Our National Action Research Network for Researching and Evaluating PDP and ePortfolio Practice

1
Our National Action Research Network for
Researching and Evaluating PDP and ePortfolio
Practice

• Sue Burkinshaw, University of Bolton
• Dr John Peters, NTF
• University of Worcester

2
Plan

• Overview of the project plan
• Issues
• Aims and objectives
• Methodology participant action research
• Project operation
• Structure
• Progress so far
• Possibilities

3
What are the issues for you in terms of the
evidence base for PDP?

• How dependent is it on the nature of the student?
• How dependent is it on the commitment of academic
  staff?
• Is it a process or a product?
• Whats the added value?

4
Project Issues

• PDP a world first
• A sector wide initiative aimed at implementing a
  particular framework for capturing and enhancing
  student learning Jackson Ward 2004
• Repeated calls for more robust evaluation
• QAA 2001, Burgess 2004, Clegg 2004, Gough et al
  2003, Ward Strivens 2004

5
Issues 2

• Purposes and claims of PDP clearly defined QAA
  2001 2009
• Implementation varies in terms of models, methods
  and emphasis
• Situated rich pictures of student experience of
  implementation needed to illuminate impact on
  student learning

6
Project Aim

• Capacity building amongst PDP practitioners to
  develop, undertake and share situated, rich,
  authentic and robust research and evaluation of
  PDP practice.
• Here defined as enhancing peoples awareness and
  capabilities, individually and collectively, to
  produce the results they truly care about Senge
  Scharmer 2001

7
Objectives

• Build on existing practice, expertise, network
  and community of practice
• Address sector concerns about effective PDP
  implementation
• Provide transferable outputs
• Practitioner capacity
• Improve knowledge-base

8
Outcomes

• A body of scholarly knowledge to inform more
  effective PDP implementation
• Series of dissemination activities
• A community of research capable PDP
  practitioners
• Engage students as active participants
• Link with AGR and CIHE
• Enhance international links on PDP

9
Why action research?

• Action research is an inherently value laden
  activity, usually practised by scholar-practitione
  rs who care deeply about making a positive change
  in the world.
• (Reason Bradbury, 2006, xxv)

10
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

11
Community action research

• Here defined as enhancing peoples awareness and
  capabilities, individually and collectively, to
  produce the results they truly care about Senge
  Scharmer 2001
• The primary rule in action research practice
  is to be aware of the choices one is making and
  their consequences Bradbury Reason 2001

12
What about this approach appeals or is
problematic?

• This cross institution work is an imperative
• But may be limited take up in research-led
  institutions
• Have we agreed that we want reflective graduates?
• Is it about getting the process right?

13
Benefits of participant action research model

• Built on notions of community collegiality
• Built on, and acknowledging, values
• A natural extension from evaluation?
• Encouraging and supporting systematic
  problematising and reporting of the changes in
  practice made by practitioners all the time
• Explicitly links theory and practice through
  research

14
Project Nature

• Network project
• 16 1 HEIs
• 3 regional networks
• University of Bolton leadership
• Based within CRA network
• Principal investigator

15
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

16
Project structure

• National level
• 4 events introduction, research design, data
  gathering, dissemination
• Regional level
• 6 meetings share discuss research process
• action research cycle critical friends
• Institutional level
• Conduct robust research and evaluation

17
Progress in Year 1

• 2 national meetings
• 2 rounds of regional meetings
• NING social space
• Community building
• Defining research issues
• Honing research questions

18
Outputs Year 1

• Awareness raising publication
• Presentations to CRA and HE Academy events
• Materials on CRA website
• Developing publication proposals
• SEDA conference presentation on the experience so
  far

19
Year 2

• National event held
• 2 rounds of regional meetings
• Discussion of data gathering and analysis
• Energised community of practice
• Sharing research questions
• Undertaking the PDP research

20
Our Research Questions

• Themes
• Reflective practice role, value and place
• Staff perceptions and staff development
• Student perceptions and experience
• Tutor role personal / academic tutors
• Employability
• E-tools
• Do these chime with your concerns?
• What would you want to investigate?
• Thematic approach?

21
A Scottish NARN?

• Challenges of keeping communication going between
  meetings
• Funding issues a project that gives permission
  to do this work rather than fully funding it
• Openness to discuss or reveal problems /
  challenges
• Discipline to focus on a key research question

22
References

• Argyris, C. and Scön, D. (1974) Theory in
  Practice Increasing Professional Effectiveness
• 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
• Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (4th Ed. 1994) Research
  Methods in Education
• Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for
  Educational Change

23
References

• 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?pagereel/
  review_groups/EPPI/LTSN/LTSN_intro.htm
• 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, 42349.
• McKernan, J. (1991) Curriculum Action Research A
  Handbook of Methods and Resources for the
  Reflective Practitioner
• QAA, UUK, SCoP CoSHEP, (2001) Guidelines for HE
  Progress File http//www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/progf
  ileHE/guidelines/progfile2001.htm
• 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
• Ward Strivens (2004) PDP Are we achieving our
  aims?