Editorial

LY N N E P. B A L DW I N Brunel University, UK Whether you are working within the higher education sector in the UK or elsewhere, you are engaged in one way or another in personal development planning (PDP). This is high on the agenda in the UK; the Quality Assurance Agency (the QAA), which reviews the quality and standards of UK higher education by auditing each institution, rightly requires that we have mechanisms in place to ensure that learners have opportunities for PDP. The QAA says that learners must have 'a means by which [they] can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development (termed personal development planning)'. Many in HE have interpreted this to mean that learners must construct a formal, written document, that is, a folder/portfolio of their learning experience whilst at university. It might be argued, however, that much of our personal development, whether in university, home or anywhere else, is informal for the most part; we do not record (write down) all our learning experiences, successes and failures in life! 'Personal development' is, surely, very much about the personal aspects of our development, and much of this we do not make public, for various reasons. 'Personal development' should not be seen, in my view, as another phrase for 'planning our career'. Learning, and life, is about much more than (preparing for) work, important though that is to many of us, whether students or academics.

Opportunities for PDP abound. The nature and scope of these opportunities vary, and they may be formal and/or more informal. Working with our fellow colleagues on a piece of research or discussing how to structure an examination paper are but two examples of opportunities for PDP, as might be a formal review, often annually, with our head of department (or whoever). It is, in my view, important to remember that PDP should not be merely a paper exercise, although writing things down can sometimes help, whether for PDP or anything else, of course. As independent adults, it should be entirely our own (and our learners') choice as to how, when and where we 'monitor, build and reflect upon [our] personal development', although if some need guidance, this should naturally be provided. Regardless of how we do it, however, the benefits of PDP are uncontested. After all, reflection is central to our development, as humans. This is as much active learning in higher education the case for learners in the context of higher education as it is for us, as educators. This issue takes as its theme reflection, and each of the six articles looks at this both within and outside of the context of the classroom.

In the study reported by John MacMillan and Monica McLean in the first article, entitled 'Making first-year tutorials count: operationalizing the assessment-learning connection', reflection is concerned with how firstyear undergraduates perceive their performance. The learning environment is in part shaped by us, the educators, and the signals that we send about this, and the performance of individual learners, are conveyed in various ways; assessment is naturally a vital channel. How learners perceive their growing competence is to a greater or lesser extent dependent on the form and timing of the assessments that we design and the feedback that we provide. Described in this article is a module comprising regular tutorials and, importantly, frequent and swiftly delivered formative feedback to learners aimed at fostering such reflection at this first, important, stage of their learning in higher education. Learners who are new to higher education are also the focus of the second article entitled 'Degrees of disciplinarity in equipping mature students in higher education for engagement and success in lifelong learning', by Bob Toynton. Here reflection is considered in the context of how learners attempt the new and often difficult task of adapting to a learning environment which takes the notion of a 'discipline' as its cornerstone. We, as educators, assume that disciplinarity is a known, but Toynton argues that we need to do more to make this explicit if our learners, mature or otherwise, are to develop the awareness of the 'restrictiveness of the discipline-based environment' and to develop the skills of critical reflection required for successful learning both within, and beyond, higher education.

In the third article, entitled 'A review of the one-minute paper', David Stead reports on a little-used but highly-praised activity known as the 'oneminute paper'. As its name suggests, its use requires very little time and, importantly, little effort. Literature in higher education abounds with activities which have been successfully used in classes with very small numbers. For those of us whose classes now comprise 400 or more learners as the norm, it is thus refreshing and much welcomed to read about an activity which all of us could use, regardless of class size or discipline. In addition, for those reluctant to embrace technology, or who for whatever reason do not (wish to) use it, the only thing needed is a piece of paper. Stead notes that the need for our learners to reflect is a tenet of constructivism and is also one of the four elements of Kolb's learning cycle. Reflection takes the form of what learners perceive that they have, or have not, learned in the classroom and provides an opportunity for the asking of questions, another higher-order cognitive skill.

The use of these higher-order cognitive skills in the workplace is the focus of the fourth article by Veronica Burke, Ian Jones and Mike Doherty. Entitled 'Analysing student perceptions of transferable skills via undergraduate degree programmes', reflection on learning forms an essential element.

Reflection on learning between classroom sessions is the topic for analysis by Graeme Kirkpatrick in the fifth paper. Entitled 'Online "chat" facilities as pedagogic tools: a case study', there is a critical assessment of the now widely-used 'chat' component of a tool forming part of a generic facility/platform called Blackboard; very useful indeed for those who may not have used it before but may be interested in so doing. The study set out to compare the efficacy of the 'chat' facility of Blackboard to other teaching environments and how, as a result of the findings, it might be used more effectively. As the author rightly concludes, the 'interesting anomaly' in the article concerns the perception of the lecturer about the amount of 'nonsense' that each environment generates; it is a useful and absorbing read.

Whether or not you use, or may be considering using, Blackboard, it is certain that you will, in one way or another, be very much involved in PDP, that is, Personal Development Planning, the topic of the sixth and final article. Entitled 'A progress report on progress files: the experience of one higher education institution', Rob East describes the experience of one institution which began the task of putting in place a system designed to help learners reflect on their learning. The article highlights, however, several challenges involved in implementing such a system, not least of which is the time and effort required by academic staff.

As is customary, this issue concludes with several reviews of books.


Ro B E Rt Toy N To N

Degrees of disciplinarity in equipping mature students in higher education for engagement and success in lifelong learning

Keywords: interdisciplinarity, lifelong lear ning, mature student, prior knowledge, tacit knowledge

A B S T R AC T For the mature student, the recognition and validation of prior knowledge, much of which may be tacit, is central to both confidence and further learning. From a theoretical stance the use of interdisciplinary study or applying interdisciplinary approaches within monodisciplinary study should benefit the learning of the mature student. Such approaches also allow the learner to develop skills central to continued lifelong learning. The introduction of interdisciplinarity within part of an undergraduate programme at the University of Sheffield has been monitored over the last four years. The insights provided suggest that mature students may find this approach initially discomforting but this is outweighed by the learning and empowerment it provides. Interdisciplinarity has been equally challenging for the tutors, but their acknowledgement of learning through the process has been a positive outcome.

Introduction

Over several years the Institute for Lifelong Learning within the School of Education at the University of Sheffield has developed part-time programmes of study to degree level aimed at the mature student. This is active learning in higher education not unique. That the programme includes multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary study as a deliberate stratagem to enhance the accessibility and learning experience for mature students, and that this stratagem has been adjusted as a result of research into the student experience (Toynton, 2000(Toynton, , 2001)), may be of more interest. This article reflects on the ideas which instigated this development and which have arisen from the ongoing analysis of the student experience.

The immediate post-school and mature entrants to higher education represent positions within a continuum of experience and education. Here the terms mature student and adult learner are used synonymously to define those whose prior knowledge includes a significant element derived from work or life experience in addition to, or instead of, any prior formalized study. Amongst the defining attributes of the adult learner are a package of experience and values, personal patterns of learning and a whole range of competing interests and responsibilities (Rogers, 1996). An adult learner choosing to enter or re-enter higher education adds to this list their personal expectations of the learning process.

Higher education forms a distinct stage within the education and within the lives of young students progressing directly from school. To a mature student, studying at higher education level is an element within life rather than a stage of life and therefore has a personal landscape within which it must find a place. The 'lifelong learner' has been defined as an active member of the learning society, in which 'everyone recognizes the need to continue in education and training throughout working life' (NCIHE, 1997). This perspective, however, defines lifelong learning as an additional chosen activity, rather than an integral quality of life within which there is continual learning. From the perspective of the adult educator, lifelong learners are not simply those who have chosen, or have been pressured by circumstances, to return to formal education. They must also be enabled and empowered to benefit from the educational opportunities encountered in all aspects of their lives. This requires the acquisition, expansion or validation of those skills needed to enable and empower each individual. There is a responsibility on the educator to allow acquisition, directly or experientially, of such lifelong learning skills (Breivik, 2000).

For higher education to enable mature students to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary not only for successful completion of a degree programme but also for lifelong learning, the learning must be able to be integrated within the experience, expectations and learning styles of the adult. It is within this context that the degree of disciplinarity of study becomes significant.

Recognizing monodisciplinarity

Many adults returning to study do so to follow one area, one discipline or even one element of a discipline of particular interest or perceived to be of particular benefit. Adults entering higher education are entering a structure of learning which as the norm assumes the validity and benefits of studying a 'discipline'. The informal prior learning of the adult through home and workplace is largely nondisciplinary or interdisciplinary in these terms, and therefore an element of alienation or feeling of 'other' is inevitable as disciplinary learning commences.

Disciplines 'comprise knowledge depots that incorporate certain methods and reflect the social, cultural and institutional requirements' (Grace, 2000: 58). In undergraduate study the canon of knowledge and methodology are made explicit, but the social, cultural and institutional requirements normally remain unspoken or unrecognized. In addition to content, disciplines have cultures built around the discursive practices and the nature of the pedagogy (Weiner, 1994). This is also unrecognized by most at undergraduate level. 'To be a part of a discipline means to ask certain questions, to use a particular set of terms, and to study a relatively narrow set of things' (Giroux et al., 1988: 146). All of these may be alien to the adult learner, not just as new vocabulary but in its very disciplinarity. To the teacher in higher education 'monodisciplinarity' is the assumption and the norm defined only through how teaching and learning may vary from it. As such monodisciplinarity must be identified and named as that which is assumed by many of those teaching but alien to many of those adults learning.

Degrees of disciplinarity and adult learning

Adults gain confidence in learning through the recognition and validation of their prior knowledge (Toynton, 1998). Some of this knowledge will be recognized prior to their return to formal education, though there may also be much that is tacit. Dochy, De Rijdt and Dyck (2002) provide a conceptual map of prior knowledge. Their division and classification of the components of explicit knowledge form a very useful framework in considering the prior knowledge of the traditional student in higher education. However, tacit knowledge, represented as a lesser and undivided component by Dochy et al. (2002), may be of greater significance than explicit knowledge to the mature student. In addition, even the structure and definition of the explicit knowledge may itself be 'tacit' until validated through formal study since much of the tacit and explicit prior knowledge of the mature student may have been acquired incidentally and therefore outside any disciplinary or domain framework.

Identification and incorporation of the prior knowledge of the mature student may therefore raise problems. In essence, although a significant amount of the knowledge held by an adult returning to education may be tacit, this, in addition to experiential learning through work or home, is not held within a disciplinary framework. Therefore restricting such learners to a monodisciplinary framework may result in the nonrecognition of prior knowledge, loss of confidence and of any perception of relevance. It may also result in structurally invoked cognitive dissonance since, according to Festinger (in Harman-Jones and Mills, 1999), direct experience exerts pressure on the cognition to conform to the experience. Disciplinary frameworks do not conform to adult life experience, as can be illustrated by the need for adult educators to be able to respond to learner questions which may initially appear tangential to the topic being studied. Although cognitive dissonance can be effectively used as an educational tool (Harman-Jones and Mills, 1999), it must be viewed as a negative effect where invoked incidentally by curriculum structure rather than deliberately through challenging content and perspective.

For study at undergraduate level to involve the acquisition of the skills necessary to become lifelong learners, students must embark on the journey to first develop an awareness of the restrictiveness of the disciplinebased environment within which their studies are located, and then move beyond this environment to acquire or recognize the generic cognitive and analytic skills. Such movement beyond monodisciplinarity takes the learner into the field of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. Multidisciplinarity may 'allow the learner to synthesize the insights from the component disciplines' (Bradbeer, 1999), but it may also restrict the learner to these. Interdisciplinarity in contrast extends to a recognition and synthesis of epistemologies and traditions across the whole interdisciplinary area. This is summarized in Table 1.

Criticality is a skill which may originate from life experience. Paraphrasing Smith (1990): elements of such higher-order thinking are a continuous and intrinsic part of everyday thought. It is therefore not the ability to think critically, but the awareness of criticality and its importance within a discipline which can be learned within higher education. 'Critical awareness' as used in Table 1 refers to this explicit criticality, but also to 'values awareness', defined by Jones and Merritt (1999) as the appreciation of the insights afforded by the philosophy of the area within which the discipline is situated. However important critical awareness within one discipline may be, more closely matched to the schemata of the adult learner is the comparative critical awareness across disciplines which, once recognized, can allow the learner to achieve the important perspective of 'helicopter vision'. This is defined by Candy, Crebert and O' Leary (1994) in terms of the ability to view the approaches, products and processes of a discipline from a detached and comparative viewpoint. Through comparative critical awareness a learner is able to re-examine and value their learning within one discipline from other perspectives.

Teaching critical thinking in isolation from specific disciplines means teaching informal logic (Wallace, 2000). For a learner to be truly empowered through critical thinking as a transferable skill, more than one context or one discipline needs to be encountered. Furthermore, in order for this skill to form a development of prior life-skills, the acquisition of this skill must be experiential rather than taught.

Real life is interdisciplinary or nondisciplinary. The latter removes the very framework of definitions within the discourse, and therefore, although an ideal, is unhelpful as a concept in planning for teaching and learning. Interdisciplinarity is, however, both possible and useful as a way of linking the higher education experience of the mature student with the prior learning and knowledge, both recognized and tacit. Kitchener and King (1990) refer to seven stages of epistemological development in adults. The level reached may depend upon the complexity of life experiences (Pirttila-Backman and Kajanne, 2001), in which case this forms a possibly unrecognized and unvalued resource of experiential learning. When confronted with a 'new' study it is important to adult learner confidence and perceived relevance that there is recognition of ownership, validity and relevance of a reservoir of tacit and experiential knowledge in addition to recognized learning available both to evoke and validate this tacit knowledge (Toynton, 1998).

Approaching interdisciplinarity

A starting point for interdisciplinarity is that disciplines are themselves coalitions of subjects and therefore 'are also the sources of links that can be formed with other subjects' (Zverev, 1975). If disciplines are defined as 'ways of knowing rather than forms of knowledge . . . processes of thinking rather than products of thought' (Bruner, 1960), then an interdisciplinary approach must go beyond the interrelationship of 'subject material' to investigate the commonalities and contrasts of approaches and ways of thinking about the material. Interdisciplinarity should challenge learners to justify the validity of the methods and knowledge claims within each discipline (Jones and Merritt, 1999). Through this, what may make the learning more relevant and potentially broaden the interest of the learner can also enhance understanding even within a single discipline.

Distinction must be drawn between interdisciplinarity and problembased learning, though the latter may include elements of the former. Problem-based learning teaches 'both a method of approaching and an attitude towards problem solving' (Schwartz et al., 2001: 2). This is largely achieved through group work with tutor support. Benbow and McMahon (2001) describe how the presence of more experienced mature students amongst less experienced traditional students can lead to 'dysfunctional' groups owing to the significant difference in levels of prior experience of problem-solving. Problem-based learning requires 'cross-disciplinary' thinking, often without explicitly providing the tools. For traditional students this may therefore amount to an experiential encounter with a form of interdisciplinarity. However, since much of the problem-based learning researched at present lies within medicine, dentistry and engineering, much of this experience is in exploring the coalition nature of broad disciplines rather than being truly interdisciplinary.

Real interdiscipinarity need not be, or only be, at the level of curriculum design. Rather, interdisciplinarity can suffuse the teaching and learning process through such practices as the use of analogy and student choice of illustrative and assessed material. A well-designed monodisciplinary course can thereby access the advantages to the mature student of the interdisciplinary course. In either case the experience and knowledge of the tutor become crucial, since the tutor must be able to introduce the analogous material or judge the acceptability of the analogue proposed by the learner. Assessment also requires adjustment if such flexibility is to be accepted fully within the programme. This may be expensive in resource terms, since more than one tutor may need to be present throughout all taught sessions of an interdisciplinary course. Similarly the experience at Sheffield is that on designated interdisciplinary courses, all tutors need to input into the assessment of all student work, since the tutors also need to develop and share their interdisciplinary perspectives.

The learning prospects of a mature student must be improved where the educational experience is brought closer to the learning pattern of life experience. It is the task of the adult educator who, where mature students in higher education are involved, will be the university teacher, to facilitate this matching of present to past learning. However, the tutor must also be aware that the prior knowledge, tacit or explicit, of the mature learner may distort the very information being taught (Roschelle, 1995), since the prior knowledge, whether correct or not, may form the structure for the acceptance of new knowledge. If access to the prior tacit knowledge is through interdisciplinarity, then a further role needs to be added to this process. In addition to validating such knowledge, recognition and correction or abandonment may also be required. Those experienced in adult education will recognize the existence of incorrectly learned knowledge, but also the benefit of its correction and abandonment being a process best achieved by the learner as realization rather than an imposed act.

The tutor and learner experience

Over the last four years elements of the undergraduate degree programme in the Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of Sheffield have been evolving from the monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary approach to being truly interdisciplinary or using interdisciplinary approaches in discipline-based units. Examples of interdisciplinary units within this programme include 'Interrelationships in the Natural Sciences and Archaeology', 'Human and Natural Landscapes' and 'Evolution: Theory, Evidence and Applications'. Also interdisciplinary, but slightly less wide ranging, are units such as 'The Evolution of the Earth's Natural Systems' and 'Environments of the Holocene'. Discipline-based units in which an interdisciplinary approach is taken include 'Biogeography and Biodioversity' and 'Environmental Hydrogeology'. Over the last four years, using questionnaires and interviews, the reactions of both learners and tutors within one area of the programme have been sought. Details of student and tutor responses have been reported (Toynton, 2000) and initial analysis presented (Toynton, 2001). Table 2 andTable 3 summarize the conclusions based on the student and tutor responses, interviews with students and reflections by the tutors. Tutor reflection also takes account of previous research into reactions to interdisciplinarity in higher education by such authors as Astin (1992), Jones and Merritt (1999) and Vess (2001), though these researchers do not focus on the experience of mature learners within interdisciplinary learning and teaching.

From the learners' perspective the outcomes were largely positive. The evocation and valuing of prior recognized and tacit knowledge provided the learners with both confidence and a more central role in the learning experience, which they then had the confidence to use to good effect. The recognition of the acquisition of transferable skills (and in particular 'helicopter vision') provided an increase in the value learners placed on the whole experience. The negative aspects were the challenges to their expectations of what the undergraduate learning experience should be. Not only could they not be passive learners, neither could they remain within the preconceived boundaries of their defined areas of interest. Discomfort shown through student evaluation on the initial interdisciplinary units, however, has been replaced by very positive student responses to the subsequent units, illustrating that positive aspects have not only been perceived, but also judged to outweigh the initial negative ones. The tutors have found the changes equally challenging. True interdisciplinarity is more expensive in tutor time in requiring team teaching and team assessment. The latter highlights the need for an individual tutor to relinquish 'ownership' of an interdisciplinary module. The setting and grading of assignments have to be negotiated, since understandings within one discipline area need to be evaluated not only in themselves but in relation to other areas of study. This leads to the realization that the learners may achieve understandings novel to the individual tutor. Where tutors from various disciplines present sessions jointly, learning occurs between tutors as well as between learners and between tutors and learners. The inexpensive. Single tutor Tutoring team required possible experience at Sheffield has been that recognizing and making clear to the learners that tutor-tutor learning takes place literally 'in front of the class' further engaged adult learners with the course. Tutors therefore have to be willing to share roles within a less hierarchic learning community.

Conclusions

Disciplinarity is an artifact not only of curriculum design, but also of approach. Interdisciplinarity may be provided through specifically designed units or through a particular approach being taken within units which could otherwise be defined as monodisciplinary. Both of these approaches are currently practised in the Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of Sheffield.

Interdisciplinarity, in either guise, allows the adult learner to avoid the negative aspects of cognitive dissonance often produced by the unfamiliar structure of monodisciplinary study. Through the recognition that much of the prior knowledge of the adult learner, crucial to the accretion of further knowledge, is likely to be tacit, and furthermore, the schemata within which this knowledge is formed are also tacit, the greater the freedom given to the learner to adapt and interpret the taught material through their own understandings, the greater the learning is likely to be.

Since real life and therefore the learning experience of the adult is interdisciplinary, a degree of this interdisciplinarity in teaching and learning even at higher education level is essential. However, it must be realized that prior knowledge, so central to adult confidence in learning, may also distort further learning, and needs both validation and possible self-correction.

As a process, any degree of interdisciplinarity can enhance learning. As a destination, interdisciplinarity can enable the learner to operate intellectually and practically across the artificial boundaries of discipline. As a tool, it can furnish multiple perspectives on the discipline the learner has chosen and provide the level of criticality essential to the integration of prior knowledge, and thereby represent a key skill for lifelong learning. It is important to acknowledge here that the term 'learner' within this context applies both to the mature student and the tutor; both are involved in acquiring and applying lifelong learning skills.

Table 1 Degree of disciplinarity and lifelong learning skills in adult learners

 1

	Degree of disciplinarity	Lifelong learning skill
	Monodisciplinarity	critical awareness
	Multidisciplinarity	comparative critical awareness
	Interdisciplinarity	integration and reconstruction of
		knowledge

Table 2 Consequences of levels of disciplinarity for adult learners

 2

	Monodisciplinarity	Interdisciplinary	Interdisciplinarity
		approaches within
		disciplinary study
	Dissonance due to	Dissonance reduced	Learning patterns reflect
	restrictiveness of study		the learners' real life
	being counter to life		learning experiences
	experience
	Much prior knowledge	Relevance given to some	Prior knowledge and
	and experience perceived	prior knowledge and	experience recognized
	as irrelevant	experience	and validated
	Limit on evocation of tacit	Limit on evocation of tacit	Evocation of tacit
	knowledge	knowledge remains	knowledge
	Feelings of value and	Feelings of value and	Feelings of value and
	confidence restricted to	confidence extend beyond	confidence extend beyond
	discipline knowledge	discipline knowledge	discipline knowledge
	Non-awareness of	Potential for realization of	Transferability of
	transferability of	transferability of	learning/cognitive skills
	learning/cognitive skills	learning/cognitive skills	made explicit and
			demonstrated
	Hierarchy may develop	Hierarchy may develop	Distribution of expertise
	amongst learners based	amongst learners based	between tutors and
	on level of (or level of	on level of (or level of	learners
	recognition of) prior	recognition of) prior
	knowledge	knowledge
	Shared learning	Weakening of shared	Shared learning
	experience based on	nature of learning	experience based on
	shared perception of	experience	equality of value of prior
	learner-tutor divide		knowledge
	Learner there to be taught	Learner empowerment	Learner/tutor relationship
			changed. Individual learner
			may have equal or greater
			oversight than individual
			tutor
	Known focus of interest	Retains focus of interest	At the outset the learners
			may need to be convinced
			of the benefits of the
			interdisciplinary approach
	Remain within comfort	Core activity remains within Most activity will be outside
	zone of prior interest	the comfort zone of prior	the learners' initial comfort
		interest	zone

Table 3 Consequences of levels of disciplinarity for tutors

 3

	Monodisciplinarity	Interdisciplinary	Interdisciplinarity
		approaches within
		disciplinary study
	Teaching unchallenging	Teaching more	Teaching challenging.
		challenging. Tutor may	Stimulating learning
		have to learn beyond	experience for tutors
		previous boundaries
	Tutor can retain role of	Reduced potential for	Tutors must be willing to
	expert	hierarchic tutor-learner	relinquish role of sole
		relationship. Tutor must be expert. Learners achieve
		willing to share role of	expertise beyond that of
		expert to some extent	any individual tutor. Tutor
			may feel threatened by
			this
	Assessment can be	Tasks and their	Assignments require
	simple if preferred	assessment may be more assessment by whole
		individualized	team with grading
			negotiated amongst tutors
	Time/financially	Time/financially	Time/financially expensive.
	inexpensive (single tutor)

Biographical note

B O B TOY N TO N read physical geography and geology at the University of Liverpool before taking his doctorate in hydrogeology at the University of East Anglia. His interest in the education of adults was developed while working in the museum sector, before taking an academic post at the University of Sheffield. Presently Director of Part-time Studies in the Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of Sheffield, he oversees a multidisciplinary Combined Studies degree while directing and teaching on the interdisciplinary Natural and Human Environments track of this degree. Address: The Institute for Lifelong Learning, School of Education, University of Sheffield,[196][197][198]Sheffield S1 4ET,UK. [email: r.toynton@sheffield.ac.uk]


A review of the one-minute paper

Keywords: evaluation, lecturing, one-minute paper, student lear ning, teaching techniques

come

Introduction

Lecturers who use the 'one-minute paper' (hereafter, OMP) normally praise it as a learning tool, not only for the students but the instructor as well. Typical comments made by practitioners across a wide variety of disciplines include 'invaluable' (Magnan, 1991), 'outstanding benefits' (Anon., 1993) and the pedagogical innovation that 'swamped all others' (Light quoted in Chizmar and Ostrosky, 1998: 3). This article surveys the literature that specifically assesses the value of the OMP and presents some new evidence on student reactions to it and the extent of its use in the classroom. As long as it is not employed excessively, the benefits of the OMP seem sizeable for a method that requires no technology and only a small investment of time and effort. Moreover, students' opinions of it are generally favourable, in both small and large group teaching. In short, the currently available evidence, although largely confined to the experience of students and lecturers in the US and UK, provides a quite positive assessment of the OMP Yet surveys of teaching practices suggest that the method is perhaps not particularly widely used in UK and US higher education. A purposely-designed questionnaire survey of lecturers in economics and economic history indicates that this is mainly due to lack of awareness of its existence and the (to some extent inaccurate) belief that it would be too time-consuming to analyse and respond to students' replies.

What is the one-minute paper?

The OMP (alternatively known as the 'minute paper' or 'half-sheet response') is typically assigned at the end of a class, and requires each student to briefly write down answers to two questions, generally: (1) What was the most important thing you learned in class today? (2) What question is unanswered? As the name suggests, students are given a minute or two to complete the exercise. After collecting the papers, the lecturer reads the answers and ideally responds to them in the next class, or privately on an individual basis.

Innumerable variations on this basic format are possible. Among other things, the questions can be made more specific to address particular issues raised in a lecture, and students' responses can be anonymous or signed, and may or may not be graded. The OMP could be completed collaboratively in small groups or conducted at the start of, or midway through, a class. Charles Schwartz, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is often credited with originating the method during the early 1980s (Light and Cox, 2001: 203;Zeilik, c. 2003), although its individual elements can be found in other texts written around that time (e. g. Gibbs et al., 1984;Weaver and Cotrell, 1985). Angelo and Cross (1993: 148-53) have been important popularizers of the OMP, but it has doubtless been reinvented countless times.

Potential benefits

The characteristics of the OMP would seem to make it a useful learning tool for instructors and students across a wide range of disciplines. It encourages the active learning that is recognized as best practice teaching. This feature is especially useful in large lecture groups where it can be difficult or daunting to achieve significant lecturer/student interaction. Replies to the first question test students' ability to rank the relative importance of what they have heard, encouraging active listening during the class. Significantly, this part of the OMP also provides a brief chance for students to reflect on what they have learned. Reflection is widely recognized to be an important element of adult learning styles. On a theoretical level, for example, the need for students to reflect is based in constructivism, and forms one of the four elements of the well-known Kolb learning cycle (see the survey by Fry et al., 1999). The second OMP question prompts the asking of questions, another higher order cognitive skill (Harwood, 1996: 229): the easy and anonymous opportunity provided may be particularly valued by students who, owing to shyness or difficulties with an unfamiliar second language or academic culture, are reluctant to ask questions in public.

Furthermore, the OMP provides instant and detailed feedback for the class and their teacher. Students' replies reveal what concepts have not been fully understood, and what points were perceived as being of greatest importance. If needed, the tutor can clarify these issues in the very next class, before misperceptions become lodged (Harwood, 1996: 230). In this respect anonymous answers may be preferable to signed ones so as to encourage students to complete the OMP openly rather than writing what they perceive to be an acceptable response for the teacher (Almer et al., 1998: 494), although of course this means the tutor cannot respond privately to individuals. Perhaps most importantly of all, students know that their instructor values their opinions and learning needs and this, together with the establishment of some sort of one-to-one dialogue even in a large group, may improve student motivation. Because their comments are processed almost immediately, students' contributions improve their own learning experience rather than -as so often -those of the next cohort. Thus they may be more inclined to give considered feedback compared to the responses in traditional end-of-course questionnaires (Draper, 2003). For the teacher, the OMP answers help ascertain the extent to which the aims and objectives of the class have been achieved, as well as help set the future pace of teaching. The speed at which the feedback is received is likely to be especially useful to inexperienced lecturers and the teachers of new courses. If student responses are signed, then the OMP can serve as an attendance register that is more active than signing a list (Becker, 1997(Becker, : 1361)). It can also be one means of developing students' writing skills, indicated by the improvements in the content of replies OMP users have noted over the course of a teaching programme (Davis et al., 1983). Finally, these benefits are achieved in a very short time at the end of the class when the students and the tutor are at their least effective. Alternatively, conducting the OMP midway through a lecture could be one of the types of activity needed to re-engage listeners' attention, which is known to dwindle after about 20 minutes.

The disadvantages of the OMP are relatively few and many can be overcome with experience (Angelo and Cross, 1993: 153;Weaver and Cotrell, 1985). Lecturers must allow sufficient time for completion. At least initially more than one minute is required, partly because it is more difficult than it may appear for students to quickly process material and prepare questions. As with any teaching method, excessive use might make the OMP monotonous for both parties, although this could be overcome by varying the OMP's format or timing in one of the ways mentioned above. It is also important that the lecturer provides feedback on the points raised, but to temper expectations students should be told in advance that it might not be possible to respond to every comment. There is a time cost to analysing the responses -perhaps up to half an hour for a group of 250 students (Harwood, 1996: 229) -although this may be substantially reduced by analysing a sample of papers (Light and Cox, 2001: 203) or offset by time saved answering queries out of class (Chizmar and Ostrosky, 1998: 9). The OMP's specificity means that it is not especially useful for planning changes in overall course design (Zeilik, c. 2003), yet on the other hand it can provide information on exactly what needs to be altered, in contrast to the general criticisms of lecture style often given in end-of-course feedback forms (Draper, 2003).

Empirical evidence on benefits

A good deal of the evidence specifically evaluating the OMP indicates that its potential benefits are realized in practice. According to a recent survey of teachers of auditing and accounting courses, the OMP was seen as a valuable means of obtaining timely feedback about students' understanding of course material (see Almer et al., 1998: 486). The author's experience of using the OMP in undergraduate economic history lectures and tutorials at the University of York, UK, is that the comments also provide useful feedback on students' perceptions of their learning experience more widely, including his teaching style, as in the following statements on signed OMPs: 'I liked the role play'; 'There are a lot of people that know more about History than I do. There's a lot of reading to do'; and 'its OK to ask Q's he's not an ogar [sic]'.

Much more systematic evidence is available on the benefits to student examination performance from regularly writing OMPs. The studies, which are limited to accountancy and economics courses taught in the US, compare the test results of students in the same cohort who did and did not complete OMPs. Comparison of the performance of 867 introductory accounting students by Almer et al. (1998) indicated that regular completion was associated with a statistically significantly superior performance on subsequent essay quizzes (a mean gain of 0.93 points on a 10 point scale). No statistically significant advantage for OMP writers over non-writers was found for multiple-choice tests, suggesting that the method is only helpful in improving examination scores if the assessment includes some subjective, rather than purely objective, material. If confirmed by other studies, this result might have implications for the use of the OMP in particular subject areas. However, the evidence elsewhere is not always supportive. McElroy and Coman's (2002) study of 81 introductory managerial accountancy students is consistent with that result in that the authors found a significant (and increasing) advantage for OMP users in tests which included some subjective elements. Conversely, Chizmar and Ostrosky's (1998) data on 571 first-year economics students taking multiple-choice tests indicated that the impact of the OMP, ceteris paribus, was to increase a student's performance by a statistically significant 6.6 percent relative to the mean test score. It therefore appears that the OMP can enhance test performance even when the assessment is comprised of entirely objective material.

Both Almer et al. and Chizmar and Ostrosky found that the increases in test scores associated with repeated OMP completion did not depend upon the student's ability level, and that the latter study found that it was also unaffected by the instructor involved suggests that the non-trivial benefits of the OMP are available to all. Almer et al. also found that asking students to address their OMP to a friend with no specialist subject knowledge rather than to the instructor (in the hope of forcing students to rephrase class material in their own words) did not significantly affect test performance. Finally, students whose OMPs had been graded performed less well in subsequent tests than those whose papers were not graded. The most probable reason for this result is that graded students tended to write acceptable responses instead of using the exercise to understand more fully what was covered in class. On the basis of this study, then, non-grading of papers is recommended.

Students' opinions

Even if student evaluations of teaching methods need to be treated with some caution (Bligh, 1998: 174-85), previous surveys suggest that students generally perceive the OMP to be a useful learning tool. In Weaver and Cotrell's (1985) survey of about 150 students, most responses were 'enthusiastic', and the negative replies numbered 'less than five' (p. 24). A more recent survey of auditing and accounting students revealed that students thought the OMP enhanced their learning process, but despite much of the evidence reported in the previous section, the majority did not perceive that the papers improved their test performance (Almer et al., 1998: 486). In contrast with the results from these purposely-designed questionnaires, McElroy and Coman (2002) found that unsolicited comments about the OMP in standard feedback forms were infrequent but, when made, were always negative. However, when their students were given the option to discontinue completing a signed OMP, only three decided to stop. Although at first sight this suggests that almost all students perceived there to be some value from undertaking the OMP, it could have been due as much to the students not wanting their teachers to think poorly of them by abandoning the exercise.

To supplement the existing information, feedback was collected from students taught by the author at the University of York over the first five terms in which the OMP was utilized in his first-and second-year undergraduate economic history lectures and tutorials. The students taking these courses were mostly studying for a degree in economics, with a small minority reading economic history, politics or sociology degrees. As a first source of feedback, unsolicited comments about the OMP as used in firstyear tutorials were collated from remarks made on the departmental endof-term feedback form. The traditional OMP was used in all tutorials (4-6 classes per term; group size 12-15 students), with the author utilizing it as an attendance register and briefly responding to two or three unanswered questions at the start of the next class. Pooling the results across three terms of students (n = 154), only 14 percent of replies mentioned the OMP, but in stark contrast to McElroy and Coman's finding of uniformly negative unprompted comments, 91 percent of the unsolicited responses were favourable. A similarly positive view was indicated by a second survey, where a subsequent cohort of students was specifically asked to comment on the OMP in their end-of-term feedback forms. Of the sample (n = 71), 68 percent mentioned the OMP, and 94 percent of these prompted responses were favourable. In short, the students saw the OMP as being valuable even in small group teaching.

To collect information on students' opinions of the OMP in its more traditional lecture setting, a purposely-designed questionnaire was distributed at the end of two lecture series in which attenders were asked to anonymously complete the standard OMP at the end of each lecture (two lectures a week). In one lecture series ('British Economic History') the author responded to two or three unanswered questions at the start of the next lecture, while in the other ('The Global Web') on about half of the occasions a written response to the whole class via email was instead provided. Doing the latter approximately doubled the time needed to respond to a class's OMPs even though no student ever replied to one of these emails. Part of the questionnaire asked students to give a score on the OMP's 'overall rating' out of five (1 = poor; 3 = average; 5 = excellent). Table 1 presents the results. Students graded the OMP as above average as a learning tool, a reasonable score although one that was below the overall assessment of the author's lectures at the time (mean score of 4.2 on similar response rates). The OMP's mean score, and distribution, were strikingly similar across the two different years, despite the second year group receiving some feedback via email instead of verbally in the next lecture.

The reasons why the York economic history students surveyed generally liked the OMP are evident from the comments made on the various feedback forms. By and large, their points were familiar from the secondary literature. The most popular benefit of the OMP was said to be the opportunity to get questions/uncertainties addressed, particularly since 'You can ask whatever you like without looking stupid'. This chance was also valued by students who experienced the OMP in tutorials, indicating that reluctance to publicly ask questions is apparent even in comparatively small discussion groups. Only a handful of replies in all the feedback forms mentioned another learning objective as a benefit, such as 'helps "sort" knowledge of what has been covered in lecture'; 'Gives you info on how we feel about lectures. This is important' and 'a useful way of making sure everyone understood + to check for problems'. Among the less frequently stated benefits was the reassurance that 'Other peoples problems are often the same as your own', and that revisiting difficult concepts at the start of class did help recall of the previous class's content. Another benefit mentioned was 'They give a feeling of feedback and Tutor satisfies curiosities heightening interest'. A few students expressed a preference for having the responses in writing, although this does not show up on the quantitative scores reported in Table 1.

The most popular criticism of the OMP was easily 'Having to do it every time -even though didn't always have any questions'. A less frequently stated drawback was that 'Your question might not be read out!' Some students disliked it because 'We had to stay longer', even though the exercise was undertaken in the closing minutes of the timetabled class time. Another common reply was that 'I had not enough time writing it, because

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 6(2)
124 Notes. a Scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). b as % of students registered for the module. c some of the author's responses to OMPs were provided by email rather than verbally. Source. Author's questionnaires.

I had to rush to following lectures'. Thus even the two minutes that tended to be allocated to complete the OMP was insufficient in many cases. Allowing enough time is important because a few students found it 'difficult to say "what most important thing learned" actually was', and even that 'it is difficult to find a question immediately after the lecture'. Indeed, one respondent said what was liked least about the OMP was 'Making me think about the lecture'. These comments all suggest that at least some students found reflection to be a non-straightforward exercise. A few pertinent criticisms of the method were made, most notably 'Excuse for people not to listen, then ask silly questions', and 'Doesn't always help that much if it's a concept/more substantial question you need explaining in more detail'. Other criticisms were more the fault of the lecturer than the underlying method, including 'Some questions were answered which I don't think needed to be', and 'Can just lead to repetition of the key points of the previous lecture'. Users of the OMP, then, need to take care in selecting what they follow up, and the author's inexperience in this might help explain why the scores in Table 1 are above average rather than excellent.

That many students felt that the OMP was 'Not necessary every lecture', together with the possibility of overload for the teacher, explains why many users of the OMP only use it weekly (Zeilik, c. 2003) or even just four or five times a term (Wilson, 1986: 199). To quantify the extent to which students' motivation to complete the OMP declines with overuse, the number of students writing a paper in the author's two lecture courses was tracked over time. Recall that, in both courses, there were two lectures a week with no variety in the OMP format. Students were asked to complete it anonymously and leave their response in a box as they left: thus there was no monitoring of completion. Figure 1 clearly shows a sizeable decline in completion over the first few lectures in each course. This fall was greater than the decline in lecture attendance. After the steep initial decline, the response rate generally levelled out. The results for the longer lecture series show fluctuations in completion over the second half of the course. Informal conversations with the undergraduates concerned suggested that these were due to interest in the subject matter covered and especially whether or not they felt they were under time pressure to get to their next class.

The difference between the low rate of discontinuation found by McElroy and Coman (2002) and that shown in Figure 1 is presumably primarily driven by the OMP being signed in the former experiment. Unsurprisingly, with no monitoring of completion students are far less likely to write an OMP, and the attrition rates in Figure 1 indicate that this effect operates as quickly as after about two or three consecutive lectures completing the same OMP. Figure 1 therefore provides quantitative evidence supporting the recommendation that, if anonymous, the OMP is best used in only a proportion of classes, or else its format or timing be frequently changed to provide students with some variety. Of course, even if this is not done, a standard, unchanging OMP still provides a chance for those who want or need help to receive it.

Use by lecturers in economics and economic history

The previous sections indicated that, if implemented carefully, the OMP can produce beneficial results for a modest investment of time and effort. Yet the currently available evidence suggests that the method is perhaps not especially widely used in higher education. Although Chizmar and Ostrosky (1998: 3) have claimed that the OMP 'has become rather ubiquitous in higher education', this is not always the impression given by other sources. Becker and Watts' recent survey of 591 academic economists in the US found that median percentage of classes using student self-assessment techniques such as the OMP was zero (2001: 277). Once the likely sample selection bias in responses to teaching questionnaires is taken into account (probably that those with greater interest in teaching will tend to complete them), then the OMP appears to be rarely used to teach economics. Even though economists are not at the forefront of adopting active learning techniques, scattered evidence elsewhere is suggestive that the rarity of the OMP is not confined to this profession. For instance, the University of York's Forum for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching arranges for Academic Associates to visit the University's departments to identify and disseminate good practice teaching. Enquiries revealed that none of the three Associates were aware of the OMP being routinely used in any of the departments they had visited, all of which had scored highly in recent independent teaching quality assessments. In general, the traditional passive lecture remains the single most prevalent teaching tool, although its dominance has declined in recent years owing to the increased discussion of, and research on, active learning methods (Bligh, 1998: 6;Brawner et al., 2002;Lammers and Murphy, 2002;Markham et al., 1998).

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 6(2)
Explanations of why non-traditional teaching techniques are not used more extensively invoke the lack of time, incentives and resources to adopt them. Also important are the risks of students, at least initially, resisting being taken out of a passive learning environment or the lecturer feeling uncomfortable in a new lecture setting (Markham et al., 1998;Sloman and Mitchell, 2002, Section 2.5;Snyder, 2003). To obtain further evidence on these factors in the specific context of the OMP, two questionnaire surveys of teachers were conducted. The first consisted of colleagues in York's Department of Economics and Related Studies, and the second comprised subscribers to the on-line discussion list EH.Teach, which 'is for all those who would like to discuss and exchange information on issues related to teaching of economic history at all levels of instruction' (see www. EH.Net). Answers to the first survey were anonymous; this was not possible in the second survey, where responses were returned via email. Table 2 presents the results.

The two surveys produced quite different results for the proportion of respondents ever using the OMP in their lectures (these included some of its countless variants, for instance, basing it on the reading set before class). The finding that only a very small number of York economists have utilized the OMP is in line with Becker and Watts' results for US economists, while in contrast nearly two-fifths of the EH.Teach respondents -almost all of whom worked in the US -had used the OMP. This fraction, though, is probably best interpreted as an upper bound estimate of actual use since this sample is almost certainly strongly biased towards those interested in teaching and utilizing the OMP (this bias is probably present in both surveys, but is likely to be particularly acute in the EH.Teach sample). Unfortunately, this strong sample selection bias also makes it impossible to draw firm conclusions over differential disciplinary or international use of the OMP by comparing the two survey results.

There was much more similarity in the reasons why the majority of participants in both surveys had not used the OMP. The most popular reason stated was lack of awareness of its existence, despite the method being mentioned in many textbooks, articles and conferences on teaching methods -one of which called it a 'widely reported concept' -together with the occasional article on teaching in good general professional journals (see the above references plus Angelo, 2003: 5;Bligh, 1998: 57, 224;Brown and Race, 2002: 176;Hounsell, 1999: 166;quotation from Light and Cox, 2001: 202). One conjecture is that many lecturers are too busy or lack the incentive to regularly read this literature and update their teaching methods, and to some extent this explanation is reinforced by the second most popular reason for not using the OMP being the perceived amount of time taken to analyse the responses. Those seeking to advocate the OMP therefore need to emphasize that the time costs are not as heavy as might be thought at first sight, for example if only a sample of responses are read. A small minority of respondents stated that they preferred the traditional lecture style, possibly indicating conservatism. No one said that they did not use the OMP because they wanted to avoid students being exposed to it in every class, and a small percentage believed that end-ofterm questionnaires provided sufficient feedback on their lectures (although, as noted above, unlike with the OMP such comments typically do not serve the current cohort and are not especially specific).

Another small proportion of respondents thought that the OMP would not be effective as a learning tool. One respondent wrote that this 'formulaic approach' might not promote 'critical understanding and debate', and others believed that it 'simplifies lectures too much' or that the traditional format might not be useful for mathematical classes. Another stated that while the OMP 'is probably a good idea in principle . . . my department currently places so little emphasis on teaching compared with research it really wouldn't be worth the trouble or in my self-interest [to re-introduce it]'. Moreover, 'I am not sure that they [students] take the courses that they do that seriously as to want to take time to reflect on what they have learned each class period'. This respondent and one other suggested that the OMP was best conducted on an occasional basis, perhaps once every three or four classes.

Conclusions

This review has suggested that the OMP -a simple, flexible and widely applicable technique requiring no technology -can produce very beneficial results for a modest amount of time and effort. Students are able to briefly reflect on, and ask questions about, what they have heard; thus the OMP provides instant feedback on the class's understanding. The weight of the (albeit imperfect) existing and new empirical evidence reported here indicates that regular completion significantly improves student test performance, and that students typically perceive the OMP favourably, in both small and large group teaching. In practice, though, more than two minutes of class time may be required to complete the exercise, and as with all teaching techniques, the OMP should not be deployed unthinkingly. For example, it appears too monotonous to utilize an identical format in more than two or three consecutive classes, as reflected in the quickly declining student response rates over the course of two lecture series using an unchanged OMP. Despite this generally positive assessment of the OMP, surveys of classroom practice tentatively indicate that it is probably not especially extensively employed in UK and US higher education, chiefly due to ignorance of its existence and the belief that it would be too time-consuming to analyse the responses. An overall caveat to this article, though, is that the evidence cited is largely restricted to the experience of students and lecturers in the US and UK, and it is an open question whether the findings are equally applicable elsewhere.

Figure 1

 1 Figure 1 Number of students completing a one-minute paper over two lecture courses Note. ESH (British Economic and Social History) was a first-year lecture course; GW (The Global Web) a second-year course. Source. Student one-minute papers.

Table 1 Student feedback on the one-minute paper: Quantitative evidence

 1

	Lecture course	Mean Median Modal Year Sample Response
		score a score score		size	rate (%) b
	British Economic and	3.63	4	4	1	102	47.4
	Social History, 1870-1945
	The Global Web: The	3.64	4	4	2	29	70.7
	Development of the World
	Economy since 1950 c

Table 2 Use of the one-minute paper by York economists and international economic historians

 2

	York	EH.Teach
	economists subscribers

Notes. a

Respondents were given a short description of the OMP. b multiple answers could be selected. Source. Author's questionnaires.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Sue Grace, Nicola McDonald, Jacqueline O'Reilly, the editor of this journal and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on earlier drafts. He would also like to thank Kate Giles, Pauline Kneale, Nigel Lowe, Connie Malone and Russell Yates for supplying information, and the editors of EH.Teach (especially David Mitch) for their helpfulness. Copies of the Internet resources, oneminute papers and questionnaires cited are in the author's possession.


Veronica Burke

Ian Jones

Mike Doherty

come

Analysing student perceptions of transferable skills via undergraduate degree programmes V E RO N I C A B U R K E University of Luton, UK

I A N J O N E S University of Luton, UK

M I K E D O H E RT Y University of Luton, UK

A B S T R AC T Despite the assumption that 'transferable' skills are part and parcel of a graduate's portfolio, there is a lack of information about the extent to which such skills may be perceived by students to be valuable. Although the skills agenda has been at the forefront of Higher Education (HE) provision for some time, contemporary studies focus upon measurement issues and neglect the process aspects of skills learning and development. There is also a lack of research to support methodologies aimed at promoting optimal transfer of skills to work environments. It is apparent that there is a certain lack of clarity about the linkage between the nature of the learning environments that may be provided, and the types of outcomes that are purported to accrue. Accordingly, focusing on this context, the investigation had two objectives: first, to assess students' perceptions of the knowledge and skills acquired during their undergraduate degree programmes; and second, to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the strategies adopted in respect of learning transfer. At the University of Luton 116 Level Three students completed a questionnaire that covered all the major skill descriptors of the university's skills template. The results revealed statistically significant differences between the two closely related programmes in terms of perceived skills acquisition. Although the findings indicated that students were moderately satisfied with the skills acquired, a potential cause for concern was that one in five students did not perceive any transfer strategies to be effective.

K E Y WO R D S : lear ning transfer, skills development, student perceptions, transferable skills active learning in higher education

Introduction

The issue of skills development has been at the forefront of the Higher Education agenda for some time (CVCP, 1998). Over the last five years, there has been increasing awareness about the need for a post-16 education experience that provides breadth, flexibility and an understanding of the need for progressive skills development as students move into higher education. The introduction of Curriculum 2000, for example, heralded a move towards raising the profile of key skills within the context of combined vocational and generalist programmes. Skills relating to communication, application of number, information technology and selfreliance (amongst others) have been referred to as 'transferable', 'common core', and 'key', depending upon the particular initiative, organization or sector under consideration. This confusion over terminology has not done much to help practitioners differentiate skills between levels or sectors. Indeed, despite widespread efforts to address the skills agenda, there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support the efficacy of the initiatives that have been adopted, and a lack of research about the issue from the student perspective. In addition, the problem of 'learning transfer' appears to have received scant attention, regardless of the prevalent assumption that such skills are, in fact, transferable (Holmes, 1997).

The issue of transferable skills

There is a growing body of knowledge on the definition, categorization and application of key skills (Dench, 1995). A number of authors have developed generic frameworks which may be applied sequentially throughout an individual's life cycle comprising foundation level skills such as basic knowledge or personal traits, practical skills which include occupational knowledge or personal attributes such as communication or empathy, and advanced capabilities comprising generic competencies or 'meta-abilities' like leadership or teamworking (Butcher et al., 1997). One of the major trends in skills development has been a move towards experiential approaches combining knowledge and skills practice (Kolb et al., 1984). Hence the emphasis has moved towards the idea of students interacting with their environment by constantly reviewing experiences and linking fresh material to prior knowledge (Mumford, 1987).

In 1995, the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) suggested that graduates needed to be both specialists and generalists, able to work equally well individually and within a team. Since the report was published, there have been many debates about the issue of graduateness. Employers indicate that they want employees who can use their skills and abilities to develop the organization. They want colleagues who exhibit an ability to learn and add to their knowledge and skills in a variety of situations (Harvey et al., 1997). In short, they want people who can deploy higher level skills such as analysis, critique, synthesis and multi-layered communication to facilitate effective team-working (p. 2).

Although the idea of students as self-reliant learners is not new, consideration of this issue appears to be missing from many accounts on skills learning which are driven principally by attempts to clarify and determine the nature of the skills which may be appropriate (see Drew, 1998, for a review). Comparatively little research has been devoted to students' perceptions of the skills acquired and, consequently, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the efficacy of methodologies in promoting optimal skills development. Hence, the first objective of the study was to assess students' perceptions of the knowledge and skills acquired during their undergraduate programmes.

Learning transfer

The term 'learning transfer' refers to a student being able to apply what is learned during instruction to a different situation -usually the intended real performance (Pennington et al., 1995). Given the differences between the educational environment in which skills are learnt and the business settings in which skills are applied, transfer is arguably the crucial factor. However, the history of research in this area reveals cycles of strong claims and corresponding curricular changes, followed by failure to demonstrate transfer (Idol and Jones, 1991). Debates about the transfer of cognitive skills have focused around the issue of 'fidelity', that is, the extent to which tasks in the learning domain are similar to those in the real life situation. Once again, these considerations hold considerable importance for the HE domain, especially since contrasting approaches, apparent in the commercial sector, may either emphasize or consciously minimize the contrast between the learning domain and the application setting.

Transfer of learning has been considered from two perspectives, both of which have implications for the design and potential outcomes of programmes concerned with skills development. Anderson (1982) proposed that, in order for learning to be transferred from one situation to another, the tasks in the learning domain must closely replicate reality. Under this approach, knowledge acquired while learning the skill is encapsulated in procedures called production rules. Transfer of learning is said to occur when the tasks share similar production rules. This is in fact an argument for high fidelity, where there is a close match between task elements in the learning domain and the tasks required in the application setting (Anderson, 1982). In contrast, Bransford et al. (1979) have suggested that low fidelity is needed for transfer. This idea involves increasing the similarity between the cognitive processing requirements of the tasks in each situation. What is important therefore, are the cognitive processes involved in the tasks, not the tasks themselves. While it was originally assumed that an increase in fidelity would enhance transfer of learning, recent research indicates a more complex, non-linear relationship. As Holmes (1997) observes, despite the number of critical analyses which have highlighted the process aspects and associated learning issues (Gubbay, 1994), proponents of the skills project have avoided responding to such criticism (Griffin, 1994). Indeed, the idea that transfer just 'happens' has been so powerful an assumption as to be deemed beyond discussion (p. 134).

In 1997, Coopers and Lybrand were commissioned by the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the UK (CVCP) and the Department for Education and Employment (DFEE) to undertake a project to promote skills development in UK higher education institutions. In 1998, the final report noted that there was a dearth of empirical work about how particular kinds of HE experience impacted upon the individual contributions that graduates made in their first and subsequent employment (CVCP, 1998: 12-13). Whilst it is beyond the scope of this article to go into more detail, it appears that the problem of transfer has received scant attention. Research in this area appears to offer little or no guidance as to the optimum approaches, or the associated learning environments that may optimize the chances of focused learning. Indeed, the adoption of a clear theoretical paradigm would appear to hold considerable promise for both the research and evolution of the HE skills agenda. Accordingly, the second objective was to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the strategies adopted in respect of learning transfer.

In summary, this investigation had two objectives. The first was to assess students' perceptions of the knowledge and skills acquired during their undergraduate programme. The second objective was to evaluate perceived effectiveness of the strategies adopted in respect of learning transfer.

Methodology

Data collection was undertaken using a self-completion questionnaire: an appropriate method to collect quantitative data from a relatively dispersed sample whilst allowing for anonymity for respondents, potentially enhancing the reliability and validity of the data collected (Frankfort-Nachimas and Nachimas, 1996). The questionnaire consisted of three sections: They were then prompted by a series of further statements pertinent to the skill descriptors. For example, under 'information retrieval and handling', they were prompted by: 'Identify my own information needs to support problem solving.' All of the statements were edited from the University of Luton's Transferable Skills Position Statement (1997). A Likert scale, coded 'strongly agree' (= 1) to 'strongly disagree' (= 5), was used to identify the extent of students' perceived skill acquisition.

The Knowledge section consisted of two items: (1) how familiar the students were with the core knowledge base of their degree programme, and (2) if they understood the provisional and transient nature of knowledge. A Likert scale, as described for the Skills section above, was again used to identify the extent of perceived knowledge acquisition. Finally, students were also asked to list any other kinds of knowledge, other than those outlined above, that had been gained as a result of their degree programme.

The Learning Transfer section asked students to list up to three ways in which their degree programme had helped them to transfer learning from their course into other situations, for example, work or leisure activities. A Likert scale, coded 'very effective' (= 1) to 'not at all effective' (= 5), was used to help students identify the extent of perceived learning transfer.

The questionnaire was administered to final-year students at the University of Luton. The sample was taken from two courses, Sport Studies (SOF) and Sport and Exercise Science (SES). Both programmes purported to cover the full range of skills represented by the University of Luton skills template. Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants had the right to withdraw at any stage. 116 responses were obtained. The students were predominantly registered on BA Sport Studies (SOF -36.2%) and BSc Sport and Exercise Science (SES -57.8%) programmes. This amounted to approximately 60 percent and 70 percent of the cohort of Level Three SOF and SES students respectively. The questionnaire was administered by staff at the university during October/November 2003. Following standardized instructions, students were asked to complete the questionnaire at the beginning of either a lecture or seminar. Questionnaires were completed with the staff present, and were returned to staff immediately after completion.

Results

Objective one: To assess students' perceptions of the knowledge and skills acquired during their degree programmes. The mean response (n = 116) on the scale of 1-5 ('strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree') was 2.2 + 0.2 (mean + SD). Table 1 displays the mean and standard deviation for all of the questions, grouped by section.

The mean response (+ SD) on the scale of 1-5 ('strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree') was 2.3 + 0.5 and 2.1 + 0.4 (p < 0.05) for SES and SOF, respectively. Thus, on average, SOF had more favourable responses to the questionnaire than SES. In addition, there were six individual questions where SOF had significantly more favourable responses in comparison to SES (p < 0.05). These included three questions relating to communication and presentation, two questions relating to social development and interaction, and one question related to planning and problem solving.

Objective two: To evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies adopted in respect of learning transfer. Twenty-three students (20% of the sample) did not respond to the question concerning the transfer of learning from the degree programme to other situations (for example, work or leisure activities). Interestingly, 19 of the non-respondents on this question (83% of non-respondents) were from the SES programme. From those that did respond, the three most popular transfer of learning responses were 'communication -oral and written' (38%), 'interaction with others' (34.5%) and 'applied knowledge' (31%).

Discussion

Students' perceptions of the knowledge and skills acquired during their undergraduate degree programmes

The findings demonstrate that students perceive that they have acquired a variety of skills as a result of their undergraduate work. Given that the sample comprised of final-year students approaching the end of their programme of study, the results broadly support the idea of embedding skills in the HE curriculum (Fallows and Steven, 2000). A key factor identified was an apparent lack of awareness among some sport students of the need for interpersonal skills for employment. They did not appear to be able to communicate the qualities that they had to prospective employers and thus, employers did not perceive that students possessed such skills. It would appear that large numbers of students attain the relevant awards, but what they need is experience. This issue could be addressed in a number of ways, including more extensive use of work placements and sandwich degrees, as well as approaches which utilize course design and delivery to facilitate more opportunities for 'quality practice', to maximize the chances of skills application in the workplace. Sport Studies students had more favourable responses to six of the questions including three from the section on 'communication and presentation' and thus for this cohort at least, the results suggest differences in perception between SOF and SES students. This was a surprising result, since the full range of skills were purportedly embedded across both programmes of study. One explanation for this could be found in the 'scientific' vs. 'social science' deviation, for example SES students may have been more inclined towards skill sets incorporating statistical analyses or graphical data, as such skills are likely to be required more frequently in their programmes. This factor may also explain the SOF result, which indicated preferences for 'softer' skills, such as those associated with communication or social interaction. This finding notwithstanding, there is mounting evidence to indicate that team-working and communication skills are valued by employers and that this was especially important at middle management level (Graduate Recruitment and Development in the Sport and Recreation Industry Project, 1997). This not only highlights the importance of getting the skills agenda right, but somewhat flies in the face of many traditional approaches to HE curricula which focus upon the importance of technical or 'hard' skills and underemphasize the softer or process skills aspects (Silver, 1991).

The strategies adopted in respect of learning transfer Twenty percent of students in the sample (n = 23) did not respond to the question about learning transfer, with the majority of non-respondents (78%) from SES programmes. This may be a limitation of the instrument as only one question pertained to this area, but could amount to a serious concern, given the apparent lack of awareness about the issue on the part of the SES students. Arguably, all students ought to be aware of how their studies are promoting skills transfer -especially since the cohort comprised third-year students nearing the end of their programmes. This result points to inconsistencies both within and between the SOF and SES cohorts and underlines a need for further investigation to ascertain the efficacy of the adopted transfer strategies. This finding may also highlight a lack of clarity concerning the philosophy underpinning the application of methodologies to promote skills development, as an expressed and coherent link between programme aims, methodology and outcomes was not evident from the survey responses.

For the remaining students (n = 93), the three most popular responses related primarily to the interpersonal domain, namely 'communicationoral and written', 'interaction with others' and 'applied knowledge'. Once again however, there was less clarity concerning the perceived transfer of such skills, particularly amongst the SES students. Arguably, if students are applying their skills as a result of their studies, they ought to be aware of the process. Furthermore, given that the full range of transferable skills was embedded across both programmes, there may be a need to review transfer strategies in order to ensure they are clearly communicated and understood by students.

A note of caution needs to be introduced when assessing learning transfer, however. One limitation of the study may be that students find it difficult to assess the extent to which learning transfer has taken place given that they have yet to enter graduate employment. Therefore they are able to respond only in terms of perceived learning transfer. The findings also provide some support for the notion that more research is needed in the area of learning transfer and specifically, on the mechanisms by which skills may be acquired and subsequently transferred into alternative domains (Burke and Collins, 1998). Indeed, current research in this area offers little guidance about the consequences of particular course designs for learning, or about the circumstances under which transfer is most likely to occur. Thus, the underlying philosophy to be followed would seem to be a worthwhile consideration for students and tutors alike and the adoption of a clear theoretical paradigm to guide the process of course design would hold considerable promise for both research and evolution of the skills agenda.

Conclusions and recommendations

Students in both programmes perceived they had acquired a variety of transferable skills as a result of their studies, albeit that there were substantial differences within and between cohorts. A worrying finding was that a significant number of students (predominantly from the SES programme) did not respond to the question about learning transfer, although further investigation would be required to ascertain the reasons for this result.

The limitations of the study should be acknowledged. First, the questionnaire was used to measure students' perceptions of their skills development, and thus there were no opportunities to clarify these reactions. Another problem with questionnaires is that they cannot probe deeply into respondents' feelings and once they have been distributed, it is not possible to amend the items (Thomas and Nelson, 1990). The validity and reliability of the data collected and the response rates that were achieved depended, to a large extent, on the design of the questions, the structure of the questionnaire and the rigour of the piloting (Saunders et al., 2000). Thus recommendations for future work in this area would include the use of quantitative and qualitative methodologies to enable the strengths of both to be utilized (Smith, 1975).

A number of key messages emerge from the study. The results show that not all students perceived that they were developing the full range of transferable skills, as one cohort appeared to have acquired a different, more comprehensive, skills set. Hence, for this study at least, approaches that purportedly embed skills development within the curriculum do not appear to be working as well as they should. This raises the question of what kinds of learning environment may optimize opportunities for skills development. Arguably we need to move towards a clear focus upon the processes rather than the outcomes of skills development programmes so that we can establish a clear rationale for the use of one methodology over another. As this study focused upon final-year degree programmes, and there was significant variation in the skills purportedly acquired, it seems clear that we should develop more robust mechanisms for measuring and assessing skills development throughout the undergraduate experience. Given that a significant proportion of students are likely to enter employment unrelated to their primary degree discipline, it seems likely they may be deficient in certain aspects of the skills portfolio. Once again, this underlines a clear need to understand more about the mechanisms by which skills are optimally acquired, in order to facilitate diagnostic tests to identify and address perceived skills gaps sooner rather than later. As we have identified, there is a need for methodologies that are explicit in communicating the skills agenda. Without such direction, student learning may be left purely to chance, and thus we need to find more creative ways of communicating, developing and measuring skills on an ongoing basis. One example could be to link the process of course design to the issue of learning transfer, including consideration of 'fidelity', that is, the extent to which processes/tasks in the learning domain match those in the setting where the learning is to be applied. Such a direction would enable closer analysis of the mechanisms of learning transfer and a renewed focus upon the processes, rather than the outcomes of skills development programmes.

An additional area for future research involves investigation into students' perceptions of transferable skills using samples from a range of undergraduate programmes across all years. The study could also be extended by data collection from a variety of HE institutions to allow a comparative analysis between institutions. The approach taken here was 'embedded' (Yin, 1994), in that there was a relatively varied sample of respondents within the single institution. However, it does need to be recognised that different HE institutions have different approaches to skills development, and such differences need to be investigated. Potential problems of such an analysis do need to be recognized, however, given the wide variety of skills templates that have been adopted. This approach would be further enhanced by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Saunders et al., 2000) to allow for a degree of generalizability alongside attention to the individual case (Argyris et al., 1985) and facilitate investigation into the underlying reasons for student responses, including the perceived efficacy of certain methodologies in promoting perceived skills transfer.

Further research could examine perceptions of HE tutors and employers with regard to the methodologies utilized for skills development. For example, from the HE perspective, the variable of 'teaching style' may well be important in facilitating effective skills application and from the employer perspective, support for skills application in the workplace may also be a key issue. Further seems warranted to facilitate assessment of the importance of such variables in promoting skills learning and transfer.

  (1) Skills, (2) Knowledge and (3) Learning Transfer. The Skills section consisted of 19 questions covering four generic skill descriptors: (1) information retrieval and handling [six questions], (2) communication and presentation [five questions], (3) planning and problem solving [five questions], and (4) social development and interaction [three questions]. Under each of the skill descriptors, students were prompted by the statement: 'As an outcome of my degree programme to date, I can . . .'

Table 1 Mean scores and standard deviations

 1

	Skills Area

* Items in bold indicate a statistically significant difference between SES and SOF (p < 0.05)