Transcript Teaching Critical Thinking

National Action Research Network
for
Researching and Evaluating PDP
and ePortfolio Practice
Dr John Peters, NTF
University of Worcester
Sue Burkinshaw, University of Bolton
1
Plan
• Overview of the project
– Origins
– Aims and objectives
– Structure and method
• Progress
– What we have already learnt about PDP
– Reports from Midland partner institutions
2
Project Issues
• Repeated calls for more robust
evaluation
– [QAA 2001, Burgess 2004, Clegg 2004,
Gough et al 2003, Ward & Strivens 2004]
• Purposes and claims of PDP clearly
defined [QAA 2001 & 2009]
• But implementation varies in terms of
models, methods and emphasis
3
Aim
• Capacity building amongst PDP
practitioners to develop, undertake and
share situated, rich, authentic and
robust research and evaluation of PDP
practice.
4
Objectives
• Build on existing practice, expertise,
network and ‘community of practice’
• Address sector concerns about effective
PDP implementation
• Provide 2 key outputs
– A community of ‘research capable’ PDP
practitioners
– A body of scholarly knowledge to inform
more effective PDP implementation
5
Means
• Participant / community action research at the
meta-level of sharing, developing and
undertaking research and evaluation design
and outcomes
– ‘Fostering relationships and collaboration amongst
diverse organizations … creating settings for
collective reflection that enable people … to ‘see
themselves in another’ [and] leveraging
progress… through cross-institutional links’
[Senge & Scharmer 2001]
6
Why community action
research?
• ‘Action research is an inherently value laden
activity, usually practised by scholarpractitioners who care deeply about making a
positive change in the world’.
– (Reason & Bradbury, 2006, xxv)
• Capacity building defined as ‘enhancing
people’s awareness and capabilities,
individually and collectively, to produce the
results they truly care about’
– (Senge & Scharmer 2001)
7
Project Nature
•
•
•
•
•
•
Network project
16 & 1 HEIs
3 regional networks
University of Bolton leadership
Based within CRA network
‘Principal investigator’
8
Progress
• Now in final year
• Annually
– 2 national meetings
– 2 rounds of regional meetings
• Key activities
– Sharing research questions
– Research design
– Data analysis
9
Regional Groups
• Northern – Bradford, Bolton, Newcastle,
Liverpool, Salford, UCLAN
• Midland – Bedfordshire, City University
Birmingham, Coventry, Gloucestershire,
Wolverhampton, Worcester
• Southern – Bournemouth, Christchurch
Canterbury, Portsmouth, Exeter [Kent]
10
Outputs so far
• Awareness raising publications from
project at project plan and community
building level
• Presentations to CRA,SEDA & HE
Academy conferences and events
• Materials on CRA website
• Emerging outputs from project members
11
What have we learnt?
• The power of a community of practice
• The variety of
– PDP practice
– institutional strategies
– Institutional PDP practitioners
• The difficulty of defining for PDP the
– Terminology
– Methods
– Outputs
12
References 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
Argyris, C. and Scön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing
Professional Effectiveness
Brennan, J. & Williams, R. (2004) Collecting and using student feedback:
a guide to good practice, Higher Education Academy,
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.asp?process=full_record&section
=generic&id=352 accessed 20/12/2006
Burgess, R. (2004) Measuring and recording student achievement: Report
of the Scoping Group Available at: http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/
downloads/measuringachievement.pdf
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: Education Knowledge
and Action Research
Clegg, S. (2004) ‘Critical readings: progress files and the production of the
autonomous learner’ Teaching in Higher Education 9, 3, 287-298
CLEGG, S. & BRADLEY, S. (2006) ‘The Implementation of Progress Files
in Higher Education: Reflection as National Policy’, Higher Education 51,
4, 465–86.
13
References 2
• CLEGG, S. & BRADLEY, S. (2006) ‘Models of Personal
Development Planning: Practice and Processes’, British Educational
Research Journal 32, 1, 57–76.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000) Research methods in
education, Routledge Falmer
• CROOT, D. & GEDYE, S. (2006) ‘Getting the Most Out of Progress
Files and Personal Development Planning’, Journal of Geography in
Higher Education 30, 1, 173–9.
• EAST, R. (2005) ‘A Progress Report on Progress Files’, Active
Learning in Higher Education, 6, 2, 160–71.
• Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change
• FRY, H., DAVENPORT, E. S., WOODMAN, T. & PEE, B. (2002)
‘Developing Progress Files: A Case Study’, Teaching in Higher
Education 7, 1, 97–111.
14
References 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gough, D et al (2003) A systematic map and synthesis review of PDP for
improving student learning London: EPPI-Centre, SSRU at:
http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=reel/review_groups/EPPI/L
TSN/LTSN_intro.htm
Jackie Haigh, (2008) ‘Integrating progress files into the academic process:
A review of case studies’ Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 1, 57-71
JACKSON, N. & WARD, R. (2004) ‘A Fresh Perspective on Progress Files –
A Way of Representing Complex Learning and Achievement in Higher
Education’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29, 4, 423–49.
KNEALE, P. (2002) ‘Developing and Embedding Reflective Portfolios in
Geography’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 26, 1, 81–94.
Krueger, R. & Casey, M. (2000) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied
research, Sage
McKernan, J. (1991) Curriculum Action Research: A Handbook of Methods
and Resources for the Reflective Practitioner
15
•
•
•
•
•
•
References 4
Kathy Monks, Edel Conway and Muireann Ni Dhuigneain, (2006)
‘Integrating personal development and career planning: The outcomes for
first year undergraduate learning’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 7, 1,
73–86
Patton, M. (1990, 2002) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Sage
Policy Hub, The Magenta Book: guidance notes on policy evaluation, HM
Treasury http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/magenta_book/ accessed 8/5/06
QAA, UUK, SCoP & CoSHEP, (2001) Guidelines for HE Progress File
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/progfileHE/guidelines/progfile2001.htm
QAA Scotland, (2005) Student Evaluation and Feedback Online Toolkit,
Linney Direct
http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/student_evaluation/index.html
accessed 20/12/2006
Senge P. & Scharmer, C. ‘Community action research: learning as a
community of practitioners, consultants and researchers’ in Reason, P &
Bradbury, H. (2001) Handbook of Action Research,Sage
16