PDP

within a
Learning Community Design
Nicholas Bowskill
University of Glasgow
Email: nicholas.bowskill@gmail.com

Supervisors: Steve Brindley Vic Lally, Steve Draper, Quintin Cutts,

 The inter-relationships of issues
1. PDP
2. SG-PDP
3. Induction
4. Transition

• Here, we think transition best served by a better induction

• And the best induction is to focus on, not facts, but self-help,
self-management. i.e. PDP.
• And so, not on forcing staff ideas of PDP on them, but on
student-generated concerns, then addressed by mentors’
student-generated solutions and reflective conversations
 PDP in a Learning Community
• Elicit & develop a sense of the issue
(community perspective)
– within the individual and as a
class/group (Krechevsky, M., & Stork, J.
2000)
• Increase a sense of self in the social
context - belonging and identity (Mead,
1934, Lave & Wenger, 1991)
• Develop a voice (oracy) and a
vocabulary of the domain (Bruffee,
1993) - discourse and not just writing
• Support the ability to learn, listen, talk
and work with others (teamwork)
• Connect dialogue with thinking (Mercer,
2003) through the development of
learning conversations
• To develop and test questions
-questioning skills (King, 2002). And
thinking with each other and about each
other (Mercer, 2003)
• Create a conversational space (social
context) in which to understand each
other, to support equal participation in
reflective dialogue, and to develop a
sense of a learning community
(McConnell, 2006)
• Co-constructing a collective view of a
topic - “Seeing what you build together”
(Pea, 1994)
• Sharing, valuing and talking about
experience, concerns and ideas related
to the life of the community (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; McConnell, 2006)
 Design-Needs for
PDP in a Learning Community
• Scaffolding • Structure
– From peers – Protocol
– Technology
– Planned Sessions
– Artefacts
– Facilitation – Time
– Language/Conversation – Physical/networked
Space

Learning Conversations
Based on Experience and Knowledge

Learning Relationships
 A Learning Design for
PDP in a Learning Community
• 3+ stages – Technology
• Voting technology
– L2 Same-Year peer
discussion
+ Mentor collaborative
– Focus Activity
reflection • Developing questions and
options for others
– Other year-groups (and
tutors, support services
etc.)
– L1 Same-Year peer – Others present
discussion – Process
• Reflective Conversations
around experience and
concerns
– L1 & L2 Cross-Year peer • Reflective conversations
discussion about different moments in
time
 Recipe 1:
Same-Year Collaborative Reflection
1. Individuals record their own • Vote on concerns that still
concern about Yr1 remain from Yr1
2. Sharing concerns in small
groups • Repeat whole process for Yr2
3. Small Groups discuss, explain concerns
and choose their key concern
4. All small-group concerns listed
on the display
5. Everyone in the room votes on
their own concern
6. Small groups discuss
solutions to be shared in • Adaptation of a Group-
plenary session Learning Strategy Sometimes
called ‘Snowballing’
 Recipe 2:
Cross Year Session
1. Take 4 common concerns from sessions 1 & 2
to form the structure of the session
2. Present concern No.1 on the screen
3. Everyone votes on perceived best solution
4. Mentors respond to the results by sharing
experience of the issue
5. Discussion/reaction follows
6. After all 4 topics vote again on all 4
7. Show the before and after for each topic to
share the level of resulting change
 Case 1: New University, England
L1 & L2 Views of L1 Concerns
Yr1 Students Yr2 Students Looking Back to Yr1
No. of Votes Year 1 Concerns No. of People with
Issue that
Concern

Domestic Skills 0
Keeping up to date with work 6

Coping with work-life balance 0 Being Undressed 0

Finance 0 Balancing Study and Life 8

Failing 0 Managing Money 3

Coping with new situations 0 Living with Illness 0

Meeting the standard required 8

Unclear Workload 2

Assignments making sure 9

they’re right Friends 14
 Case 2: Old University, Scotland
L1 & L2 Views of L1 Concerns
L1Category
Votes Average
Scale:1-5 1=Strongly Agree
Rating L2 Votes
Money/debt
1.79
falling behind
1.72

workload
1.61
passing exams 1.59

meeting new
people 2.24
organizational 2.31
skills
not being good 2.49
enough

managing paid 2.45

work

difference from 2.60

school

2.28
choice of
 Thinking Alike
(intersubjectivity)
• This was due to the fact of seeing
other students having similar (and
partly different) concerns – and
putting the level of my own ones
on perspective in relation to them.
[L1 Student]
• High point was definitely realizing
that some of the students shared
the same concerns as I did. Also,
noticing that all the students
seemed to have concerns (even
though they might have been
different from mine ones) was
productive. – Resulting a kind of ”I
am not on this alone” feeling. [L1
Student]
• All of the students seemed to have
pretty similar concerns. Seeing this
was of course very reassuring; We
are all at the same boat, my concerns
are not really that different. And just
the general fact that everyone
seemed to have some concerns was
reassuring too. [L1 Student]
• “Within a few minutes of entering the
lecture theatre, the 1st years can
quickly see that their own concerns
are shared by many others. I imagine
this makes them feel a bit more
unified as a group.” [L2 Mentor
comment]
 Socialization
• “…now as an international student
who didn't knew anyone I now
know people of the same courses
that I can ask for help if I ever need
one.”
[L1 Student]
• “Getting to know the people sitting
around me was really good. The
only really low point was that
because we were sitting in a row it
was difficult to speak to the person
sitting further away.
[L1 Student]

• “Hearing some of their answers

and thoughts did a kind of ”put
them down from the pedestal”,
helping to realise that they are just
ordinary young persons (both in
good and bad aspects). Heard
some useful tips from them too
(and some not so useful or
convincing ones as well).”
[L1 Student]
 Broadening Thinking
(Cognitive)
• Also some new ideas about • Made me think about what I
themes for concerns did arise need to do about my own
during the interaction with support [Yr2 Student: Case 1]
other participants. I became
aware of some concerns that I
hadn’t thought of before….so it
was in a way, just broadening
my thinking without positive or
negative aspect in it. [L1
Student]

• watching on the board the

concerns of my peers made
me realize that there are many
more issues that I hadn't
thought of. [L1 Student]
 PDP in a Learning Community
as an Alternative Approach
• “I thought it was really good. It • “It’s a lot better to actually see
kept us all interested and no it than your parents and folk
one was falling asleep! I think just saying "everyone’s in the
everyone was sort of expecting same position” [L1 Student]
to be talked at for 3 hours ( i
even got that impression for
my advisor) and to be bored
out our wits.” [L1 Student]
 Issues Arising
• “The low point was unorganized, • “I & a few other students sitting
unrelevant part of ”just filling time close to me seemed to have a little
conversations”. I had reasonably technical problems with the
high expectations for the session handpads as they got stuck
and was mildly frustrated when halfway through the voting
time was spent unproductively process. It seems to me, that once
while some important fact you miss voting for one question,
information could have been you drop out completely, not being
shared.” able to place a vote for the
[LI Student Case 2] following questions too...”
[L1 Student Case 2]
• “My own feeling is that it might
actually be better having 3rd years
as opposed to second years
acting as mentors, who will by
then have developed a more
longitudinal picture of university
over both non-honours years.”
[P-G Mentor Case 2]
 L2 Gains –
Overall Impressions of
PDP in a Learning Community
• “This new approach • “A brilliant feel-good
represents a vast experience with benefits
improvement in my for everyone”
opinion.” [L2 Case 1 Mentor]
[L2 Case 2 Student]

• "The first sign of hope I've

seen for the education
system so far."
[Level 2 Case 2 Mentor]
 References
• Bruffee, K. A. (1993) Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and
the Authority of Knowledge. Second Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• King, A. (2002). Structuring Peer Interaction To Promote High-Level Cognitive
Processing. Theory Into Practice 41, 33-39.
• Krechevsky, M., & Stork, J. (2000). Challenging Educational Assumptions: Lessons
form an Italian-American Collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education 30, 57-74.
• Lave, J. W., E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
• Mead, G. H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mercer (2003). Helping Children to Talk and Think Together More Effectively.
POLIFONIA 7, 1-26.
• McConnell, D. (2006) E-Learning Groups and Communities. Maidenhead: SRHE/OU
Press.
• Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing What We Build Together: Distributed Multimedia Learning
Environments for Transformative Communications. Journal of the Learning Sciences
3, 285 - 299.