An Analytical Model for Understanding Undergraduate Learning during Placements and Practical Laboratory Classes

Poppy TurnerDepartment of Education, University of Bath, UK, P.M.Turner@bath.ac.ukSupervisor: Dr Yolande Muschamp

Paper presented at BERA New Researchers/Student Conference, UMIST Manchester, 15 September 2004

Introduction

I joined the University of Bath, as a mature undergraduate, ten years ago and began to reflect on student learning. My interest was aroused when one of our lecturers told us that there were no bad lectures, only differing lecturing styles. This view did not accord with our experiences; we felt that some lecturers enhanced our understanding of their subject while others confused us. It seemed that academic staff and their students may have very different views of university learning opportunities and it was this disparity which sparked my interest in undergraduate experiences of learning. I have never taught or lectured and my perspective on undergraduate learning is from the student’s point of view.

The four-year degree programme (Molecular and Cellular Biology, MCB) included the opportunity to spend the third year on placement. This period of professional work experience was highly beneficial to my learning and, as a student and later as Placements Tutor, I learnt that other students found this too: ‘I have learnt more in two weeks on placement than in the previous two years!’ and ‘Placement was undoubtedly the best aspect of the whole degree – absolutely invaluable. Without it – I’m not sure how good a scientist I’d be … STUPENDOUS in every way!’

Literature on placements has tended to focus on the acquisition of skills and competencies, on assessment and accreditation, and does not adequately explain the nature of placement learning. Theories from wider literature on learning and development, have not, it seems, been applied to learning during professional placements (although Guile and Young, 1998, link apprenticeship and social learning theory). The data emerging from my research resonates strongly with several areas of learning theory and particularly with the work of Piaget and Vygotsky (see forward).

The aim of my research project is, firstly, to gain better understanding of the nature of placement learning and how it comes about and, secondly, to compare placement learning with learning from university-based activities by considering the experiences of other students of MCB at Bath.

Research Approach

The research is qualitative, making use of graduate and undergraduate descriptions of their learning experiences from taped interviews, email exchanges

1

and informal meetings. Underlying the research methodology is the belief that the most direct way to find out about students’ learning is to ask them. Paul Ramsden states that students are a reliable source of information; writing about research into teaching he wrote ‘The research findings … mirror with singular accuracy what your students will say if they are asked to describe what a good teacher does. College and university students are extremely astute commentators on teaching. They have seen a great deal of it by the time they enter higher education. And, as non-experts in the subject they are being taught, they are uniquely qualified to judge whether the instruction they are receiving is useful for learning it. Moreover, they understand and can articulate clearly what is and what is not useful for helping them to learn’ (Ramsden 1992, p 89).

In total, 69 volunteers, from four cohorts, have participated in this research. The first group of participants consisted of 1998 graduates who commented on the MCB programme some three years after graduation. Second and third groups were placement students who commented on their placements immediately after completion in 2002 and during placements undertaken in 2002-2003. The final study group is taking part in a four-year longitudinal study, 2001-2005. In my thesis, each quotation is of course individually referenced (anonymously) but, for clarity and brevity, such referencing has been omitted here. Where quotations are given as bullet points each bullet represents the views of a single respondent in the area under discussion.

Preliminary studies revealed that, although most placements were good learning opportunities, some students gained very little useful learning from their placements. The richness and variety of qualitative data that students provided gave rise to an analytical model of placement learning and a framework that is currently being used to analyse students’ experiences of learning from university-based practical laboratory classes and other aspects of undergraduate learning from their degree programme.

The Model

The iterative process of moving between data and literature, made me try to conceptualise and explain developing ideas using PowerPoint software. A model of placement learning emerged; it grew out of the data but was informed by the literature and is essentially a synthesis of many constructivist and socio-cultural theories of learning.

In creating the model my starting point was epistemology, a consideration of the nature of knowledge and what it means to learn. Piaget’s view of learning, now generally accepted, is of a constructive process whereby individual learners build mental models with which they understand or make sense of their experiences. This can be represented by an equation as follows:

Knowledge from Experience

Mental Frameworks

2

New experiences, if familiar, are assimilated into similar but more comprehensive frameworks. The strong arrow to the right indicates the innate human tendency to construct mental schemata as a way of understanding and making sense of lived experiences. Unfamiliar experiences, though, cause dis-equilibrium where existing frameworks are broken down and there is reconstruction, when new knowledge is incorporated with pre-existing knowledge into new and more complex schemata for better understanding the world (Piaget 1950).

Piaget’s work suggests that a period of dis-equilibrium, when existing frameworks are challenged or shaken before being reconstructed in more complex forms, can be beneficial for learning, although the process may be uncomfortable for the learner. Placement students often report some dis-equilibrium, using words like ‘disorientation’, ‘loneliness’, ‘helplessness’, ‘desperation’, ‘overwhelmed’ and one described his situation on placement in America as an ‘alien environment, distant and unknown’.

Visualising learning as an equation (and remembering a convention used in chemistry and biochemistry for illustrating energy and catalysis) made me think about the significance of other promoters and inhibitors at work in the learning equation. Research participants repeatedly identified two factors with the potential to promote placement learning. Firstly, they reported that the work they undertook could be a powerful promoter of learning. Having an individual project seems to be one of the most significant aids to learning; example quotations from two students are ‘Working on your own project … makes you think through what you are doing and why you are doing it … helps cement knowledge into your head’ and ‘I gained more understanding and knowledge as I had my own project … greater interest to look into my work and its background’. These students seem to echo the elements of Kolb’s learning cycle here, referring to doing, thinking about what they were doing, thinking about why it might be so and so on (Kolb 1984). The learning they describe is more than merely technical skills; it also involves background knowledge and understanding.

Having nothing but repetitive routine work, on the other hand, has little beneficial effect on learning. One respondent wrote that ‘interesting lab work is an oxymoron’, that tedious work ‘depressed [him] immensely’ and ‘didn’t allow [him] to develop concepts and link biological information’. However, he went on to write that he ‘grew ten years in experience and maturity’. It seems that this student was capable of taking a deep approach to his placement learning but the type of work he was given did not allow him to develop the concepts and links he sought (Marton and Säljö 1976 and 1984). The ‘Activity Theory’ of Vygotsky and Leontiev also gives central importance to learners’ involvement in purposeful collective work (Engeström, Miettinen and Punamaki 1999); performing a meaningful task can drive the learning equation forwards. ‘Learning on my

AlteredMental Framework

+Pre-existingMentalFrameworks

Knowledge from UnfamiliarExperience

3

placement comes from putting into practice what I’ve learnt about academically at uni but didn’t quite understand until I actually did it’.

The effect of doing meaningful work can be likened to the flame of a Bunsen burner that provides power to a chemical reaction and drives it forward; it is more difficult to learn if that flame is low or out altogether.

The second promoter of placement learning identified by respondents was a good relationship between learner and supervisor. It appears that a challenging project, undertaken with good supervision (see forward), provides a strong push towards learning. These promoters can be modelled by adding to the learning equation as shown below:

The Learning Equation, promoted by Activity and Supervision

Interestingly, respondents gave the greatest priority to the type of work that they did, rather than to the supervision that they received. By contrast, much of the literature in higher education focuses on teaching first and foremost, rather than on activity of any sort or even on learning.

Students sometimes refer to the absence of supervision; ‘I knew I was making unnecessary mistakes and doing experiments that needn’t be done’ and, from another respondent, ‘I really needed someone who knew about [the research] to tell me if the data was good’. It seems that good supervision is similar to catalysis in a chemical reaction. There are a few examples of poor supervision, on the other hand, which show that it can inhibit learning:

‘My boss was difficult to talk to and was very often away. He refused to give me a project of my own … I found myself less motivated to work for him.’

‘I felt my learning was hindered by my supervisor as I felt he used me almost as cheap lab[oratory] labour … I would generally have to do what I was told. I felt he held me back from doing other things and learning new techniques despite me asking to do other stuff.’

Mental Frameworks

Knowledge from

Experience

Power / Activity

Catalyst / Supervision

4

The complex process of learning Molecular and Cellular Biology (or anything else for that matter) cannot, of course, be represented by a single simple equation. A more realistic representation would consist of very many equations in a complex system of reactions with a range of different components and products. A model showing the complexity of learning processes might look similar to the huge wall charts of metabolic pathways seen in the offices of Biochemistry professors.

The next phase of the model depicts the mechanisms by which learning occurs, illustrated in a series of learning process diagrams. Vygotsky’s concept of Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD) is central to current learning theory. ZPD is Vygotsky’s term for the difference between what the learner can do alone and what they can achieve with help from others who are more knowledgeable or more capable (Vygotsky 1978, Tharp and Gallimore 1991). The Zone of Proximal Development seemed a good way to begin this part of the model but how could a Zone be illustrated? I began with a circle. There must surely be some association between the ZPD and the work or task that both placement students and the Moscow group believed was the basis of learning. Certainly both placement students and activity theorists say that learning frequently begins by doing or experiencing, and so too does Piaget and those whose focus is experiential learning. However, doing is not, by itself, enough to ensure learning. There must also be reflection and internalisation; Dewey pointed this out in 1938 and placement students write that the important aspect of having a project is that it makes them think. Therefore, all the aspects of learning, sometimes described as the learning cycle (e.g. by Kolb 1984), could perhaps be aspects of learning within the ZPD.

The diagrams below show ZPDs, initially as a pie chart divided into equal sectors for Doing/Experiencing, Reflection, Theorising and Experimentation. In fact, learners usually favour one or two of these aspects over the others and this preference is often referred to as an individual’s learning style (e.g. Honey and Mumford 1982) and results in pie chart sectors of unequal size. The various aspects of the learning process mean that learning can take place without ‘doing’, through refection and theorising. In any case, it is not always possible to separate doing and thinking when, as Barnett puts it, ‘doing at any level of complexity involves thinking, and thinking conducted with any seriousness is a form of action’ (Barnett 1994, p160); the regions of the learning cycle merge into one another.

The Learning Process involves Cycles of Action and Reflection

Do/Experience

Experiment Theorize

Reflect

5

Going round and round the same learning cycle has a reinforcing effect. In this way skills become automatic (‘like riding a bicycle’) and neural pathways are strengthened; it is easier to remember something that one has repeated. Mere repetition does not, however, result in growth and development, which is a cumulative process of revisiting knowledge at ever-higher levels of complexity over time (Vygotsky 1978, Bruner 1960). ZPDs are three dimensional and the learning process is not circular but spiral.

The Learning Process involves crossing Zones of Proximal Development

Vygotsky defined intelligence as the capacity to learn through instruction; individual zones of proximal development may be narrow or broad.

Undergraduates are usually helped and supported by their supervisors as they move across their placement ZPDs. Supervisors are more capable than their new placement students in their own field of study and assist them to gain expertise (Tharp and Gallimore 1991). The data show that good supervisors can provide initial help for their students in a variety of ways, including explanation, demonstration and instruction, and the student can respond by imitation and questioning:

‘She explained things clearly [and] demonstrated techniques and then let me copy her, which I found a brilliant way to learn.’

‘I worked quite closely with [my supervisor] to start with and she explained everything in particular detail. She taught me all the techniques I would need, then I was let loose on my own project.’

‘I had a lot of one-to-one supervision which was good. I always had someone there to answer my questions.’

6

Complexity

Time

ZPD

Good supervisors also know when to withdraw and let the student operate more independently. There is a dialogue between them that allows the supervisor to judge the appropriate level of support required. Students seem to value both the initial supervision and its withdrawal.

‘The work became more challenging as the project progressed and I was left to use my own initiative and design my own experiments.’

‘My project was quite challenging as I had to do almost all of the work on my own, after I had been shown how to do it.’

‘There is a huge plus point for what you get out of this independence. I don’t just know the technique I am doing, I understand it inside out and have become confident enough to discuss it with other professors.’

Another student who enjoyed independence wrote that he ‘had to think pretty hard about what I was doing.’

The ‘scaffolding’ of good supervision can be thought of as a supportive framework, around the ZPD, which is thicker and stronger at the base, when the student is a novice, and fades out towards the top, when the student has some expertise and can operate independently (Wood and Wood 1996). In this way placement learning becomes embedded, internalised, integrated with previously gained university knowledge and students gain not merely skills but real understanding. Learners experience phases of dependence and independence and may be independent operators in one area of learning while being dependent on assistance in others.

7

ZPD

The Role of Scaffolding in the Learning Process

Spiral Learning Process Diagram

At each stage of personal development the learner builds on previous knowledge and experience, adding new concepts, to create more complex mental frameworks. Learning is a spiral process of revisiting knowledge at ever-higher levels of understanding. These incremental stages in understanding resonate with Piaget’s work on child development (1950) and with William Perry’s on changes in undergraduate thinking over time (1970); learning is usually a stepwise process.

Good supervisors give students work to do which is close (proximal) to their current ability to perform but which stretches them and encourages them, with assistance, to advance their understanding towards the next level. The work should not, however, be so difficult as to generate excessive stress, which encourages surface approaches and inhibits learning (Marton and Säljö 1976); students should feel challenged, rather than terrified. One respondent wrote that ‘Being dropped in at the deep end was not appreciated … steep learning curve … hard going’. On the other hand, mundane and repetitive tasks generate boredom and resentment, ‘needed more mental stimulation’.

John Dewey (1938), Carl Rogers (1983) and many others have pointed out the importance of viewing learners holistically; how a student feels about their placement inevitably influences their goals, their engagement with the work, their motivation and so on. Whilst the current study provides a detailed insight into the variety of learning experiences of students on placement, it does not set out to analyse their emotions or psychology. Such a study would be fascinating but is outside the scope of the current project, except to note that negative emotions (such as ‘stress’ - more correctly, excessive and damaging stress) seem to inhibit learning and positive ones to promote it.

So far, the model does not explain the disparity that sometimes occurs between the learning outcomes envisaged by the university, when arranging a placement, and the fact that some students actually report learning very little. This disparity can be better understood when the social contexts of placements and students’ perceptions of their placement environment are taken into account.

One student who felt she learnt relatively little from her placement wrote ‘My main task each day was to do everything in my power to avoid my boss’; this was not the intended goal at the outset but became so because of her negative feelings towards her supervisor. This student’s placement situation was of poor quality, with work that was ‘quite monotonous’ and a boss who ‘was difficult to talk to … if he was having a bad day he tended to take it out on whoever was closest’. Her placement environment was, in Dewey’s word, ‘mis-educative’ and her response

8

The Double Helix of Learning and Emotions

Being a Molecular Biologist by training (and accustomed to double-helical diagrams of DNA) the spiral diagram of the learning mechanism made me consider the possibility of a double helix. It is my belief that the mechanism of learning does indeed have a second stand – that of emotion. Learning is so strongly influenced by individual learner’s previous experiences and by their feelings that it is more accurate to think of a double helix. A helical structure, with the learning process intertwined with and cross-linked to an emotional strand, could represent the two aspects that together regulate learning in the same way that DNA regulates the cell.

was to become engaged on the wrong task, that of avoiding her boss. As Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and Biggs (1978) discovered through research with students within a university setting, it is the student’s perception of their situation, and how they feel about it, which provide their local context and determine both their approach to placements and their actual goals. For this reason it matters, it is important, whether a student is happy or miserable, whether they are bored, challenged or over-stressed during their placement.

The one-to-one relationship between placement student and supervisor is not, of course, the only influence reported by respondents and no model of learning, whether on placement or elsewhere, would be complete without consideration of the influences of the wider social and cultural environment. Having used the analogy of DNA for the link between emotions and learning, the model now draws parallels between learners in their socio-cultural context and cells within organisms (see forward). Incidentally, it may seem strange to apply the imagery of Molecular and Cellular Biology to the discipline of Education but Gardner wrote that we can ‘take advantage of our multiple intelligences [and] approach topics in a number of ways … make use of analogies and comparisons drawn from a range of domains and … express the key notions or concepts in a number of different symbolic forms’ (Gardner 2003, p 9).

The circles could represent cells, grouped into tissues within an organism. The arrows in this case would symbolise two-way communications between them; adjacent cells are in close contact and regularly communicate with each other. Cells also receive communications from further away, via nerves and hormones, mediated by messenger molecules. Equally, the circles could represent learners within small communities that form part of a wider society. In this case, the arrows symbolise means of communication between people, the reciprocal influences they have on each other. Messages are transmitted through language, texts, signs and tools - both material and psychological; these are the means by which people come to understand each other and the world in which they live. Learners are affected by the historical background of the environment in which they find themselves, acting through these cultural artefacts which carry meaning (messages), in the same way that cellular form and function are influenced over time by the pressures of evolution. As Vygotsky pointed out, cultural history dictates not only what is learnt, but how.

Learning is facilitated by good communication. One to one communication is part of effective supervision, as outlined above, but an expanded communications network is also helpful to placement learning. Respondents who complained of little supervision were, nonetheless, able to learn a great deal from their placement work because they sought help from their peers and ‘looked up and learnt the whole procedure myself’; it seems that scaffolding can come from several sources, not just from the supervisor, and sometimes indirectly, through reading, internet searches etc.

9

Individuals and groups with just a few of the communications between them

Several students described effective social interactions. To give three examples, ‘Frequent interactions with colleagues definitely promoted my learning’, ‘I feel I’ve learnt loads from people I’ve worked with’ and ‘I learnt a great deal from my co-workers both academically and professionally’. Others pointed to the lack of interaction ‘Spend all day, every day on my own, there is nobody to talk to … it was a shock’, or to inadequate interactions ‘People often assume I know how to do something … don’t explain very well … hard to feel able to ask questions’. That the influence comes from communications was shown by the remarks of two students, in particular; one said that his placement helped him become ‘more familiar with the biological language and associated jargon’ and another that ‘listening to colleagues talking about antibodies all the time … it’s a bit like doing GCSE Spanish and moving to Spain. You just pick it up subconsciously’.

The diagram is necessarily a gross over-simplification because it soon becomes confusing when more circles are added and the lines of communications are drawn between them. Individual learners are subject to an extremely complex set of socio-cultural influences and their perception of each learning situation depends on their previous experience and cultural mindset. In each case, though, the strongest and most obvious influences are between the learner and those closest to them; the effects of interaction with their colleagues, peers, family and friends is similar to diffusion between adjacent cells. For example, students in the setting of a professional placement, such as a research laboratory, develop ‘ways of thinking and practicing’ appropriate in that context (McCune 2003):

‘I gained a true insight into the professional world of science.’ ‘Learnt how to behave in a professional environment.’ ‘Learnt a lot from working in the lab, both practically and in increasing my

knowledge on the academic side of MCB.’ ‘It’s given me an opportunity to experience not only the type of work I enjoy,

and will probably go into, but also the lifestyle and the people in and with which I’d like to do it.’

Influences that stem from the wider environment, are more diffuse but pervasive; the effects on an individual learner of their historical and cultural heritage, of institutional ethos, of government policy or whatever can be likened to the regulatory effects of the brain or endocrine system (the result of evolutionary forces) acting at a cellular level.

Four examples demonstrate how students are affected by the more diffuse influence of working culture or ethos, be it good or bad:

‘It was a very relaxed atmosphere … makes you want to go to work and do the best you can, not just for yourself but so you don’t let the others in the team down.’

‘The people I worked with were very chilled and relaxed and I found this was the best way to get work done.’

‘This company is very keen on providing placement students with the opportunity to experience as much as we can in the time that we’re here … we were told that this year is for OUR benefit and we should try to exploit [the company] as much as possible!

10

‘There was no kind of teamwork at all and even less communication. Group meetings were … just bitch at each other … Big ego’s, ambitious people who want to be famous in their field … helped me decide that I never want to work in a lab ever again and has probably put me off science for life.’

Learning theorists have studied learning from several different viewpoints. Piaget’s focus was that of individual development. Vygotsky, Leontiev and Luria, however, looked at Activity Systems and socio-cultural influences on learning (at ‘Mind in Society’); Lave and Wenger’s ‘Communities of Practice’ (1999) are similar to Activity Systems. Data from my preliminary studies fit well with various learning theories that do not seem to be mutually exclusive but merely different in emphasis, stemming from researchers’ disparate views of the whole picture.

The Framework and Simplicity

The creative process that led to the emergence of the model described above was also an analytical process and led in turn to a different analytical framework from ones I had previously considered. It now appears that there are considerable qualitative differences between different placements with respect to their potential for learning and that this should be considered before considering placement learning (i.e. the ‘outcomes’). The nature and quality of the work or activity available to the student seems to be the most important factor affecting learning potential, followed by the nature and quality of interactions with supervisors and colleagues. There are apparently links between the placement situation and the learning outcomes students achieve and these are being investigated further in the ongoing longitudinal study.

I have become convinced of the central importance, to learning, of the learners’ engagement with activity which they see as meaningful and it is my belief that the model and resulting framework may help me to understand learning in non-placement situations, including university-based practical classes and perhaps lectures and other potential learning opportunities. Both the model and framework are, however, tentative and will undoubtedly evolve in the light of further data. I would welcome any questions and comments that could help me to refine my thinking.

One concern I have is that my pictorial model appears so simple as to be simplistic, especially when compared to other models such as those of Entwistle and Smith on teaching and learning (2002). Its very simplicity has, however, helped me to consider the complexity of placement situations:

The learning equation reminds me of the central importance of task or activity in promoting learning and the fact that learning can be catalysed by good supervision.

The learning process diagrams illustrate learning cycles of activity and reflection, with repetition and increasing complexity over time, so that knowledge is revisited at ever-higher levels. In addition, scaffolding is shown as strong support for the novice, at the beginning of his/her zones of proximal development, but which fades to give learners independence as they gain expertise.

11

The double helix, where learning is inextricably intertwined with emotions, helps me to bear in mind individual learner differences in ability, psychology and personal perspective, even though the emotional strand is not defined in this research,

The simple diagram of individuals and groups, with communications between them that are subject to evolution of time, help me to consider the nature of communications and the historical, socio-cultural aspects of learning contexts. As with the other illustrations, it is of course possible to consider all the separate elements in great depth and from different perspectives. I am anxious not to make the data fit the model and it will be interesting to find out whether the model does or does not have any relevance in non-placement situations such as university-based practical classes and lectures.

Future analysis

Analysis of placement learning is ongoing and my new challenges are to try to understand university-based learning opportunities. Practical classes involve students in activities that are essentially very similar to those undertaken on placement, yet data on practical classes suggest students may not be engaging with meaningful activity. Some respondents thought these classes ‘A lot more fun than lectures … the highlight of the week’ and ‘Quite a good laugh’. Others thought them:

‘Terrible, always copied results.’ ‘Almost without exception, a complete waste of time.’ ‘The main aim would be to leave as quickly as possible.’ ‘On occasions formulated the results entirely from my imagination.’ ‘Feel like I don’t know what the hell I’m doing and have often felt rushed.’ One graduate explained that ‘we don’t learn any more by having to rush

through lots of exercises, we just get stressed and resent having to do them!’

Criticism of practical classes is more common than praise but one practical unit was beneficial to student learning:

‘Really drummed it in, by the end, because you’d done it in practice, then you’d had to think really hard about it for the write-up, then you’d had to do the interview … quite a number of times you’d had to look over it.’

‘When you leave you really do understand it.’

Lectures would appear to be essentially passive and students prefer to be active - in thought or deed - and can be damning when their teachers merely transmit information:

‘Every time I looked at the slide, to think about it, he went on to the next one. It was very annoying. He needs to plan his lectures a bit more.’

‘I find that I am writing all the time [and therefore] cannot take in what the lecturer is saying.’

12

‘Some give lots of handouts … which is good but, at the same time, bad because you’re not really paying attention, because it’s all there.’

‘If they’re just reading off PowerPoint it’s basically like adding the lecturer’s notes to the student’s notes without passing through the brain of either.’

’It just keeps your attention so much longer if somebody’s actually speaking to you rather than reading … it’s their own words. You can concentrate more.’

Conscious that students find it easier to criticise than to praise, and knowing that one of our lecturers had been an inspiration to many, I asked a group of first-year students ‘Do you think the teaching staff are good at motivating you?’ Sadly the question caused a collective titter and:

‘Some are clearly bored.’ ‘You’ve just got one lecturer between hundreds so there’s no interaction …

they’re just telling you the information and what you do with it is up to you, so there’s not motivation.’

When asked how the situation could be improved ‘The only way … would be to be enthusiastic themselves.’

Three further comments are interesting relating, as they do, to both teaching quality and Higher Education policy. One final-year student linked ‘the very low lecturing ability of many of the lecturers’ with the fact that ‘they are primarily research people … being made to lecture us on top of what they do … I think it’s very much to our detriment’. Two other students raised the issue of top-up fees:

‘If I was paying £3,000 to come to this university I’d expect the person lecturing me to know how to teach. I don’t think that’s too much to ask’.

‘You expect quality when you pay for something.’

Quotations like these few samples have given me some insight into undergraduate learning from students’ perspectives and I look forward to the next phase of analysis. I have felt hugely privileged to have access to such rich and valuable data from so many graduates and undergraduates who have willingly given their time and energy to this research, in spite of work and time constraints. In addition, I am very grateful for the expert guidance provided by my supervisor, Dr Yolande Muschamp.

References

Barnett, R. (1994). The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, Higher Education and Society. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Biggs, J. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes in British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, pp 266-279.

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier/Kappa Delta Pi.

13

Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamaki, R-L. (Eds) (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Entwistle, N. and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. Beckenham: Croom Helm Ltd.

Entwistle, N. and Smith, C. (2002). ‘Personal understanding and target understanding: Mapping influences on the outcomes of learning’ in British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, pp 321-342.

Gardner, H. (2003). Multiple Intelligences after Twenty Years. Invited address, April 21, 2003, American Educational Research Association. [http://www.pz.Harvard.edu/Pis/HG.htm, 14/1/2004]

Guile, D. and Young, M. (1998). ‘Apprenticeship as a Conceptual Basis for a Social Theory of Learning’ in Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50 (2) pp 173-192.

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1982). The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1999). Learning and Pedagogy in Communities of Practice in Leach, J and Moon, B (Eds) Learners and Pedagogy. London: Chapman.

McCune, V. (2003). Promoting High-Quality Learning: Perspectives from the ETL Project. [http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/publications.html] 5/11/2003].

Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976). ‘On qualitative differences in learning II – Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, pp 115-127.

Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to Learning in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (eds), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Perry, W. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in College Years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80s. Columbus, OH: Merrell.

14

Tharp,.R. and Gallimore, R. (1991). A theory of teaching as assisted performance, in Light, P., Sheldon, P. and Woodhead, M. (eds), Learning to Think, pp 42-59. London: Routledge.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. (Edited by Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Wood, D. and Wood, H. (1996). Oxford Review of Education, 22 (1), pp 5-16.

15