Upload
nguyenkhue
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Research in Teaching Environment (RiTE) Initiative
Final Report
Date of completion: 20th September 2010
Completed by: James Wilkinson
Title of Project:
Evaluation of the ‘CLEAR’ Approach: Combined Learning for Employability and Research,an approach which integrates project management, creativity and cross-cultural team management, and where the tutor provides leadership by example to develop students’ research and team management skills.
(the original title was ‘Evaluation of the ‘Apprenticeship Model…’. This was changed to the ‘Combined Learning for Employability and Research’ Approach. This was to make clearer what the approach was for, and also because the previous title overemphasised the importance of the idea of ‘apprenticeship’, which was in fact only one of several integrated approaches.)
1
Contents
Page
1. Project aims and purpose 3
2. Project Outline2.1. Stage 1 4
2.2. Stage 2
2.3. Stage 3
3. Main findings3.1.- 3.3. Skills, Knowledge and Personal Attributes needed
for research, as identified by Research Methods tutors
3.4. Concerns identified by Research Methods tutors 6
3.5. Stage 1 student responses 7
3.6. Participant observations
3.7. Link to theory 9
3.8. Summary of the CLEAR Approach
3.9. Stage 3 findings (post-intervention) 11
3.9.1. Disconfirming evidence
3.9.2. Reported benefits of the CLEAR Approach
3.9.3. Comparison of cohorts before and after CLEAR (fig.1) 13
4. Evaluation of the project:4.4. Strengths 14
4.5. Weaknesses
4.6. Potential
4.7. Limitations 15
5. Main outcomes (publications/ conferences/ dissemination etc)
6. References 16
2
Appendix 1 : Summary conceptual framework for the CLEAR Approach 19
Appendix 2 : Dynamic representation of the CLEAR Approach 20
NoteThe CLEAR Approach, which is the subject of this evaluative research, continued to
evolve during this project. In particular, the research permitted greater engagement
with relevant literature to provide fuller theoretical underpinning, and findings from
the early stages of the research further informed the approach. For this reason, the
approach is not described until page 9. The approach is also summarised in the two
appendices on pages 19 and 20.
1. Project aims and purpose
This project had the following two main aims:
1.1. To better understand pedagogical issues relating to teaching, learning and
assessment for research and employability education;
1.2. to evaluate the ‘Combined Learning for Employability and Research
(CLEAR) approach, as applied on the Work Related Learning and
Research (WRLR) module (HND Business)
Two further aims related to dissemination and the production of learning
materials:
1.3. To disseminate research outcomes in the form of papers in journals and
presented at conferences; and
1.4. To produce learning materials allowing the approach to be applied by
other practitioners
2. Project outline
3
Before and during students’ experience of the CLEAR approach, the first aim was
pursued using a mix of approaches and at different stages:
2.1. Stage 1
participant observations, based on field notes written after WRLR classes, and
drawing on previous years’ experiences with the module;
interviews with three TVU research methods tutors;
value grids, designed following the tutor interviews, were completed by 14
participants and used as a basis for interviews with students.
interviews with eight of the total 15 WRLR students, prior to their experience with
the CLEAR approach. These were transcribed and organised to facilitate analysis,
and to provide baseline data for comparison with Stage 4 interviews.
Observations and interview transcripts from the above activities were reduced and
organised using a grounded, hermeneutic, editing style, as described by Addison in
Crabtree and Miller (1999).
2.2. Stage 2
Core categories identified in Stage 1 were next analysed with reference to relevant
literature.
2.3. Stage 3
interviews with eight of the total 15 WRLR students, shortly after their experience
with the CLEAR approach. These were transcribed and analysed in association and
comparison with the previous sets of data.
4
3. Main findings
Findings from the Stage 1 interviews with tutors and from the author’s participant
observations yielded a set of skills, knowledge and personal attributes which tutors
emphasised as being needed for research. Interviews also revealed a range of
concerns linked to the above skills, knowledge and attributes, and relating to
students’ readiness to undertake research. There were also concerns relating to
pedagogical issues. Several of these mirror students’ comments and can be linked to
the Stage 2 analysis and linking to theory.
3.1. SkillsResearch skills- Finding and evaluating sources of information and using these to focus
research
- Handling complexity and uncertainty
- Producing a synthesis of ideas
- Writing critically and academically
- Reasoning and presenting arguments
- Editing and frequently improving written text (writing and re-writing)
- Selecting, justifying and applying data collection methods
Generic, transferable, employability skills- Self management
- Time management
- Project management
- (if working in groups): team / group management
3.2. Knowledge and understanding- Knowledge of the process(es) of research
- Research methods
- Analytical methods
- Sufficient subject knowledge to be specific
- Ethics
5
3.3. Personal Attributes- Patience / perseverance
- Diligence – especially with reading
- Ability to take criticism
- Autonomy / self-managing
- Motivation
- Confidence
3.4. Tutor ConcernsTutors expressed a range of concerns relating on the one hand to the students and
on the other to issues linked to the necessary skills development. From the general
tone of what tutors were saying, as well as from specific examples that they gave,
many of their concerns can be interpreted as relating to a range of student
shortcomings:
- lacking sufficient knowledge to be specific
- not reading enough (a key factor and linked to the previous point:
conversely, ‘good’ students were those who do read and who use the
knowledge thus acquired to inform their research focus and methods)
- lacking confidence
- lacking motivation
- difficulty working independently / autonomously
- procrastination
- poor time management
- lacking project management skills and knowledge
- poor self management
- lacking awareness of the need to edit and re-write work
From the tutors’ comments, it is possible to interpret many of these issues as being
interconnected. For example, issues concerning procrastination, autonomy, self and
time management and insufficient reading may relate to confidence and motivation,
as is illustrated by the following comment:
Tutor 2: “What I feel I know enough about is to give them the guidance and structure
to do it, and they should then be able to go and research it and take it from there, but
6
they don’t. You know, you’d like them to come back next week and say: “Ok, this
week, now I’ve got something, come on smart ass: let’s see you pick holes in this!”
And that’s what you want from them, but they don’t seem to have that innate
confidence, knowledge, and ability to want to do that or be prepared to do that”.
Concerning skills development, there was broad agreement among the three tutors
that such development needs to start earlier in students’ programmes, as is
illustrated by the following comment:
“…they arrive at this point, Level 6, with a lack of confidence, a lack of
knowledge, a lack of skills in many cases, and we do cram it in there. And
what we do, I think, is actually really good, … , but it is still a hell of a load to
give some of these students and I suspect if you did a full research methods
programme at Level 5 it might bring about a different situation, with students
coming to this in a completely different state of preparation”. (Tutor 2)
Tutors were also concerned about the practice of teaching research methods in the
abstract, before students needed to apply what they were learning. Tutor 2
suggested that a ‘drip-by-drip’ approach could help students if they were required
immediately to apply the skills and knowledge they had been learning to their own
research.
3.5. Stage 1 Student Responses
Many of the students’ responses reflected similar concerns to those expressed by
the tutors. These related to:
- Getting started
- Studying independently: several said they preferred being told what to
do rather than having to find out for themselves
- Being unclear about academic elements, such as drawing on ideas
from different authors, being critical, dealing with controversy,
7
producing a synthesis of ideas, and developing a conceptual
framework for research.
Working in groups is also a key feature of the WRLR module, and here opinions
were mixed. Some professed enthusiasm for group work while others said they
preferred working on their own. Many had had the negative experience of working
with colleagues who did not contribute. A few also said they did not feel confidence
in expressing their views openly, or that their motivation was adversely affected if
they felt that their opinions were not being listened to by others in the group. Two of
the eight students mentioned that they were afraid to ask for help, both from other
team members and from the tutor.
3.6. Participant ObservationsMany of my own participant observations mirrored concerns expressed by both the
tutors and the students. These related, on the one hand, to research related skills
and their development:
- overreliance on lectures and virtual learning platforms to deliver
research capability does not appear to provide sufficient skills
development.
- Students either do not take in or have difficulty learning and applying
the complex skills required for critical analysis, for explaining and
justifying research methodology and methods, and for developing
coherent, reasoned arguments.
- Linked to these difficulties, many fail to grasp the purpose and process
of engaging critically with the literature and the need to devote
sufficient time for reading.
On the other hand, there were also issues related to generic, transferable,
employability skills gaps relating to:
8
- self, time and project management
- communication problems
- group management problems, such as dealing with free-riders and
sometimes conflict.
3.7. Link to theory
Discourse on research and employability education reflects similar concerns
reported by colleagues working in different disciplines and from across the Higher
Education sector. These concerns include leaving research-based learning until the
final year of the degree (e.g. Healey and Jenkins 2009), transmission-based
approaches (e.g. Elton 2001; Laurillard 2002); learner passivity and dependence on
‘certainties’ provided by authorities (e.g. Boyer Commission 1998; Ramsden 2008;
Baxter Magolda 2010); and insufficient development of generic skills and attributes
relating to self, group and project management, as well as confidence and the
related, counterproductive impact of high stakes assessment (Knight and Yorke
2003). Moreover, some of the strategies intended to address these concerns are
themselves questioned. Student-centred approaches may be poorly thought through
and applied, and fail to provide sufficient challenge (Furedi, in Gill 2008), and with
social forms of learning, these risk students losing sight of individual responsibility
(Sanger 2010).
3.8. The CLEAR Approach
As a response to the above concerns, the ‘Combined Learning for Employability and
Research’ (CLEAR) approach seeks to integrate pedagogical practices that promote
learning which is:
- experiential and reflective (e.g. Laurillard 2002);
9
- inquiry based (e.g. Justice, Rice, Warry, Inglis, Miller and Sammon
2007; Spronken-Smith, Walker, O'Steen, Matthews, Batchelor and
Angelo 2008);
- socially constructed (e.g. Lave and Wenger 1991); and
- situated with reference to cultural discourses and involving a process of
enculturation which transforms tutor and student identities (e.g.
Wenger 1998; Quay 2003).
In order to achieve such learning, the CLEAR Approach draws on the cognitive
apprenticeship model proposed by Collins, Seely Brown and Newman (cited by
Woolley and Jarvis 2007). However, this includes not only showing students
examples of best practice, but also rough drafts and subjecting these to students’
scrutiny, with the aim of developing their understanding of the process, confidence
and critical skills.
To develop more generic, employability related competences, students also learn
management techniques relating to project and time management (e.g. Sola and
Wilkinson 2008) and are introduced to theory relating to cohesion (e.g. Rathje 2007),
inclusivity and creativity (e.g. Ceserani and Greatwood 1995), uncertainty and
anxiety management (Gudykunst 2004) to help them manage their own feelings
towards unfamiliar others, and emotional intelligence (Goleman 1995).
For the past two years, the CLEAR approach has been used on the WRLR module.
Students work in groups to develop a research proposal and reflect on the
experience, both during the project and afterwards, using Gibbs’ ‘reflective learning
cycle’ (DAR 2009) and the above theory. To help them to monitor progress of the
research-related elements, students are referred to the ‘inquiry process’ and ‘inquiry
paper checklist’ proposed by Justice et al. (2007, p.203 and 214). (This last element
is in fact an innovation prompted by the project’s findings (see 3.9.1. below) and has
not yet been used).
For a summarised conceptual framework and dynamic representation of the CLEAR
Approach, see Appendices 1 and 2 on pages and .
10
3.9 Stage 3 Findings (post ‘CLEAR’ intervention student interviews)
With one exception, comments from the eight students interviewed shortly after
completion of the module were predominantly positive.
3.9.1. Disconfirming evidenceThe one student whose comments were not positive said they had found various
elements confusing, in particular undertaking the literature review and discussing
research methods:
“…there were so many sources … and we didn’t know what was right and
wrong and sometimes ended up concluding the wrong things and then not
knowing what things needed changing.”
“…the research methods we used were quite difficult ... ‘cause nobody had
done this sort of thing before, ....”
These comments may relate to issues already mentioned, such as confidence and
also to some of the procrastinating tendencies of the student’s group colleagues
which had hampered progress. The make-up of student groups is indeed a problem,
and another student expressed frustration at the difficulty of achieving high grades
when working with weak students. Whatever the underlying problems, this highlights
the need for tutors to monitor student progress, and also to give students the tools
needed to monitor progress themselves. To this end, students will in future be
referred to the ‘inquiry process’ and ‘inquiry paper checklist’ designed by Justice et
al. (2007, p.203 and 214).
3.9.2. Benefits of the CLEAR Approach
11
Positive responses predominantly emphasised benefits relating to generic,
employability skills, notably group and project management, as well as to the
development of personal attributes such as confidence, empathy and assertiveness.
These benefits are illustrated by the following comments:
- on managing group projects : “I know how to structure my group work...using pie charts and Gantt charts…”
- on confidence“group work, that was my big problem, …(but now) I feel more confident”
- on group problem solving, empathy and assertiveness: “ Before the module I used to be, well, ‘their problem is their problem, not
really my issue’ but now I … kind of look at the problem and kind of try and
help.”
“…(doing the module) help(ed) me understand other people’s situation better
and at the same time not let them walk all over you…”
- on handling conflict“…whenever I put my idea or opinion forward she would find fault in it and
give it no value…. When things became excruciating, I confronted her.
When we discussed the matters she realised that she was in the wrong and
agreed to take on board other people’s opinion… it made me feel much better
and we were able to work smoothly”
In addition to these generic, group working skills and attributes, several students
commented on the value of reflection. Interestingly, this related not simply to learning
benefits, but also to practical problem-solving, an issue commented on by more than
one student:
“…when we did those log books every week I really liked doing that ‘cause it
… made you think about …the positive and negative aspects, and how you
could improve on them, so it was, like, problem solving, how we can sort of
solve our own problems”.
12
This problem-solving benefit can also be inferred from comments made when
students were asked to say how the WRLR module differed from other modules they
had studied:
“In ...(another module), ... we did not do that (i.e. keep a learning log) and
most of the group work was really messy and people did not turn up and no
one really wrote how they felt or what issue they had, like, no problems were
solved.”
Having to reflect on progress on a weekly basis also appeared to help students apply
the theory they were learning:
“ It worked well because it helped me learn, like, where I had gone wrong or if
there were issues and how to deal with them using theory and learning about
theory, ’cause in (another module) although we used theory quite a lot, like,
let’s say ‘group work theory’ and ‘learning theory’ we did not really implement
them in practice, and with work related learning we implemented them in
practice.”
Reported benefits also related to social forms of learning, which also helped them to
appreciate the value and the need for reading:
“…when I was working with the other girls, like K and M, that was really good,
‘cause I think they had more knowledge, they knew more…. We would always
come in to do research in the library and just check out books and see what
we could get, so… I think I have learnt from them how they do research…
actually go to the sources and even, like, I don’t know, just reading books and
stuff and I think that helped quite a lot, ‘cause it just broadened my knowledge
a bit.”
3.9.3. Comparison of Cohorts before and after CLEARFinally, comparison of cohort grades for two years prior to adoption of the CLEAR
approach, and the two subsequent years suggest that performance has improved, as
is illustrated in the following graph:
13
Fig. 1. Graph showing grades achieved on the module before full integration of the CLEAR approach (in blue), and since (in pink/red).
4. Evaluation of the project – strengths/weaknesses/potential/limitations4.1. Strengths
This project has achieved its main aims. Interviews with tutors and students have
yielded rich, qualitative data which, combined with literature comparisons and
analysis have added to understanding concerning research and employability
education. Interviews with students before and after experience with CLEAR have
14
made it possible to observe the distance travelled by students, as well as to identify
scope for further improvements of the approach.
4.2. WeaknessesCertain data collection methods could have been improved upon. The value grid
questionnaires, intended to provide prompts for discussion during Stage 1
interviews, were not always completed correctly by students, some of whom
appeared to have been confused as to how to complete them. This meant that time
was wasted during interviews clarifying student responses, rather than discussing
the issues that the various value statements raised. Partly for this reason, Stage 3
interviews comprised more open questions, and while this allowed students to
respond more freely and thus generated a good amount of commentary, much of this
related to more generic, employability-related skills and attributes (such as group
management and confidence). With hindsight – I should have sought to elicit more
responses concerning learning related specifically to research methods and related
skills and knowledge.
4.3. Potential
Findings from this study suggest that the CLEAR approach assists students to grasp
concepts relating to research methods and to understand the purpose and process
of literature review, whether in placing their work in relation to current thinking, in
producing a conceptual, analytical framework for research, or in explaining and
justifying methods and methodology choices. In addition, the approach appears to be
especially beneficial in developing employability skills and attributes, in particular
group, self, time and project management, and confidence.
4.4. Limitations During the last two years, cohort sizes on the HND Business programme (about 15)
have been relatively small compared to earlier years (20 to 25). One might argue,
therefore, that improvements in student performance could be due simply to smaller
class sizes and related student-staff ratios. A further limitation may also relate to
differences in the academic abilities of students in different years which might also
be a reason why students in recent years have performed better.
15
5. Main outcomes (publications/ conferences/ dissemination etc)
This study has permitted a fuller theoretical underpinning for the CLEAR approach
(for a summarised conceptual framework and dynamic representation see pages 17
and 18). I have also presented a paper at the international Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning Conference, May 2010 in London, and a paper and poster at the TVU
Teaching Conference in June 2010. I am currently preparing a paper for publication
in the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education.
In addition to this dissemination activity, I have used the study leave made possible
through the RiTE project to add to my own qualifications, by embarking on the MA in
Research and successfully completing five modules: Writing for Research and
Publication; Research Methods; Quantitative Research Methods; Qualitative
Research Methods; and Developing a Research Project. On several of the
assignments for these modules I was able to undertake activity relevant to the RiTE
project. These included writing a literature review relating to the CLEAR approach,
and also an article for publication.
Signature: James Wilkinson Date:
20.09.2010
References
Baxter Magolda, M. (2010) ‘ A tandem journey through the labyrinth’, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, [online], 2.http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/index.php?journal=jldhe&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=61&path%5B%5D=37 [accessed: 7 June 2010].
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, The. (1998).Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America’s researchUniversities. Stony Brook: State University of New York at Stony Brook. [Online]. Available from:http://naples.cc.stonybrook.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/673918d46fbf653e852565ec0056ff3e/d955b61ffddd590a852565ec005717ae/$FILE/boyer.pdf. Accessed 19.05.10.
16
Ceserani, J. and Greatwood, P. (1995). Innovation and Creativity. London: Kogan Page
Crabtree, B. and Miller, W. (1999) Doing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
DAR (Distributed Action Researchers.(2009). Gibbs reflective cycle. [online]http://distributedresearch.net/wiki/index.php/Gibbs_reflective_Cycle. [accessed 10.06.10.Dörner, K. (1996). The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. New York: Metropolitan Books (Hardcover) and Perseus Books (Pocketbook Edition).
Elton, L. (2001). Research and Teaching: conditions for a positive link. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp.43-56. [Online]. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=15&sid=981d2906-1a98-4a96-86bf-8ff0c48b777c%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=afh&AN=4139859. Accessed 10.05.10.
Gill, J. (2008). A matter of opinions. In The Times Higher Education. [Online]. Available from: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=404642. Accessed 10.05.10.
Goleman, D (1995) Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury Publishing plc, London.Graves, S. and Maher, A. (Eds). (2008). Developing graduate employability: case studies in hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism. Newbury: Threshold Press Ltd.
Gudykunst, W. (2004). Bridging Differences, 4th Edition. London:Sage.
Healey, M. and Jenkins, A. (2009) Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. [Online]. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ourwork/ipp/Issue1_publications. Accessed 5.05.10.
Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., Inglis, S., Miller, S. and Sammon, S. (2007). Inquiry in Higher Education: Reflections and Directions on Course Design and Teaching Methods. In Innovative Higher Education (2007) 31. [online] 201-214.http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=justice+rice&as_epq=inquiry+in+higher+education&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=active. [Accessed 9 June 2010]
Knight, P. and Yorke, M. (2003). Assessment, Learning and Employability. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking teaching for the knowledge society. In Educause Review. January/February 2002. [Online]. Available from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0201.pdf. Accessed 24.05.10.
17
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackay, H. (1994). Why don’t people listen? Solving the communication problem.Sydney: Pan.
Quay, J. (2003). Experience and Participation: Relating Theories of Learning, inThe Journal of Experiential Education; Fall 2003; 26, 2; Academic Research Librarypg. 105-112. [Online]. Available from: http://staff.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/~jquay/QuayJEE26(2)2003.pdf. Accessed 19.05.10
Ramsden, P. (2008). The Future of Higher EducationTeaching and the Student Experience. Report for the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills. [Online] Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090506151308/http://www.dius.gov.uk/higher_education/shape_and_structure/he_debate/~/media/publications/T/teaching_and_student_experience_131008. Accessed 19.05.10.
Rathje, S, (2007) Intercultural Competence: The Status and Future of a Controversial Concept, Language and Intercultural Communication, Vol 7:4, 2007
Sanger, L. (2010). Individual knowledge in the internet age. In Educause Review, vol. 45, 2 (March/April 2010), pp14-24. [Online]. Available from: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume45/IndividualKnowledgeintheIntern/202336. Accessed 26.10.05. Accessed 26.10.05.
Schön, D. (1991). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. Adershop: Avebury.
Sola, N. and Wilkinson, J. (2008). Developing intercultural competence. 4th international conference on education in a changing environment. Conference proceedings. [online]. www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/04_07.pdf. [accessed 7.06.10]
Spronken-Smith, R., Walker, R., O'Steen, W, Matthews, H., Batchelor, J. and Angelo, T. (2008) Reconceptualising inquiry-based learning: synthesis of findings. Higher Education Academy. [Online]. Available from: http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/project/inquiry-based-learning/resources/books/reconceptualising-inquiry-based-learning-synthesis-fi. Accessed 3.05.10.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of learning: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woolley, N. and Jarvis, Y. (2007). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: a model for teaching and learning critical skills in a technologically rich and authentic learning environment. In Nurse Education Today, 27, 73-79.
18
Appendix 1: Combined Learning for Employability and Research (CLEAR): conceptual framework and summary of teaching and learning activities
STUDENT(S)
INDIVIDUAL LEARNING SOCIAL LEARNING
Students construct knowledge and understanding, engaging responsibly in the learning process, contributing their fair share to group work,keeping weekly learning journals and producing a final reflective assignment.(Laurillard 2002)
Students co-construct knowledge and understanding, offering each other constructive, critical feedback and working together in groups (Lave and Wenger 1991); applying project management and creativity techniques and applying theory relating to emotional theory (Goleman 1995) and cultural discourse (Quay 2003; Sola and Wilkinson 2008). This includes:
inquiry based learning
involves: the inquiry process; structured inquiry
taking responsibility;
engaging with issue; guided inquiry
developing good question(s);
determining info. needed; open inquiry
accessing information;
evaluating information; (Spronken-Smith
synthesising a coherent whole; et al. 2008)
inquiry paper checklist.
(Justice et al. 2007)
building cohesion(Rathje 2007) and an atmosphere of creativity (Ceserani and Greatwood 1995); mindfulness (Langer 1989); andmanaging uncertainty and anxiety towards different others (Gudykunst 2004).
TUTORS
Facilitate a supportive, non-threatening environment, encouraging students to see them less
as authoritative experts, more as equal partners, sharing authority and expertise (Baxter
Magolda 2010); model supportive, collegial behaviour and share both good and bad examples
of practice, provide coaching and scaffolding, assist articulation of knowledge and reflection
on experience, and encourage exploration of ideas and problem-solving processes (Collins et
al. cited by Woolley and Jarvis 2007); design assessment which includes tasks that are ‘low
stakes’ and formative, and provide feedback (Knight and Yorke 2003).
19
Fig. 1. Combined Learning for Emloyability and Research: a CLEAR approach (dynamic representation)
20
Academic PracticeGraduate / employability
attributesResearch capability
Lifelong learning skills
Individual Learning
Ontology / Pedagogiesconstructivism; reflective / experiential,inquiry based learningActivitiesresponsible contribution to group workreflection on individualand participative learning
Social LearningOntology / Pedagogiessocial constructivism; learning related to cultural discourses; inquiry based learningActivitiesgroup work peer assessment and feedback
The Tutorfacilitates entry to community of practice via
inquiry based learning and cognitive apprenticeshipshowing examples of own practice
The Student