Personal Development Planning and the Economics Tribe

The Higher Education Academy Annual Conference July 2006 – Session papers

Personal Development Planning and the Economics Tribe

A paper for HEA Conference Nottingham 3-5 July 2006

Dr Anne Lee and Penny Burden

Acknowledgements

Professor Rickman and Dr Gage put a great deal of energy into supporting the work and enabling us to understand the pedagogy that is central to economists, we are also grateful to the post-graduate and undergraduate students who participated in the work.

Introduction

This paper looks at how the Economics Department chose to introduce personal development planning (PDP) within the University context, and asks whether that choice gives us any indication of a prevailing pedagogy in that discipline.

In essence the methodology behind this study is phenomenological. We presumed that there is an ‘essence to shared experience’ (Patton 1990 p70), and we focused on the participants descriptions of what they experienced and how it was they experienced what they experienced. We accessed the information through unstructured and structured surveys, analysing the output of discussion groups, an analysis of 120 essays, observation and interviews.

We found examples of a prevailing pedagogy in Economics. Firstly as Economics is a social science we would expect to see evidence of commitment to the whole person. The Economics Department chose to introduce their students to skills for personal development planning at a time when it was not compulsory. They put considerable senior management time behind planning how this should be done. Secondly, we found evidence of using economic models. As economists they used the model of opportunity cost and outsourcing to identify the model which would provide maximum development opportunity for the students at a minimum additional cost of academic staff time. Thirdly, there was some evidence that Economics is defined by and bound by its seminal textbooks. Fourthly, there was alignment between the academic staff requirements and their marking criteria and some alignment of these with student perceptions. Broad knowledge, the ability to analyse, synthesise and put into context are some of the economics department’s marking criteria. Both staff and students recognised this. Finally we found an increasing awareness of the need to improve students’ mathematical skills. The discipline of Economics is increasingly becoming recognised as sharing a common frontier with maths as econometrics (mathematics applied to economic modelling) becomes more important.

Defining PDP

Universities were asked to develop progress files: “a means by which students can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development” (Dearing 1997)

There is no universally recognised definition of what personal development planning (PDP) really is (Brennan and Shah, 2003). Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) guidelines state that PDP is concerned with learning in a holistic sense (both academic and non-academic) and a “process that involves self-reflection, the creation of a personal record, planning and monitoring progress towards the achievement of personal objectives”. The guidelines also give statements as to the intended purpose of PDP, i.e: to enable students to become more effective, independent and confident self-directed learners, to understand how they are learning, to relate their learning to a wider context and to improve their general skills for study and career management.

Thus Universities have considerable freedom to define PDP. At Surrey we consulted widely on a framework which defined learning objectives and target outcomes.

The learning objectives needed to reflect various perspectives: those of the University itself, academics, students and employers. They were derived from an analysis of the University’s mission statement and other policy documents, the work of Barrie on Graduate Attributes (2004) and work looking at the stages of maturation that graduates and adults may move through. (Perry 1970 and Hall 1994). It also took into account an analysis of employers’ requirements for graduate competencies.

The University of Surrey emphasises employability and the recognition of a need to understand humanity. The following comes from Article 2 of its Royal Charter:

“The objects of the University shall be the pursuit of learning and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge, in Science and Technology and all that pertains to a fuller understanding of humanity, in close co-operation with the industrial life of the country and with commerce and the professions...”

We also needed to take account of the objectives included in the Surrey Skills statement (see appendix 1) and the postgraduate research students’ skills training strategy. This latter strategy stated that the University would organise a comprehensive skills programme and an appropriate personal development planning policy for all doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers.

Looking internationally and for the academic view point, the University of Sydney’s graduate attributes project asked lecturers to agree on the values that they wanted to see every student to espouse. They identified the following as its lodestones:

“SCHOLARSHIP: An attitude or stance towards knowledge:

Graduates of the University will have a scholarly attitude to knowledge and understanding. As Scholars, the University's graduates will be leaders in the production of new knowledge and understanding through inquiry, critique and synthesis. They will be able to apply their knowledge to solve consequential problems and communicate their knowledge confidently and effectively.

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: An attitude or stance towards the world:

Graduates of the University will be Global Citizens, who will aspire to contribute to society in a full and meaningful way through their roles as members of local, national and global communities.

LIFELONG LEARNING: An attitude or stance towards themselves:

Graduates of the University will be Lifelong Learners committed to and capable of continuous learning and reflection for the purpose of furthering their understanding of the world and their place in it.”

Barrie S Graduate Attributes Project http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/GraduateAttributes

It became clear that the learning objectives that we chose to espouse could have a powerful effect on the long-term direction of both students and the university. Whilst the structure and some of the observations were useful, there was no academic support (for example) for following the Sydney example of highlighting global citizenship – the implications that both staff and students would be expected to donate a percentage of their time to voluntary work was not tenable in our environment.

In their book The Bases of Competence: Skills for Lifelong Learning and Employability, the Canadian authors Evers, Rush and Berdrow (1998) identified the essential graduate skills as managing self; communicating; managing people and tasks; and mobilising innovation and change. John Daniels (1999) (then Vice Chancellor of the Open University) added a UK perspective when he commented that employers “find that students and graduates are most confident of their skills in managing themselves and communicating. They are much less sure of their skills for managing people and tasks and for mobilising innovation and change, although these skills are much sought after by employers.” This suggested that skills of lifelong and independent learning are going to be key for employability as well as for academic success.

Perry (1970) wrote about the stages he identified that students at Harvard went through during their college years. This study has been criticised for being dated and gender specific (mostly male), but later studies have replicated condensed versions of these stages which start at basic duality (there is a right and a wrong) through perceiving relativism to understanding the role of reflection and self-identity. Hall (1994) wrote about the different values that adults may have as they examine them: moving from surviving through self-initiating to interdepending. This highlighted the need for a developmental approach.

The framework chosen was similar to that designed by Barrie, but the implications of the words within the framework were different. It was agreed that the learning objectives should cover three main areas:

Learning research and scholarship;
Employability and engagement with society:
Personal and communication skills

Appendix 2 lists the learning outcomes for first year students.

In terms of identifying target outcomes for students, the University offers resources for students to become engaged with personal development planning and asks them to take responsibility for becoming an independent learner, getting the most out of the University and enhancing their employability. Support and guidance was available through a mixture of personal tutorials, study modules, web materials and centrally provided services such as Careers and the Language Centre.

One core strand of the Economics PDP programme was to encourage meta-learning. “Meta-learning is basically about a process of being aware and taking control of one’s own learning” Meyer and Shanahan (2004 p 444).

The discipline of economics?

Economics is classified as a social science but there is room for further analysis of economics as a disciplinary community (Becher and Trowler 2001 p 52).

The Economics Department wanted to find some way of offering PDP to their students. They had limited spare staff capacity or skill in this area. What did they do and how did they do it?

In consultation with staff in the Skills and Personal Development team (SPD), various approaches were examined. The economics staff as a whole were supportive of the need to develop skills in undergraduates, but hitherto had not been particularly involved in the evolving discussions about PDP.

Within the team we faced two questions:

How could we support Economics staff in their search to deepen their understanding of the concept of PDP and find cost-effective methods of delivery?
How could we support them in making it available to their students?

At Surrey there are two main routes for introducing PDP. It can take place through the assessed curriculum and/or it can take place through personal tutorials. The Skills and Personal Development (SPD) team had previously run a ten week module on skills for economics undergraduates, but we needed to alter this pattern. One of the SPD team’s objectives was to inform the economics staff about PDP and give them some encouragement to take over this initiative themselves.

The Economics Department did not have the staffing to increase the number of personal tutorials, and did not feel able to run a personal development module themselves.

We agreed to introduce PDP to the economics undergraduates in a new way. We ran a half day conference for over one hundred students. The SPD team provided most of the materials and delivery, but needed the support of senior economics staff who introduced the conference and were there all the time, as well as four post graduate students who helped to manage some administration and led some of the small group work.

The SPD team’s suggested model reflected ‘economies of scale’ and this proved attractive to the department. We proposed a conference for the whole year group which would be a mixture of short lectures, exercises and discussion groups. At this stage it required little time from the economics staff (although considerable time from SPD). The opportunity cost for economics staff was low, they were enthusiastic about a model which appeared to outsource PDP so that they could spend more time on where they see they have a comparative advantage (ie: on research). Here the SPD team and the Economics Department had apparently conflicting agendas, but we also had a willingness to work together on this model to explore its potential.

The conference covered: the characteristics of a top economics student; approaches to learning and academic writing. A later session for the same group included an exercise on accessing materials from the library.

In one fell swoop the Economics Department fulfilled the University’s minimum requirements for introducing some PDP opportunities for their undergraduates. There were also opportunities created for building upon this initiative throughout the year. Students were asked to submit a 1,500 word assignment, and the marked assignments were handed back by personal tutors. The assignment asked the students to reflect on the differences between learning at school and at university and to identify what steps they would take to become a top economics graduate.

In this study we wanted to see if we found any evidence to support the prevailing view that there are ‘threshold concepts’ (such as ‘opportunity cost’, ‘incentives’ or the concept of an economic model) for economics students to grasp which act as ‘portals’ to understanding their subject (Meyer and Land 2003, Entwistle 2003). According to Meyer and Land a threshold concept may possess a number of characteristics, it is likely to be (i) integrative, in that it exposes the previously hidden interrelatedness of something: (ii) Transformative so that once understood, it produces a significant shift in the perception of the subject: (iii) potentially irreversible, that is, once acquired it is likely to permanently alter the individual’s perspective (iv) potentially troublesome. (Meyer & Shanahan 2003 p 4).

There was some evidence from their essays and the conference itself that the students faced two threshold concepts: understanding approaches to learning and the need for conceptual understanding. We also found that we needed to take a step back and look at what felt like a threshold concept of enabling economists to feel confident in their skills in moving outside the familiar concepts of teaching economics.

Whilst Economics has historically been classified as a social science (and therefore a ‘soft, applied’ subject according to Biglan 1973) mathematics has become an increasingly important part of the subject. In fact Becher and Trowler (2001) argue that the subject shares ‘one common frontier with mathematics and another with political science; some trade relations with history and sociology; and a lesser measure of shared ground with psychology, philosophy and law’ (p59).

We had the support of the Head of the Economics Department. We used this to try to deepen everyone’s understanding of what they were looking for in an outstanding economics graduate. An e-mail survey of economics staff yielded a series of requirements which were synthesised and the results of this synthesis was fed back to staff for further evaluation. A discourse analysis identified the characteristics below.

The range of interests identified and the requirements for conceptual understanding supports Becher and Trowler’s identification of political science, history, sociology, psychology, philosophy and law as linked to economics. The interesting part of this list (in terms of discipline analysis) is the absence of the physical sciences. Biglan (1973b) said “scholars in social science emphasize educating the whole student and evidence a more personal commitment to students than do those in physical sciences” (p2005). Whilst it was wise to be considering PDP at this stage, the Economics department did not have to. Thus they were demonstrating some interest in ‘emphasizing educating the whole student.’

Mathematics also appeared as a highly rated skill for the top economics graduate. Biglan does include Maths (along with the physical sciences, geology and astronomy) as a pure non-life system hard subject. (p207) This suggests that Economics is on the cusp of both the hard and soft subjects and that Economics students do need a broad interest and a wide range of conceptual abilities to be able to study successfully.

The options for working towards offering PDP opportunities which would enable personal growth and increased self-awareness for the students were limited. There was little staff time available for additional tutorials and little staff time to develop assessed modules.

What progress did students make?

At the time of writing it is too soon to assess (if ever we really can) the full impact of the conference on student achievement. We would need to organise a longitudinal study to assess this over several years. However, in terms of PDP, there is evidence from the assignments that progress was made towards independent learning and working with others.

The list of skills required that emerged from an email survey of academic staff in the Economics Department may be generic to all students, and further research is needed to assess this.

Characteristics of a Top Economics Graduate

Interest

In economics and the subject as it is now (ie the formal/mathematical presentation of issues)
In the world around them
In what motivates people

Skill

To master mathematical skills/to cope with the maths and the statistics/to translate economic theory into a mathematical format
Communication skills: ability to communicate clearly and succinctly
Analytical skills
To work hard/to a regular pattern
Problem solving skills

Conceptual Understanding

Tolerance of ambiguity
A good understanding of the concepts and procedures of hypothesis testing
Some capacity for economic thinking
To distinguish between central and peripheral issues (to distinguish the

wood from the trees)

Results of an email survey of Economics Academic Staff at the University of Surrey Jan 2006

The students during the conference also undertook an exercise which illuminated their beliefs. In some (but not total) contrast they believed that academic staff were looking for: interest, analytical skills, determination and self confidence. The concept of conceptual understanding, problem solving and tolerance of ambiguity did not surface so clearly. (See the students’ evaluation of the conference in Appendix Three). From this we concluded that there is some evidence that the need for conceptual understanding is a ‘threshold concept’ for economics students.

The assignments revealed a wide disparity in previous experiences of independent learning. Some students said that there was little difference between learning at school and university, except that they had more control over their time, others said that there was a big difference now that they were not being spoon-fed.