A reflexive critique of Learner Managed Learning

Michael Doyle

Education Development Unit

University of Salford

This is one of a set of papers and work in progress written by research postgraduates (MPhil and PhD) at Lancaster University's Department of Educational Research. The papers are primarily offered as examples of work that others at similar stages of their research careers can refer to and engage with.

Abstract

‘Learner autonomy’ and ‘learner-managed learning’ (LML) are topical educational goals and learning strategies for policy makers and practitioners, particularly in Adult Education and Life-long Learning. This paper uses a highly reflexive approach to address three issues central to these goals and strategies. Firstly, it analyses the theoretical premises of LML within emerging discourses of citizenship, progressive adult education theory and ‘autonomy’ in relation to theories of ‘risk’ and uncertainty. Secondly, it critically examines the pedagogical assumptions underpinning practices intended to develop LML: in particular, the use of learning contracts, experiential learning and reflective practice. This leads into the third issue: a critique of LML practice from an emancipatory/transformative perspective. The context of the study is a Foundation Degree prototype in which the purpose is to use LML to promote and develop learner autonomy. The paper concludes with an analysis of how LML needs to be interpreted within a less instrumental, more constructivist, relational and social theory of learning, which, through a process of reflective dialogue, engages the learner in a critically reflective construction of meaning.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical analysis of teaching and learning strategies used increasingly in higher education, which emphasise the use of learner-managed learning (LML). The objective is not to dismiss the approach – on the contrary, as the author is an advocate and keen practitioner of the process. However, the paper represents a reflexive attempt to examine conceptual and pedagogical underpinnings of this approach to adult learning. In this respect the process represents an exercise in critical research which Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000: 144) characterize as ‘triple hermeneutic’: interpretive social science with a critical interpretation of “unconscious processes, ideologies, power relations and other expressions of dominance that entail the privileging of certain interests over others”.

The context of the study is a pilot Foundation Degree, which started in October 2001. It was launched (DfEE, 2000a) within a New Labour ‘Third Way’ discursive wrapper (Fairclough, 2001), which characteristically attempts to synthesise potentially conflicting elements. In the case of the Foundation Degree the contrast is between economic and democratic agendas, as represented by a ‘return’ on learning which enhances student employability in a global economy, while widening access to higher level learning. However, the dominance of the economic and utilitarian agendas, over the democratic, in education policy and practice over the past twenty years has been illustrated by Coffield (1999). Nevertheless, this discursive hegemony is contested, particularly within an androgogical and humanistic tradition of adult learning, which stresses personal growth and transformation, learner autonomy and empowerment.

Therefore the Foundation Degree case study provides an opportunity, in Freirean terms (1970), to critically evaluate the potential to develop liberatory, transformational learning within a dominant discursive framework that is geared towards the ‘domestication’ of its students in the interests of a narrow economically driven conceptualization of Lifelong Learning. This involves problematizing the ‘surface and deep structures’ (Deetz and Kersten, 1983, Frost, 1987) underlying teaching and learning strategies within LML; in other words, the taken for granted acceptance of existence as rational and comprehensible, as opposed to the questioning of beliefs and values upon which the surface structures rest.

The three questions to be addressed therefore are as follows: what are the theoretical premises on which the LML module (called Independent Learning) and the curriculum model for the Foundation Degree are based? Secondly, what are the pedagogical assumptions on which the LML learning process is conceptualized and framed? The final issue concerns the efficacy of the module in supporting processes of LML in its emancipatory conceptualization. In addressing these issues the paper represents a critically self-reflexive exercise; a process of ‘double loop’ learning (Argyris and Schon, 1974).

The paper is structured as follows: following contextual information on the Foundation Degree, the curriculum model of the actual case study is summarized and the Independent Learning Module outlined. This is then positioned within a domesticating/emancipatory theoretical framework involving situating the curriculum firstly within the debate on the Learning Society (Schon, 1971, Ranson, 1998) and developments in Lifelong Learning; secondly in terms of conceptualizations of learner autonomy within a period described by Giddens (1990) as a ‘juggernaut of late modernity’, characterized by ‘risk’ (Beck, 1992), and including the ‘discursive elision’ of LML with ‘managerialism’ (Harrison 2000); and finally the conceptual roots of the curriculum are located within the progressive premises of adult education.

The aims, learning outcomes and teaching, learning and assessment strategies of the module, and more broadly the programme and curriculum model, are then evaluated within this conceptual context. There is particular emphasis on the analysis of the use of learning contracts (called learning agreements), experiential learning and reflection in the planning and development of student learning. These represent the assumptions being investigated on which the LML process is conceptualized and framed.

The third issue of transformation through LML in an emancipatory sense is then evaluated

The paper concludes with an analysis of how the module and the broader curriculum might be interpreted within a more constructivist, social and situated theory of learning, which through a process of reflective dialogue could offer a less rationalistic, less individualistic, and more hermeneutic approach, engaging the learner in a critically reflective construction of meaning.

Foundation Degree – The Context

The case study is one of twenty one selected by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE), through a bidding process for development funding and additional student numbers. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment undertook a consultation exercise (DfEE, 2000b) on proposals for the introduction of a new qualification, the Foundation Degree. This was to be a sub-degree qualification, which, in the course of time, was expected to become the dominant qualification at this level. As a consequence it is anticipated that institutions will re-develop existing sub-degree programmes (such as HND’s) to conform with the requirements for Foundation Degrees. It is also the Government’s intention that the bulk of any growth in higher education will be achieved through Foundation Degrees. Given the Government’s target of 50% of the population experiencing higher education by the age of thirty by 2010, this indicates its priorities for higher education and reinforces the link between higher education, economic agendas and technical-rationalist, human resource conceptualizations and discourses of Lifelong Learning.

The rationale for such priorities lies, in the context of a global economy, in the shortage of and increased demand for people with intermediate-level skills, across all sectors of the economy, who can operate effectively in posts generically referred to as ‘higher technicians’ and ‘associate professionals’; in ‘deficiency’ conceptualizations of higher education and its graduates (Coffield, 1999); and in a perceived need to rationalize the range of qualifications below honours degree level.

Foundation Degrees are expected to meet these needs by equipping students with the combination of academic knowledge and technical and transferable skills demanded by employers, while facilitating lifelong learning for the workforce and enhancing the ‘diversity and differentiation’ (Neave, 2000) of higher education, thus combating social exclusion. The award will attract a minimum of 240 credits (120 each at levels 1 and 2), and will be awarded by individual universities. The CVCP (2000)summarized the essential features as: employer involvement; development of skills and knowledge; application of skills in the workplace; credit accumulation and transfer and progression within work and or to an honours degree.

Foundation Degree in Community Governance and the Independent Learning Module

The case study is a collaborative development between a consortium of one university, five of its associate colleges and the local authority employers within which the colleges are located. The University will award the Foundation Degree, with curriculum delivery largely in the local colleges. The target students are local authority staff and a small minority of people working with the local authorities in the delivery of policy and strategy, for example the voluntary sector. The incentive for the employers is the policy and the funding thrust to ‘modernisation’ (Newman, 2000):

With all the initiatives for local government either here or coming soon, “no change” is not an option. The challenge for local government is to change culturally, to seek new ways of working, and to reach beyond its organizational boundaries (Improvements Development Agency, 2001)

Such change will require a major programme of learning and skills development for local authority staff. Coupled with this, the trend in local government is to employ fewer, more highly skilled staff who can work outside traditional departmental hierarchic structures and who can think and operate in a strategic way. For many Local Authorities, ‘upskilling’ the existing workforce represents a more viable alternative to employing new staff.

The employer members of the consortium have highlighted that there are underdeveloped opportunities for accredited study in vocationally-related areas of modern local government. This is especially true for ‘non- professional’ administrative staff at and below the level of Principal Officer Grade 5. That represents the majority of Local Authority staff, which is also mainly non-graduate and not usually eligible for substantive secondment, for example to traditional first degree programmes. Existing public administration courses, for example the DMS have yet to acknowledge the new ‘facilitative’ and ‘capacity-building’ roles increasingly required of Local Authority staff.

The predominant view of the employers is that the time is appropriate for the introduction of a new qualification, which offers a fresh approach to the issues relating to Local Government. The strategy for regionalisation and more community involvement in governance has put pressure on Local Authorities to change their existing culture and way of working. It is their view that the role of the Foundation Degree would be to support the internal staff development required to facilitate the changes needed within Local Authorities.

The programme learning outcomes therefore have a clear emphasis on the ‘return’ to the organization in terms of its investment in human capital. Of the five stated outcomes only one is couched in terms of the individual, rather than the ‘organisation’, and this stresses the identification of ‘ongoing professional development needs and strategies’. The programme has a work-related emphasis, with learner-managed learning as its focus.

The curriculum model (Figure 1) reflects the work-based focus of the learning: the Independent Learning (level 1) and Work-based Project (level 2) modules (categorised as ‘Applications Modules’, reflecting the work-related, LML context) are positioned centrally as the focus developing from the APL/APEL and Learning Contract entry stage. The other level 1 modules are classified as ‘Strategic’, giving a foundation propositional knowledge base, and the level 2 modules more open-ended, and classified as ‘Issues’, permitting a degree of student choice reflecting professional interests.

The Independent Learning Module is the first taken in the whole programme. Its key purpose is to introduce students to the rationale and practices of LML. It is intended that after semester 1 the reflective practice and self managed learning introduced by the module will be further developed and monitored throughout the programme through the Personal Advisor and the use of Personal Development Planning. The Independent Learning module learning outcomes reflect the priority given by Dearing (1997) to LML, which he identified as the most significant ‘Key Skill’.

In the module students negotiate the outcomes and assessment criteria for their learning within broadly worded parameters, although within a work-based context. This involves producing a ‘learning agreement’ (a form of learning contract) within the first four weeks of the module and the subsequent use of guided reflection throughout the semester. Processes of reflection are built into the module assessment. The module itself provided the model for the whole curriculum, and the processes of its delivery.

In contrast to the organizational emphasis of the programme learning outcomes, the Independent Learning module aims to: ‘support students in their development as self-directed learners in individual and group professional contexts’; ‘develop capabilities as reflective practitioners’; and ‘develop skills of critical evaluation in their personal and professional development.’ Specific learning outcomes therefore refer to ‘personal’ as well as professional development through learning. Thecurriculum model and the Independent Learning module are rooted in experiential models of learning (Kolb,1984), with the aim being the development of autonomous, self-managed learners. Effectively, the espoused aims of the programme are organizational and managerial, while the curriculum model and learner strategy are embedded in progressive, androgogical conceptualizations of learning.

The question is whether the assumptions on which this decoding and recoding of the programme in progressive terms are likely to deliver the aim intended: learner autonomy. Indeed as well as questioning the conceptualization of the ‘individual’ as learner with autonomy, it has to be asked whether this curriculum model and the Independent Learning module represent a classic case of what Edwards and Usher (1994), using Foucauldian conceptualizations of Power/Knowledge, argue is a situation where learners (and in this case workers) are being trained to exercise self-monitoring and control within specific given parameters. If this is the case it represents what Harrison (2000) calls a ‘discursive elision’ – progressive discourse selectively and narrowly interpreted, used to veil managerial strategy.

For the higher education teacher a key issue therefore is whether they are performing a domesticating or liberatory (emancipatory) function. For some the issue may not be problematic, although this brings into question the purpose of higher education. For Harvey and Knight if higher education is to play an effective role:

…then it must focus its attention on the transformative process of learning…critical reflective learners able to cope with a rapidly changing world. (Harvey and Knight, 1966:viii)

The following section provides a conceptual matrix with which to subsequently analyse the module and the curriculum model. It begins to map out the theoretical premises on which the module and curriculum model is based; essentially the first question to be addressed by this paper.

Figure 1 Curriculum Model – Foundation Degree in Community Governance

Learner autonomy and the Learning Society

Three conceptual strands to learner autonomy are outlined in this section: the re-emergence of the concept of the individual within a discourse of ‘citizenship’; the post-modern conceptualizations of the individual dealing with uncertainty; and traditional conceptualizations of the adult learner within progressive perspectives. Emphases on learner autonomy have traditionally been underpinned by humanist democratic perspectives (Rogers (1978), Maslow (1968), Knowles (1984), Illich (1971)) rooted in ‘empowerment’, ‘self-realisation’ and similar normative visions which have served to shape pedagogy. The western social and ideological contexts have influenced this positively with the focus on individualism, and the power of agency reinforced by the counterweight growth of uncertainty and risk brought about by post-structural and post-modern change. The ‘learning society’ and the need for ‘learning systems’ (Schon, 1971) are concepts used to make sense of a period of change.

Ranson (1998) in tracing the lineages of the learning society claims we have reached a stage of citizenship within a learning society whose creative agency will be the key to economic and social innovation. Reflexivity and lifelong learning are seen as remedies to uncertainty, and Evans (1985) claims:

Reflecting on the conditions for…lifelong education has led adult educators to develop a framework for a learning society as a society of learners, using their learning to inform their shaping of the society in which they live and work. It leads to pedagogy which advocates that according the learner the responsibility to participate in shaping the purpose and process of learning is the most effective route to motivation and personal development.

Ranson claims that the purposes and conditions for the learning society lie in democratic politics, claiming reasoning in public discourse is the vehicle to a learning democracy (1998). Ranson traces the roots of democratic learning to Lindeman and Dewey. For Dewey (1958), knowledge only has meaning through action, and Ranson sees action through citizenship as a means of learning, or ‘becoming’; the route to ‘unfolding agency’ (Ranson 1998:19).

The discourse of learning as self-development has become central to public policy in the UK. ‘The Learning Age’ (DfEE, 1998) stresses self-actualisation through action, with emphases on individuals, workplaces and providers of learning opportunities becoming more flexible. New and alternative sites of learning are being identified (for example, work-based) as well as a growing interest in the significance of informal learning, given impetus by the outcomes of the ESRC’s programme, The Learning Society (Coffield, 2000).