Concepts of Personal
Development among students
at a diverse university
Maja Jankowska
University of Bedfordshire
Higher Education Academy Annual
Conference
5-6 July 2011
An overview of the story so far
A
few words to set the scene
 Initial ideas and approaches
 Context and rationale
 Some preliminary findings
 Major shit in understanding and
approaches
 Future directions
The story begins...
Aims of the PhD study at the outset:

To examine representations and experiences of
personal development held by students of
different cultural backgrounds.
 To explore international students’ engagement
in PDP practices and their wider experience of
adaptation to learning in a foreign culture.
 To contribute to the debate on the
implementation of PDP in HE and
internationalisation of HE.
Initial research questions
 Does
culture influence students’
perceptions and representations of PD
and PDP?
 What does PD and PDP mean to students
from different cultural backgrounds? Is it
important and to what extent?
 Can concept maps capture the
representations (PD) of students from
different cultural backgrounds?
The context
Definition used for Higher Education context:
‘PDP is a structured and supported
process undertaken by an individual to
reflect upon their own learning,
performance and/or achievement and to
plan for their personal, educational and
career development.’
(NCIHE, 1997; Universities UK, 2007)
Process of structured (and supported?) PDP
Kolb’s experiential learning cycle Kolb, Fry, 1975
http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/ced/themes/personaldevelopment/index.html
Gibbs Reflective Cycle (1988)
The Effective Learning Framework (ELF), 2005
Some issues
 clash
of agendas at work (governmental,
institutional , staff, students?).
 the PDP cycle – the assumption that
everyone can (and should?) benefit from
the cycle of planning, doing, recording and
reflecting or reviewing.
 reflection (What is reflection? Do all
students know how to reflect? And on
what? Why should they reflect?).
 focus on employability (but within the UK
context) – how transferable (and useful)
our approaches are to diverse students?
The story evolves...
Overview of methodology
Multi-method approach
(bricolage, Kincheloe,
2001, 2005)
Cognitive educational
approach
(based on Ausubel, D.,
Novak, J. & Hanesian, H,
1978, Assimilative
Learning Theory)
Phenomenological
approach (Heidegger,
1962)
‘Ethnographic’
Elements
Critical
Elements, Habermas,
1972, 1984)
Grounded Theory Approach to analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
Concept Maps
(representation of
knowledge, cognitive
structures)
Interviews (interest in
individual experiences
and meanings)
E-portfolios, blogs,
journals (interest in
artefacts and shared
meanings’- culture)
Institutional versus
individual meanings,
questions around whose
interests are being
served by PDP
Overview of studies conducted
• 5 Ss (UG and PG)
• CM and interviews
(conducted once)
• To test the methods
• 12 PDP ‘experts’
• CM (individual, group & ‘common
vision’ – to illuminate UoB specific
approach to PDP
•
•
•
•
32 Ss:
32 CMs (beginning and end)
11 interviews (beginning)
Artefacts (unusable)
1.‘Expert study’
2. Pilot study
4. Postgraduate
study
3.
Undergraduate
study
• 22 Ss (UG)
• CM and interviews
(conducted once)
• Intention of longitudinal study
African, Central Eastern Europeans, Chinese, British students.
Staff perceptions:
‘Expert study’ – group
maps
Researcher’s ‘collated’ view in the form of a concept map – an attempt to
incorporate all the important concepts from the three groups’ maps (2007)
A shared vision of PDP at the University?
Jankowska, M., Atlay, M. 2007
Students representations of PD in the
form of concept maps - examples
Students representations of PD in the
form of concept maps - examples
Students representations of PD in the
form of concept maps - examples
Students’ perceptions
- some findings from concept mapping
African
CEE
Chinese
British
1. PERSONAL
DEVELOPMENT (11.6%)
1. LEARNING (11.6%)
1. PERSONAL
DEVELOPMENT (12.2%)
1. CAREER (8.7%)
2. CAREER (10.1%)
1. PERSONAL
DEVELOPMENT (11.6%)
2. CAREER (11%)
1. LEARNING (8.7%)
2. EDUCATION (10.1%)
1. SELF ACTUALISATION
(11.6%)
2. EDUCATION (11%)
1. PERSONAL
DEVELOPMENT (8.7%)
3. FAMILY (8.5%)
2. CULTURE (7%)
3. FAMILY (8.5)
3. SELF ACTUALISATION
(8.5%)
2. CAREER (7%)
3. SOCIAL RELATIONS
(8.5%)
1. PERSONAL
ATTRIBUTES (8.7%)
1. SKILLS/ ABILITIES
(8.7%)
4. SOCIAL RELATIONS
(7.8)
2. EDUCATION (7%)
4. DREAMS (6.1%)
5. RELIGION (6.2%)
2. FAMILY (7%)
6. DREAMS (5.4%)
2. SOCIAL RELATIONS
(7%)
Closer investigation
Some categories important to all students but
meanings differed – for example ‘family’ was
highly important for all the groups but:
Africans mention marriage, children, caring for
elderly and siblings; family and religion are
linked.
Chinese talked about love, respect and social
obligations and responsibilities.
CEE mentioned family as a source of support
and social heritage.
Some cultural tendencies
African students’ concept maps:
Religion, spiritual development, fulfilment.
Professional development – focus on career and
achievement, also financial gain.
Family and social life – these students mention marriage,
having children and caring for others more often than
students of other backgrounds (although it is also
mentioned by Chinese students and may possibly be
explained by more collectivistic nature of these societies)
Culture – their own cultural background as well as other
cultures often
Health – keeping healthy, eating healthy and exercising
seemed also to be an important topic (both for some
Africans and Chinese).
Central Eastern European students’ concept
maps:
Academic life – concentrate on their academic studies and often talk
about university, knowledge and the ways of acquiring it. Some of them
also mention skills, goals, ability to study, time effectiveness, problem
solving or curiosity as well as learning for fun.
Self-actualisation, personal satisfaction , the need to improve
Career – quite important but the focus is slightly different than for African
or Chinese students. Eastern Europeans think about skills development
and the personal fit for job as well as personal satisfaction.
Culture – talk less often about their own background but rather
concentrate on openness to other cultures, learning from/ about other
cultures, etc. Travelling is probably linked to this.
Family is mentioned rather as a source of support and the social heritage
and seem to have less influence on their future path (in a way that
Chinese family has on their children).
Environment – some of Eastern Europeans mention the importance of
environment which could/ should support personal development.
Chinese students’ concept maps:
Education – degree, academic studies – the concepts well defined
and specific, explicitly connected with acquiring a degree and hence
future career development, social status and financial benefits.
Money – mentioned money frequently and were not shy about
expressing their expectations of high salary and a good quality of life.
Also other materialistic things mentioned (e.g. a car, a house).
Family and social networks – love and respect for the parents as
well as the obligations and social responsibilities, also friends and other
people around. Socially respected people’s opinions are valued and
often followed to the letter.
Social life – some Chinese marked the importance of helping others,
serving their society (but not all).
Development of personality/ character – the need to harness
the character, build its strengths, concentrate on perseverance and put
a lot of effort (this may possibly be connected with the importance of
discipline and Confucian belief that hard work will pay off?).
British students’ concept maps:
Education – quite important but treated as a necessary
step for career development. Hence they are less likely to
study for the sake of the studies (unlike CEE).
Skills – British students mention skills, opportunities,
feedback, experience, etc. – their language is often ‘career
loaded’ (they use professional expressions more often
than other students which may be a sign or career
orientation, but may also be linked to the language
proficiency).
Interests, hobbies, leisure time are mentioned by some.
PDP activities and reflection from
students’ perspective
IE: So it’s really hard to reflect on (module)
IR: mhm
 IE: Ok, they say: reflect on your learning and
understanding but (.)
 IR: mhm
 IE: of, of what? Of what I’ve learned? Or what I gained
for my future? Or how I learned it??? {voice expresses
confusion} or
 IR: mhm, hmh
 IE: should I say what will I do in the future?
 IR: mhm
 IE: and if yes, what should I focus on? How could I do it?
I don’t know! I would like to learn how can I improve my
skills but I don’t know what other tolls to do it






















IR: And in your previous degree did you have any modules to do with personal
development?
IE: yes
IR: Can you tell me something about it? You know, what kind of the things did you
do? Was it good or bad? (what did you learn?)
IE: Seriously?
IR: Seriously. Yeah
IE: Oh, it was so useless
IR: OK, so what kinds of things it involved doing?
IE: In particular, eh, (.), yeah colouring egg, wrapping in the paper and then throwing
it out of the window and we went downstairs and ( to see if it broke or not), uhm (..)
different stuff, I think it was useless
IR: Mhm (..) so it didn’t [help you (.) at all
IE: NO, no, no, no]
IR: in terms of your personal development
IE: no
IR: No. So how long did you have this for?
IE: Uhm, 1 semester
IR: Mhm. Any (other things that you’ve done there?) Uhm [()
IE: We] we were supposed to work on things like teamwork, then your discussion and
stuff like that but I don’t know if building a teamwork during like through colouring egg
and doing this stuff is the right way so (..) and then also we, we were supposed to
work on CVs and covering letters but (.) like different ways how to work personal
development, you know
IR: mhm, mhm
IE: I personally found it (..) pretty useless so (.)
IR: mhm
IE: Maybe someone liked it, hard to say











IE:I have actually, for example in the first year we’ve done this e-portfolio
which is a very good practice, where you have got a lot of questions which
can be similar but it’s for you to go in-depth with yourself. And then we have
written, well, I have written what I’ve been achieving throughout my first
year and I will do it over the next two years as well, keep revising that eportfolio
IR: mhm
IE: Yes, it was questions, for example saying that, uhm. Have you had a
subject where you have had, have to examine two complex problems.
That’s the question for example [yeah
IR: oh]
IE: and then I would write, yes, in two modules I have had a case questions
which I had to analyse so I had to prove it and then elaborate on it
IR: ok, and you found it very helpful
IE: yes, very helpful because we actually do a lot of things at the university,
sometimes you are not realising that oh that here you are actually doing
research or here you are actually expanding your knowledge in way you
didn’t think about. It’s good it can be difficult actually to [put
IR: Oh, sure]
IE: your thoughts down on paper and therefore it took time, um (.) but very
helpful. A lot of people don’t do regard it as anything in my class, very few
people have submitted it
IR: so it wasn’t obligatory?
IE: it is actually in a way, but not properly which is a bit disappointing um by
the module which is Legal Skills and Literacy (.) they said it was important
to fill it out and submit it, we’ve had it now for two semesters. A lot of people
are not interested at all because they don’t understand the concept of it
Summary



Students coming from various cultures tend to
concentrate on various aspects of personal
development.
There are common themes (like gaining education,
career development or importance of a family) but even
these have a different hierarchy of importance and often
different meanings under the same concepts’ labels.
In attempt to make the PDP tasks more useful and
engaging, perhaps a more individualised attitude
towards introduction of personal development is needed.
Some suggestions





sending a clear and simple (if possible!) message about
PDP.
understanding the fact that the first and most important
thing to consider should always be student’s ‘self’.
Understanding that the students need to be prepared for
a global world (students flexible, adaptable, able to work
in multi-cultural world, so that they can function well in
various systems and compete on a global market).
Consideration need to be given to how far students
should adapt to ‘our way’, why, and whose interests it
serves.
Raising intercultural awareness and creating
opportunities for intercultural tasks.
The story shifts...
Analysis of in-depth interviews raised
several issues:
 Some themes were common to people
who shared particular individual
circumstances or prior experiences,
regardless of their cultural background.
 Samples too small to allow meaningful
cross-cultural comparisons.
 Diversity within the studied groups.
Changes/ future directions

Focus shifted from cross-cultural comparisons to
individual experiences and understandings of
personal development among diverse body of
students.
 Research questions re-phrased.
 Method of analysis changed from grounded
theory analysis across the four cultural groups to
more narrative approach where each individual
is treated as a ‘case’, followed by thematic
analysis across the samples.
 More analysis will follow.
Selected references










Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton
Barnett, R. (1997). Towards a Higher Education for a New Century. London: Institute of Education,
University of London.
Burnapp, D. (2006) Trajectories of Adjustment of International Students: U-curve, Learning Curve,
or Third Space. Intercultural Education,17(1), 81-93..
Jankowska, M. (2009). Concept mapping technique as a vehicle for gaining insight into students’
understanding of personal development, ICERI 2009 proceedings, ISBN: 978-84-613-2953-3.
Jankowska, M. (f2011) A reflection on adaptability, achievement motivation and success of
Central and Eastern European students in one English university, COMPARE – a journal of
international and comparative education (forthcoming)
Jankowska, M. (2010). Enabling Student Development: with socially mediated concept mapping
technique, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: Researching
PDP Practice, November 2010, ISSN: 1759-667X,
http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/index.php?journal=jldhe&page=issue&op=view&path%5B%5D=10&p
ath%5B%5D=showToc
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997). Higher education in the learning
society. Report of the national committee / chairman Sir Ron Dearing. London : NCIHE.
Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools
in Schools and Corporations. Mahwah, NJ,: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
Novak, J.D. & Canas, A.J. (2006). The Theory Underlying Maps and How to Construct Them.
Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and
Machine Cognition, 2008", available at:
http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
Universities UK (2007). Beyond the honours degree classification: the Burgess Group final report.
London: Universities UK. October 2007. Available at:
http://www.beds.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/structures/cre8
Thank you for listening
Maja.jankowska@beds.ac.uk