from the Introduction by John Buswell
The process of the student thinking critically, not only about the subject, but also about how they engage with the subject – and develop as a learner – represents a paradigm shift in how we approach teaching and learning in higher education. It is a shift in emphasis from content-based, subject-led approaches and models to context-based, student-led approaches. PDP is viewed by some observers as atheoretical and superficial and a strand of work to be located outside the formal curriculum. Yet, if we consider that it is based on reflective thinking and learning, the highest order cognitive skill, and the even more complex skill of metacognition, then such scepticism may be unfounded.
Indeed nurturing critical thinking skills and a deep approach to learning involve the student in constructing their own meaning for the subject matter and its impact on their learning as well as their personal and academic development. If we extend this constructivist approach to experiential learning in which important events and incidents in work experience, students’ own work and other activities like volunteering are reviewed, then we are guiding students to the highest level of critical thinking, that of contextual knowledge (Baxter Magolda, 1996). She sees the active learning in events such as work experience as a major contribution to the development of epistemological beliefs. This can be either in a disciplinary or a transdisciplinary context, although in situations outside the formal curriculum, like work experience and volunteering, we will also want to encourage students to apply subject theory to the context and to examine its impact on their epistemological beliefs and their capacity for adapting the knowledge and skills acquired. This comfortably aligns with the reflective and strategic aspects of PDP in which the student is reviewing development and achievements in the context in which they occur, and in which they are a participant. It makes important connections between their personal development and their knowledge and understanding of the subject.
A significant aspect of the active engagement of the student in learning environments is included in the first contribution to the book, Colin Beard’s philosophical piece on the features of student-centred learning. This learning requires not only reflection, reflexivity and self-awareness but also emotional engagement by the student. ‘Student-centred’ implies that the student is more than a passive recipient of knowledge and actively participates in all the mediated learning experiences to develop the capacity of self-regulation.
Self-regulation
Self-regulation is the ability to understand and manage our use of cognitive skills and strategies; because of this perspective, the concept of metacognition is often applied here. Self-regulation involves identifying and setting personal goals and monitoring progress in achieving them in a systematic way. It is therefore intentional learning (Jackson, 2004) and leads to the individual taking control of their learning (Biggs, 1985). This is meta-learning – one of the main goals of PDP and student-centred learning – although we must accept that students will not find it easy or comfortable and, for some, it may not be achieved until the end of their programme. It therefore requires mediation and method on our part as tutors and a set of ‘other’ regulations, especially in the early stages of the programme – as we shall see later. Indeed, Rosie (2000) suggests that deep learning is not an attribute but can be a strategy that people can adopt and, if they are supported in examining alternatives and making informed decisions, then their learning achieves a higher level.
Mediation and method: Can PDP be taught?
It is often less clear how we should support students to become more strategic and create the learning environments that enable such goals and outcomes to be realised or indeed what constitutes such environments. How they work and how we know that they work are also important questions facing us as we design our teaching, learning and assessment strategies. The dangers of ignoring substance and educational theory in the pursuit of personalised learning have been highlighted recently (Ecclestone, 2007; Hartley, 2007). Indeed, Ecclestone reminds us that, within the rhetoric of empowerment, there is often emotional vulnerability and fragility in approaches to learning that we have to address as well.
In other words, in order to support individual development towards self-regulated learning, we need to invest in other forms of regulation along the way (Jackson & Ward, 2004). Such scaffolding poses the challenge of achieving balance and progression, so that the student is not over-supported or directed and can gradually develop the confidence and the skills with which to take control, but alternatively is not left to ‘drift’ too early. Many of the case studies feature examples of direct support and ‘other-regulation’ of learners as they gradually develop greater self-awareness and the capacity to manage and regulate their own learning. We have identified several key aspects of work, although some case studies relate to more than one aspect:
- Self-management through addressing the constraints to learning
- Feedback, including self-assessment, on learning
- Recording and reflecting through eportfolios
- The role of staff in inspiring and supporting students
- Embedding PDP and student-centred learning in the curriculum
- The diversity of learning spaces.
Self-management
We need to treat different students in different ways and acknowledge the fragility and lack of resourcefulness of an increasing proportion of our students, particularly in the first year of their programme. There are factors which inhibit learning, or, in some cases, lead to withdrawal. Helping students to learn more about themselves and their approach to learning is a common theme in many of the case studies and can enhance the skills and capabilities of self-management. Sue Lea and Derry Corey’s case study addresses the challenge that many students find in writing correctly and critically particularly across our subjects. This is the means to tackling most assessments in our subjects, and increasing numbers of students seem to require initial support and guidance to help them develop both the skills of academic writing and the required academic confidence and self-reliance. The case studies by Peter Cox, Will Bowen-Jones and Karen Bill, and John Buswell and Angela Tomkins explain how students are helped to understand their strengths and weaknesses through the use of skills profiles or learning inventories and, crucially, demonstrate how they can actively do something to improve their approach to learning. Pru Marriot’s case study is of a slightly different order, but still tackles a very real constraint to learning and progression that increasing numbers of students face. There is much evidence that many students drop out because of financial difficulties, or the demands of long hours of part-time work. Marriot’s chapter offers insights into the pressures facing students and how the provision of support to help them manage their finance is another form of regulation which can develop self-reliance and more empowered learning.
Feedback and self-assessment
A second form of mediation, which has a central role in encouraging self-regulated learning, involves feedback on student engagement in learning, including assessed work and other experiences like volunteering and part-time work. The challenge of how we encourage students to collect and read feedback is well-documented, but we know that the more strategic students do act on their feedback as Jackie Lynch’s case study demonstrates. PDP requires students to act on reflections around their achievements and performance, and feedback on academic work provides the opportunity for some rich, if painful, experiential learning. She reminds us of how difficult it is to get students to separate the mark from the grade and to act on feedback and she provides some useful thoughts and observations about how we can do this. Another form of feedback is provided by self-assessment in various guises. Cox’s case study examines an approach to engagement through self-analysis and skills audits. In a similar way, the Student Qualities Profile in Bowen-Jones and Bill’s chapter provides feedback and opportunities for reflection on some key skills.
The case study by Angela Tomkins and John Buswell takes a different perspective and considers reflective processes and the use of learning inventories to provide some personal and meaningful feedback about approaches to learning. Susan Lea and Derry Corey’s case study focuses more specifically on writing skills and helping students to reflect on and improve their approaches to writing critically, while the use of a personal response system by Wendy Beekes enables students to not only participate in sessions, but also to receive immediate feedback on their judgements and understanding in a simple but effective way. It is a relatively expensive system, although if costs are shared across programmes and modules then it may be a sound investment, particularly if it achieves the positive reactions from students that we see in the case study. The key message from these examples is the significance of how we encourage self-assessment, or provide feedback, on learning and approaches to learning; the responses to the feedback are also important and enhance self-regulation.
Eportfolios
Another piece of the scaffolding which offers support is the way that students are encouraged to record and reflect on their achievements, and to plan for the future, through the use of eportfolios. Portfolios are an integral element of PDP and student-centred learning, but the emergence and rapid growth of eportfolios has offered another dimension of considerable importance. We know that not all students are comfortable with using them, but their value to reflective learning is considerable so we need to know how to make them appealing and useful to as many students as possible.
The use of eportfolios provides the opportunity to move on from fairly sterile paper-based portfolios (although if done well they can have their place), to a medium which can encourage a sense of ownership and control when integrated into students’ learning with thought and sensitivity. Peter Robinson, Debra Wade and Crispin Dale’s case study illustrates their use of PebblePad, and compares the experience with a paper-based system used in another module. PebblePad is one of the most common dedicated eportfolios in the UK system and it was developed at Wolverhampton University, so they are in a very good position to assess its effectiveness and impact. Their balanced evaluation highlights the benefits of an eportfolio system, but they also remind us that a more traditional approach with higher levels of face-to-face contact also has its merits. The chapter contributed by Mark Moss, alternatively, examines the journey staff in the School of Psychology and Sport Sciences at Northumbria University have undergone in moving from a paper-based system, comprising a collection of forms and activities, to a much tighter electronic system and eportfolio using Blackboard. He highlights the struggle to engage students but suggests that the appropriate use of an eportfolio offers a pragmatic solution to the pressures on staff and student time.
Staff and student engagement
A further element in student-centred learning involves the role and impact of staff and student engagement. Staff are key to how students are encouraged to understand and manage their own learning and, even more importantly, how they are inspired and motivated to engage in student-centred learning. The HLST Subject Network PDP survey of 26 institutions suggests that staff attitudes and perceptions of PDP are even more of a barrier than those of students (Buswell & Gush, 2008), and this was reinforced by Quinton and Smallbone’s research (2008). It would seem that one of the most important factors in developing students’ capacity for self-regulation is the understanding of what is required by staff and their commitment to the cause. Clearly the engagement of both staff and students is critical to the success of PDP and there are a number of case studies which address this requirement from different perspectives.
Sarah Nixon and Caitlin Walker’s case study examines how we can inspire students to engage in student-centred learning through the process of actually understanding the diversity and individual needs of students. Through the use of non-leading ‘clean’ questions to avoid influencing responses, they obtained some very valuable feedback from students about what they feel encourages their engagement: students said that they value the opportunities to reflect on experiential learning including their own and the examples of role models in their industry.
Dominic Micklewright’s case study sets out to examine the socio-psychological factors shaping PDP behaviour and through the use of a PDP questionnaire, develops a conceptual model of learner beliefs about PDP. He found that it was students’ attitudes and their sense of control over the PDP process which inspired them to engage, rather than the presence of subject norms such as employability requirements. The case studies by Keenan, and by Baker and French also reaffirm the benefits of encouraging a sense of ownership and control for students. Indeed, Christine Keenan began with a pre-induction programme called Stepping Stones2HE which included some negotiated content and collaboration with the students’ union. The case by Graham Baker and Robert French describes a new student-focused module with several themes aimed at getting the best out of students and developing independent, self-reliant learners. They point to discernable improvements in student performance and in staff engagement although they also highlight the tensions between the centralised elements of a PDP approach and the academic freedom necessary for intrinsic motivation. It was apparent that some students and staff found these tensions a little uncomfortable, but the challenge to all of us is how we manage these and achieve the right balance.
Bowen-Jones and Bill’s case study focuses on the role of the personal tutor and how this can be pivotal in providing and then gradually removing the scaffolding helping students to develop key skills, particularly entrepreneurial and networking skills. Louise Grisoni, Carol Jarvis and Margaret Page’s case study highlights the use of enquiry-based learning. This develops self-awareness and confidence but also takes students out of their ‘comfort zone’ and requires the ‘safe uncertainty’ of a structured tutorial system to allow students to share deeply personal insights with their peers and tutors. This case study also suggests that the process is very challenging but potentially rewarding for both student and tutor with considerable ‘emotional labour’ for both parties, echoing the suggestion in Beard’s first chapter.
The curriculum
The overall aim is the development of self-awareness, which is the key to meaningful PDP and student-centred learning, but the impact of staff is most effective when supported by the curriculum. This aspect concerns curriculum development and, particularly, the attempt to embed PDP and student-centred learning in the curriculum. Many of the case studies involve elements of curriculum design: induction (Nixon and Walker); pre-induction (Keenan); a new student-centred module (Baker and French). However, the QAA Progress Files Guidelines (2001) suggest that we fully embed PDP in our curricula and we have already seen how Buswell and Tomkins’ use of learning inventories can help students to make sense of all their learning experiences including work experience. Jacqui Gush’s case study also involves the pivotal impact of work experience and describes how she has attempted to integrate learning from other units in a second-year module which prepares students for their industrial placement. It draws on the USEM model of employability (Knight and Yorke, 2004b) to enhance reflection and self-awareness, and complements subject-based learning by linking theory with practice and achieving the necessary balance between direction and self-empowerment.
Mark Atlay, Petia Petrova and Dorota Ujma, referring to the work of the Bridges CETL at the University of Bedfordshire, show how their approach has evolved in recent years to the point where PDP is integrated and fully embedded across the curriculum. Students are encouraged to reflect on their learning experiences across all modules and also on their experiences outside the curriculum, such as part-time work and volunteering. These authors demonstrate the benefits of such an approach and confirm the need for balance between independent thought and action, and the support and structure provided by the institution.
Learning spaces
The final element of mediation which merits scrutiny is the increasing diversity of contexts for students’ learning and how we can harness the many informal, social settings for rich, experiential learning. Some HEIs are beginning to invest in these settings for collaborative and independent learning. Colin Beard, in his second contribution, explains the importance of learning spaces and highlights the growing provision and relevance of informal, social environments for learning, including for example, refectories and the spaces in teaching blocks for independent and group learning around computers and sofas. Beard’s thoughts in the last chapter help to bring together the messages from the range of case studies featured, by encouraging us to link learning spaces with active and reflective learning as it is increasingly understood and managed by the student. It connects with the thoughts in his earlier chapter in which he focuses on the individual learner.
References and URLS
- Baxter Magolda, M. (1996) Epistemological developments in graduate and professional education. Review of Higher Education 19 (3) pp 283–304
- Biggs, J. (1985) The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology 55 pp 185–212
- Buswell, J. and Gush, J. (2008) HLST Network Benchmarking Survey: Implementing Personal Development Planning (PDP). Oxford: HE Academy Subject Centre for Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
- Ecclestone, K. (2007) Resisting images of the ‘diminished self’: the implications of emotional well-being and emotional engagement in education policy. Journal of Educational Policy 22 (4) pp 455–70
- Hartley, D. (2007) Personalisation: the emerging ‘revised’ code of education. Oxford Review of Education 33 (5) 629–42
- Jackson, N & Ward, R. (2004) A fresh perspective on progress files – a way of representing complex learning and achievement in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (4)
- QAA (2001) Guidelines for HE Progress Files. QAA: Gloucester
- Knight, P. & Yorke, M. (2004b) Employability; judging and communicating achievement in Higher Education. York: LTSN
- Quinton, S. and Smallbone, T. (2008) PDP implementation at English universities: what are the issues? Journal of Further and Higher Education 32 (2) pp 99–109
