the Clercq

  

x

Brinton and Tang

2010

Japan

749 firms send 969 job announcements to 12 schools

QN

Longitudinal job placement data and interviews with teachers

x

x

 

Cooke

2003

Germany

772 participants

QN

Socio Economic Panel

x

  

Corrales-Herrero and Rodríguez-Prado

2012

Spain

7612 participants

QN

Survey on Educational-Training and Labour Integration

x

 

x

Crawford et al.

1997

USA

3043 participants

QN

High School and Beyond Survey (longitudinal)

  

x

Creed et al.

2010

Australia

692 students

QN

Survey

 

x

 

Genda and Kurosawa

2001

Japan

21000 participants

QN

Survey on Young Employees

x

  

Han and Rojewski

2015

South-Korea

3869 participants

QN

National Survey

 

x

x

Iannelli

2004

Ireland

Scotland

The Netherlands

16566 participants

QN

Cross-national database

x

  

Iannelli and Raffe

2007

Ireland

Scotland

The Netherlands

Sweden

23707 participants

QN

Cross-national database

x

  

Kim and Passmore

2016

USA

935 participants

QN

Longitudinal Survey (NLSY)

x

  

Kogan et al.

2013

Ukraine

Croatia

1977 participants

QN

National Survey (SLS)

 

x

 

Koivisto et al.

2011

Finland

416 participants

QN

Survey

 

x

 

Lopez-Mayan and Nicodemo

2013

Spain

12133 participants

QN

National Survey

x

 

x

McGinnity et al.

2005

Germany

2500 participants

QN

National Survey (GLHS)

x

  

Okano

2004

Japan

21 participants

QL

Individual interview

x

  

Paleocrassas et al.

2003

Greece

4986 participants

QN

Survey

x

  

Phillips et al.

2002

USA

17 participants

QL

Individual interview

 

x

x

Riphahn and Zibrowius

2016

Germany

1839 participants

QN

National survey (SOEP)

x

  

Shavit and Müller

2000

Australia

France

Germany

Israel

Italy

The Netherlands

Sweden

Switzerland

Taiwan

UK

USA

Not specified

QN

Survey

x

 

x

Soro-Bonmatí

2000

Germany

Italy

3746 participants

QN

National Survey

x

  

Verdú et al.

2008

Spain

14467 participants

QN

European Union Labour Force Survey 2000

x

  

Verhaeghe et al.

2015

Belgium

2179 senior high school students fill out the questionnaire and 1080 high school graduates participated in an interview

MM

Labour market entry and Social Capital Survey

 

x

 

Witte and Kalleberg

1995

Germany

15159 participants

QN

National Survey: GSOEP

x

  

Wolbers

2007

Austria

Belgium

Finland

France

Greece

Italy

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

52651 participants

QN

Cross-national suvey: EU LFS 2000

x

  
  1. Note: QL Qualitative study, QN Quantitative study, MM Mixed Method study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vermeire, E., De Cuyper, N., Kyndt, E. (2022). Preparing Students for the School-to-Work Transition: A Systematic Review of Research on Secondary School-Based Vocational Education. In: Harteis, C., Gijbels, D., Kyndt, E. (eds) Research Approaches on Workplace Learning. Professional and Practice-based Learning, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89582-2_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89582-2_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-89581-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-89582-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics