The Challenge of Integration-Conceptual Models for Inclusive
Practice
Rachel Higdon; Pam Thompson
De Montfort University, UK
pthompson@dmu.ac.uk
rhigdon@dmu.ac.uk
Abstract. “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” Lewin (1951:169). This paper interrogates the integration
of theory and practice, particularly in those areas of Higher Education where studying for a degree at undergraduate
and/or post-graduate levels involves both classroom and work-based study and the necessity of reconciling higherlevel academic learning with high levels of competency of practice. The paper proposes some ways forward whereby,
using innovative models, academics teaching on programmes which lead to employment in a profession can ensure
that learners are involved in high quality experiential learning that makes them able and ready to “do” their
professional practice. In doing this, and accepting the idea that, experiential learning is a continual interaction of
theory and practice where each informs the other, it proposes that, ultimately, in HE institutions, a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach may be the best way forward for practitioners to develop and share models which can be the
starting point for their own learners to develop their own. The paper presents a brief overview of some of the existing
theories of experiential learning and models employed therein including Kolb’s learning cycle and Schon’s “reflective
practitioner”. It then considers a case-study from a specific programme in relation to the actual teaching of theory in
relation to practice with a view to examining whether these, or other models are being applied, and to what purpose. It
concludes by suggesting ways in which practitioners might review their current academic practice and create new
conceptual models (ideally, in the light of collaborative, inter-disciplinary dialogue) to integrate policy, theory and
practice in ways that make better sense to the learner.
1.
INTRODUCTION
“Work-based learning’ is arguably a complex, contested
term” (HEA, 2006:3 [1], HEFCE, 2006[2]; Brennan and
Little, 2006 [3], QAA, 2007 [4] in Williams et al.,
2008:1) [5] presumably because of its wide-ranging
nature and contested sites of responsibility for learning.
The Leitch Report (2006:21) [6] (cited in Williams et al
2008:1) [5] places an emphasis on employers working
closely with HEIs and asserts that “work-based learning
provides a powerful learning environment for higher
order enquiry skills and capabilities demanded by the
UK economy in an increasingly competitive globalised
environment”. (Moreland, 2004[7] in Williams et al.,
2008:1)[5] Furthermore, “higher education programmes
must progressively confront students with complex, inthe-world activities that encourage self-reflection and
risk assessment”. These assertions could be taken as an
amalgam of some of the components of what researchers
have widely considered as effective experiential
learning: learning which is situated, active, reflectivein–action, and, therefore, effectively experiential, as is
evidenced in examples and case-studies from
practitioners on such programmes at this university.
For the purpose of this paper, by “work-based learning”,
we are referring to some programmes in health and
social-science based professions e.g. social work,
speech therapy, youth and community work where
placements are not an option but an integral part of the
learning and delivery is not only by academics but from
professionals in the related field. Such programmes, by
their nature and avowed professional ends, require
students to wrestle with and try to reconcile high
academic learning with the requirements of competent
practice. Practitioners on both side of the divide need
ways to collaborate for their own development and to
make the best learning happen for students.
The inter-disciplinary nature of the PGCertHE group at
this university has proved a fertile site for discussing
how to reconcile theory with practice, or, put in another
way, the types of learning students need to obtain such a
professional qualification. The case-study here, one of
several, arose from session discussions, content of
projects and assignments and interviews with relevant
staff.
“Interprofessionality”, as defined by d’Amour and
Oandasan (2005:10)[8], is “ an education and practice,
an approach to care and education where educators and
practitioners collaborate synergistically”. ( Colyer et al.,
2005:14) [9]
While these multi-disciplinary discussions do not
denote an interprofessionality regarding curriculum
design and overall degree structures, its literature is
useful in attempting to understand the issues.
THEORIES AND MODELS
Learning theories are ideas about how and/or/why
change occurs and models are some kind of
representation of those theories whether it be in a
diagram or in words.
Are there any models, in the teaching and learning of
such programmes which may be useful for students
across disciplines in trying to make sense of what is
learnt in the university and on placement and to
assimilate that in a professional context?
Kolb’s (1984 )[10] learning cycle is a familiar one in
teaching and learning on the PGCertHE, also on Social
Work, Speech and Language Therapy and Youth and
Community Work degree programmes, with its
emphasis on experience/reflection/conceptualization and
application to new situations.
The belief that definitions of work-based learning are
problematic is espoused in the QAA in “Code of
Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and
Standards in Higher Education” which provides a “set of
precepts with accompanying guidance on arrangements
for work-based and /or placement learning”. (2007:4)
[17]. It is concerned with arrangements made for
identified and agreed learning that typically take place
outside an HEI.
The QAA literature seems to be suggesting that it the
institution itself, in collaboration with its partners, that
needs to draw up its own model with its own definitions
after consulting wider literature. Whether this means
institutional policy or practice at programme level is
unclear:
“Academic staff in departments and schools do not
necessarily need to be familiar with the detail of all the
various sections of the Code of Practice, although they
might well be expected to be familiar with the
institutional policies it informs and any parts which are
particularly relevant to their own responsibilities”
(2007:3)[18]
Figure 1: Learning Cycle (Kolb:1984)[11].
Beard’s (2006) learning combination lock is a
diagnostic tool which can be used to examine existing
programmes and determine whether they cover the main
elements of the learning process. Beard, in fact,
considers the learning combination lock to be a “metamodel” underpinned by theories of perception and
information-processing that “brings together all the main
ingredients of the learning equation” in a series of
movable tumblers encompassing the external
environment (learning place, activities), sensors
(senses/emotions) and internal environment (type of
intelligence, ways of understanding). (Beard and
Wilson, 2006, [12] Brant, 1998, [13] in Hartley et al
2005:3-7)[14].
Colyer et al (2005)[15] ask whether we should rely on
borrowed theories ( and presumably, related models that
aid their understanding) as educators and practitioners
or whether we should be developing our own so as to
draw in multiple aspects of the various contexts.
Figure 2: The Learning Combination-Lock (Beard:
2002) [16]
The framework – seems like the ingredients for the
“season to taste” recipe.
In the QAA Code of Practice identifying employers as
key partners is explicit. This notion of an institution
working with partners and making a personal recipe
from suggested ingredients seems a popular one in the
current British education and training system at all
levels, from the introduction of new Diplomas in 14-19
learning so that learners can pick their best fit [19] to
the introduction of foundation degrees [20] and an
increase in institutions offering work-based
programmes, to the “Train to Gain” government scheme
of workplace training as part of an “upskilling” agenda
[21].
This pick and mix model of learning seems only useful
if it is genuinely relevant to the individual learner and is
recognized as incomplete.
As mentioned, Beard’s (2006) [22] learning
combination lock appears to be also a model that
practitioners can “pick” how best to support the learners
to learn through the various combinations. It seems that
to make the learning combination lock model work, the
practitioner needs to design a further model from the
combinations, to make it personal and relevant to their
learners. S/he needs to decide which particular
ingredients are needed to attain desired outcome/s. A
personal model, therefore, seems the next step and this
may be interrogated alone or achieved in collaboration.
In reality how flexible and useful are these “pick and
mix” models for individual learners? This kind of “pick
and mix” model in the experience based learning arena
seems to contradict much research that has espoused the
need for a reflective or even scholarly model in this kind
of learning. Researchers (Argyris and Schön, 1974 [23];
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
Schön, 1983, [24]; Boud et al, 1985 [25] and Moon,
1999 [26]) have supported the need for reflective time
by the learner and the need to review and critique one’s
practice and look to improve it.
2.
Moon (1999) encourages practitioners to reflect on their
theory and practice through the use of a learning Journal
“an accumulation of material that is mainly based on the
writer’s process of refection”. (1999:4)[27].
Anderson, Boud and Cohen (1999) [32] go further in
arguing that experience-based learning is based on a set
of assumptions about such a type of learning:
Argyris and Schön (1974) talk about the need for
reflection to evaluate the success of a work based
programme. Their theories of action highlight problems
in models where both theory and practice seem to be
embodied in the curriculum but are not necessarily
being successfully integrated.
Argyris and Schön argue that there is a split between the
theory-in-use, those actions that practitioners really
“do”, and “espoused theory”, those actions that they
would like others to believe they do. Often the
practitioner is not even aware that the “theory-in-use” is
the course they will take in “real” practice. (Argyris and
Schön, 1974: 6-7)[28]
Helme (2005) in (Colyer et al., 2005:19-20) [29]
develops such notions further in relation to institutional
structures. She points out, particularly in relation to the
relationship between theory and practice in
interprofesssional education, that confused messages
might be given out.
“Because of the practical and conceptual logistical
problems in aligning professional requirements and
assessment criteria, programme requirements and
learning outcomes, timetables and learning content
across different combinations of professions and
teaching teams, choices about how to provide
interprofessional learning opportunities can be
perceived as almost wholly driven by internal logistics
and external compulsion.”
(Colyer et al., 2005:19-20) [30]
Arguably, such practical and logistical problems may be
inherent within a single programme related to one
profession reliant upon input from practitioners in the
field, placement tutors, academics from other disciplines
teaching certain modules (e.g. Law), and so on. The
lecturers must try to make sense of this meaningfully as
a holistic learning experience and communicate this to
the student.
Practitioners on professional programmes mentioned
above at this university, and evident in our case-study
below, were unanimous in support of reflective practice
as an important bridging factor in attempting to bring
together academic and work-based learning and
therefore, is most effectively experiential.
This, according to Beard and Wilson is “a continual
interaction of theory and practice in which each informs
the other” (2006:18) [31].

experience is the foundation of, and the
stimulus for, learning

learners actively
experience

learning is a holistic process

learning is socially and culturally constructed

learning is influenced by the socio-emotional
context in which it occurs
construct
their
own
Boud, Cohen and Walker (1993) [33] cited in Foley, G.
(1999:225) [34].
Arguably it is the last two considerations that are often
absent in models of experience-based learning (certainly
in Kolb’s cycle and the learning combination lock
model), or perhaps are not far-reaching enough to
express all dimensions of what a learner must undergo
in an attempt to reconcile requirements of academic and
work-based/aspirant professional.
There is an acknowledgement akin to Beard and
Wilson’s [35] that learning involves the whole person:
that the emotional dimension is as important as the
cognitive and affective. However, Andreson et al.
consider that what learners bring to the learning process,
(whether it be a formal or informal recognition of prior
learning ) and a particular ethical stance adopted
towards learners by teachers, trainers, leaders or
facilitators, are also necessary before an educational
event can be properly termed “experiential”, and by
definition, meaningful for the learner. (1999:226) [36]
Brah and Hoy (1989:73) [37] argue that the fact that
experiential learning has become something of an
ideology in education is problematic. Jarvis et al.,
(1983:53) [38]
Eraut (1994:1) [39] taking on ideas espoused by
Johnson (1972:4) [40], (1984:17-25) [41] readily
accepts the notion of treating the term,
“professionalism” as an ideology, in order to denote the
true status of individual professions.
A definition of ‘ideology as ‘visionary theorising’ [42]
seems attractive, if vague, yet somehow appropriate to
various takes on experiential learning. Maybe we can
extend this to be ‘visionary and visual theorising’ with
the concomitant notion that theories, and so models, are
best and meaningful only if made practical and with
acknowledged ethical and value-driven dimensions.
4. CASE-STUDY
This case-study is from a Speech and Language Therapy
programme. It highlights ways that students have been
encouraged to reflect on knowledge and experience in
both academic, placement (and wider) contexts and how
they have been facilitated in the bringing together of
important learning from these areas. This lecturer
moved from practicing within their profession into
Higher Education teaching.
The lecturer worked as a speech and language therapist
in the NHS before moving into university teaching. She
acknowledges that her role of therapy facilitator with its
theoretical knowledge of counseling therapy and health
psychology is not separate from her role of lecturer and
a rich resource when used “consciously and
professionally” to enhance the learning experience of
students.
She further recognizes the central role that placements
play for speech and language therapy (SALT) students
in training competent clinicians. These provided
opportunities for students to apply theory to practice and
to experience the challenges and advantages of working
with service-users and multi-disciplinary teams.
However, she also acknowledges that, in today’s rapidly
changing NHS, the need to provide placement
opportunities for a number of students may be seen by
some providers to be an added pressure on limited
resources, hence the imperative for HEIs to develop new
models of practice-based learning.
the placement was through the placement educator and
the teachers felt that this was a more successful way of
setting it up than if they had been approached directly
by the university.
Each placement was preceded by an orientation
workshop held at the university. The students also had a
meeting with their placement educators prior to the start
of the placement. All the students had been introduced
to the ideas proposed by Kolb (1984) [43] regarding
cycles of learning. They were therefore familiar with the
concept of practice sometimes occurring before theory
or observation. (Parker and Emanuel 2001) [44].
The lecturer’s own model encapsulates very well the
stages of learning moving from being a student to being
a clinician in practice.
It allows for intra-- and extra-personal skills and
knowledge development and is driven by positive
values.
Such a model would provide a transportable site for
discussions and negotiations between university and
placement. As the lecturer notes, it “allows for
experiences of independent creative problem-solving,
instead of relying more heavily on feedback from
supervisors” also that ”sensitive, well-structured peer
feedback can have a profound effect on students’ selfesteem and on feelings of self-efficacy and
Confidence”. Plummer (2004) [45] in Plummer (2008)
[46].
Along with colleagues in the speech and language
therapy department, the lecturer was involved in one of
several national pilot projects to investigate the possible
working of such new models. As she notes of these,
‘”whatever form they take, the main focus should be on
collaborative practice between service providers”.
The project mentioned here was piloted in the children’s
speech and language therapy service. Here, four
students at this post-1992 university (two second years
and two fourth years) took part in a school-based project
at a unit for children with moderate learning difficulties.
The students attended for one day a week and stayed for
the whole day. A teaching assistant acted as a link
person so that any queries went directly to her.
The fourth years “mentored” the second years and gave
feedback on their progress to the placement educator
(clinician). The lecturer mentioned that peer mentoring
by fourth year students has been a successful element
the university placements for some years but has not
been used for a group project before.
The placement educator visited the unit three times
during this period and observed the four students
running groups and carrying out work with individual
children. As well as informing parents of the project, it
was vital to involve teachers at the unit as early as
possible so that this could be worked into the school’s
annual development plan. Most of the preparation for
Figure 3: From student to clinician: the practice-based
learning continuum Plummer (2008) [47].
In concurrence with ideas expressed elsewhere here, the
lecturer highlights the influence on this model of the
idea of “legitimate peripheral participation” as proposed
by Lave and Wenger (1991) [48] where professional
training and learning from practice are viewed as
inseparable. This is an enabling model where such
learning is described as participative because it
acknowledges that learning comes through doing. It is
legitimate because all parties implicitly agree that
unqualified people (in this case, students) are potential
contributors to the “community of practice” and
peripheral because they, (the students), are initially not
directly involved with core activities (e.g. formal
assessment and therapy) but will start with peripheral
tasks and gradually build up their involvement with
more central activities where appropriate. (Atherton,
2003 [49] in Plummer 2008:3) [50].
3.
CONCLUSION
Higher Education Institutions, perhaps through the
conduit of their academic research and development
departments, or through their faculties can facilitate
inter-disciplinary dialogue between academics working
on these particular programmes where the fusion of
theory, policy and practice is so crucial. Academics are
supervising students not only in their learning but also in
their practice; the outcome being independent
practitioners ready and able to “do” once they leave the
institution. Many of these work-based study
programmes create professionals who will support
vulnerable clients, for example in social work,
probation, nursing, teaching or youth work and therefore
have ethical implications at every step of the way from
the recruitment of new learners to their competence in
practice.
Programmes can be particularly problematic for learners
when they comprise of modules taught from a range of
departments within the Higher Education Institution and
through support from outside agencies. Beard and
Wilson’s (2006:15) [51] criticism of certain types of
learning seems poignant here; “all too often theories of
learning, education, training and development are
developed in isolation from one another and thus there
is no overall coherence”. To avoid this we need to find
time for collaborative work and for reflection between
colleagues involved in these complex areas to bring
coherence. Working together they can devise a series of
innovative models that are discipline specific or generic
that can be developed to aid academics working with
students in this kind of professional, theory-based
practice
Beard and Wilson define experiential learning “as the
sense-making process of active engagement between the
inner world of the person and the outer world of the
environment”. (2006:2) [52] Their definition seems a
relevant one for the learner immersed in work-based
programmes. The inner world of each learner on the
programmes will be different and how they perceive
their outer world will be different again. Models that
conceptualise the complex elements of the course for the
learner to gain their understanding will be useful but
these can be further developed by the students
individually to become their own blueprints of their
professional practice. In this way academics and
learners can be supported to find Lewin’s (1951) [53]
precious, elusive practical theory that makes sense of it
all.
REFERENCES
1.
Higher Education Academy (2006) Work-based
learning: illuminating the higher education
landscape. KSA Partnership, June 2006 Available
at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research/WBL.pdf.
2.
HEFCE (2006) Towards a strategy for workplace
learning.Available
at:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/rdreports/2006/rd09
06/
3.
Brennan, J. and Little, B. (2006) Towards as
Strategy for Workplace Learning: Report of a study
to assist HEFCE in the development of a strategy
for workplace learning. Centre for Higher
Education Research and Information. London.
4.
QAA (2007) Draft Code of Practice: Work-based
and placement learning (section 9) Draft.
5.
Williams, C., Tomkins, A., McEwen, L., Higson,
H. .Mason O’Connor, K & Wang. (2008). HEA
Conference, July 2008.
6.
The Leitch Report (2006) Prosperity for all in the
global economy: world class skills, Department of
Education and Skills.
7.
Moreland, N. (2004) Entrepreneurship and Higher
education:
an
employability
perspective,
ESECT/LTSN, York.
8.
D’Amour, D. and Oandasan, (2005) .I.
Interprofessional Practice and Interprofessional
Education Care 19 (Supplement 1 May 2005
Special Issue: Interprofessional Education for
Collaboration Patient-Centred Care Canada as a
Case Study, pp. 8-20)
9.
Colyer, H, Helme, M. and Jones, (eds.) (2005) The
Theory-Practice Relationship in Interprofessional
Education, Occasional Paper No. 7, November
2005, London: Higher Education Academy, p.9.
10. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience
as a Source of Learning and Development, Prentice
Hall: New Jersey.
11. http://www.ic.polyu.edu.hk/oess/POSH/Student/Le
arn/tut15a.gif [Online] Accessed: 19 September
2008.
12. Beard, C. and Wilson, J (2006), Beard, C. &
Wilson, J. (2006) Experiential Learning (2nd
edition), Kogan Page: London pp. 3-9
13. Brant, L (1998) ‘Not Maslow again!’ A study of
the theories and models that trainers choose as
content on training courses, ‘MEd dissertation.
University of Sheffield.
14. Hartley, P., Woods, and A., Pill, M. (2005)
Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education,
Routledge: London, New York, pp 3-5.
15. Helme, M. in Colyer, H, Helme, M. and Jones,
(eds.) (2005) The Theory-Practice Relationship in
Interprofessional Education, Occasional Paper No.
7, November 2005, London: Higher Education
Academy, p.20.
34. Foley, G.(Ed) (1999), 2nd Edition, Understanding
Adult Education and Training, Allen Unwin
16. Higher
Education
Academy
(2008
http://www.engsc.ac.uk/resources/learning/experien
tial.asp [On-line] Accessed: September 19th 2008.
35. Andreson, L., Boud D.,and Cohen, R. (1999)
‘Experienced Based Learning’, in Foley, G.(Ed.)
(1999), 2nd Edition, Understanding Adult
Education and Training, Allen Unwin, pp.226
17. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/code
OfPractice/section9/PlacementLearning.pdf
2007[on-line] Accessed: 12 September 2008.
18. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/code
OfPractice/section9/PlacementLearning.pdf
2007[on-line] Accessed: 12 September 2008.
19. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/index.htm. 2008. [on-line]
Accessed: 10 September 2008.
20. http://www.findfoundationdegree.co.uk/2008. [online] Accessed: 10 September 2008.
21. www.direct.gov.uk: (2008). [on-line] Accessed:10
September 2008.
22. Beard, C. & Wilson, J. (2006) Experiential
Learning (second edition). Kogan Page: London pp
1-44.
23. Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in
Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness.
Jossey – Boss: San Francisco.
24. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How
professionals think in action. Temple Smith:
London.
25. Boud, D. et al (eds.) (1985) Reflection. Turning
experience into learning. Kogan Page: London.
26. Moon, J. (1999) Learning Journals. Kogan Page:
London.
27. Moon, J. (1999) Learning Journals. Kogan Page:
London pp 3-17.
28. Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in
Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness.
Jossey – Boss: San Francisco pp 6-7.
29. .Colyer, H, Helme, M. and Jones, (eds.) (2005) The
Theory-Practice Relationship in Interprofessional
Education, Occasional Paper No. 7, November
2005, London: Higher Education Academy, p.14.
30. Colyer, H, Helme, M. and Jones, (eds.) (2005) The
Theory-Practice Relationship in Interprofessional
Education, Occasional Paper No. 7, November
2005, London: Higher Education Academy, p.14.
31. Beard, C. & Wilson, J. (2006) Experiential
Learning (second edition). Kogan Page: London pp
1-32.
32. Andreson, L., Boud D.,and Cohen, R. (1999)
‘Experienced Based Learning’, in Foley, G.(Ed.)
(1999), 2nd Edition, Understanding Adult
Education and Training, Allen Unwin, pp.225
33. Boud, D. Cohen, R. & Walker, D. (1993) Using
Experience for Learning. Open University Press:
Buckingham
36. Beard, C. & Wilson, J. (2006) Experiential
Learning (second edition). Kogan Page: London pp
1-32.
37. Brah, A. and Hoy, J. (1989) Experiential Learning:
a new orthodoxy? in Making Sense of Experiential
Learning, ed. Weill, S. and McGill, I., Society for
Research into Higher Education and the Open
University press: Buckingham, p.73
38. Jarvis, P., Holford., J. and Griffin, C. (2003), 2 nd
Edition, The Theory and Practice of Learning,
Kogan Page: London. p.53.
39. Eraut, M., (1994) Developing Professional
Knowledge and Competence., Falmer Press:
London. p. 1.
40. Johnson,
T.J.
(1972)
Professions
Power,Macmillan: London, p.4
and
41. Johnson, T.J. (1984) ‘Professionalism: Occupation
or Ideology’ in Goodlaid, D. (Ed.) Education for
the Professions: Quis Custodiet?, SRHE and
NFER: Nelson, pp. 17-25.
42. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/ideology
Accessed:12 September 2008.
[On-line]
43. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience
as a Source of Learning and Development, Prentice
Hall: New Jersey.
44. Parker, A. and Emanuel, R. (2001) Active learning
in service delivery: an approach to initial clinical
placements. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders 33 (supplement), pp.
225-260.
45. Plummer, D. (2004), Helping Adolescents and
Adults to Build Self-Esteem, Jessica Kingsley:
London.
46. Plummer, D. (2008), unpublished paper, pp.1-3.
47. Plummer, D. (2008), unpublished paper, p.14.
48. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning:
legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge:
Cambridge University press cited in Atherton, J. S.
(2005) Learning and Teaching: Situated Learning
[On-line]
UK:
Available
:http://wwwlearningandteaching.info/learning/situa
ted.htm Accessed: 7 June 2008.
49. Atherton, J.S. (2003) Doceo: Competence,
Proficiency and beyond On-line] UK: Available:
http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/expertise.htm
Accessed 7 June 2008.
50. Plummer, D. (2008), unpublished paper, p. 4.
51. Beard, C. & Wilson, J. (2006) Experiential
Learning (2nd edition). Kogan Page: London p. 15
52. Beard, C. & Wilson, J. (2006) Experiential
Learning, 2nd edition, London: Kogan Page, p.2
53. Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science:
Selected theoretical papers. Darwin Cartwright
(Eds.)
Harper Torchbooks: New York. P. 169