Emphasis on Student Learning and Experience

The previous discussion on graduate management education denotes a significant slant towards student learning and experience. This pedagogical shift to a student or learner-centred approach, focused primarily on student learning experience and quality of teaching, was mooted in the late 1960s by expressions of dissatisfaction of student higher education experience in most parts of the western world. Boud (2006) argues that a core belief behind student-centredness is the centrality of the learner, premised on providing opportunities for students to determine what they learn and how they interpret the associated experiences, which is a view supported by O’Neill and McMahon (2005) and Biggs (1996). The notion of student-centredness is anchored on transferring meaningful, rather than absolute, control to the student, a concept that can easily be misinterpreted by both student and practitioner-tutor in a graduate management environment, which sometimes results in dissatisfaction even when applied ‘correctly’. The caveat here is that although students are, in principle, able to exercise choice in determining what and how they want to learn, which is particularly pertinent in graduate management education, this ‘freedom of choice’ needs to be enacted within the boundaries of the learning objectives of the module, facilitated by the practitioner-tutor. In this respect, McConnell (2006) stresses the importance of establishing relationships within teaching and learning interactions to promote learning. Therefore, a collaborative and supportive environment that engenders mutual respect and openness, supported by a facilitative and non-judgmental approach eases the potential anxieties experienced by adult students, and builds their confidence (Fazel, 2013). Such a safe environment provides the conditions necessary

to trigger interest and learning, while the conversations with the practitioner-tutor help to connect knowledge from everyday life to what is taught in the graduate management programme.

Literature on student-centred teaching and learning takes a number of different pedagogical orientations, although these are generic in nature, rather than being specific to graduate management education. Nevertheless, these perspectives are useful for understanding the concept. Boud (2006) and O’Neill and McMahon (2005) emphasise the autonomy of the learner, while Hase and Kenyon (2000) and Talbot and Lilley (2014) focus on the practical application of knowledge beyond the classroom. Both views resonate with the motivations of adult students pursuing graduate management education. However, Merriam (2001b) critiques this manner of adult learning as being seemingly individualised in its focus when in reality adults, particularly in graduate management education, actually learn best within a socially- constructed context leveraging on both peers and the practitioner-tutor during teaching and learning interactions. Taken to the extreme, such a focus on the individual learner may erode the importance of learning from peers, where every student, particularly adults who are practitioners themselves, offers unique and rich perspectives that add value to the learning experience of the class as a whole. Lester and Costley (2010) and Gureckis and Markant (2012) reinforce this position by emphasising the inseparable role of the teacher, or teaching support, as part of teaching and learning interactions. This reinforces the role of the practitioner-tutor collaborating with the practitioner student in teaching and learning interactions, as argued by Ramsden (2008) and Medland (2016) in the previous section on non-

traditional students. The value of collective learning cannot be understated in adult learning, or more specifically graduate management education, as it is synonymous to the way in which these students learn and grow in the workplace.

There are also some very practical issues that need to be contended with in relation to student-centred teaching and learning. Ashwin, Abbas, and McLean (2015) argue that at the macro level, marketization will drive larger higher education intakes to offset the effects of the cuts in university funding. The associated increase in student numbers, and therefore potentially larger classes, is likely to cause a lean towards more lectures and exams, rather than small group work and work-based assignments. The resulting pressure on churning out numbers and bell curves that discourage more qualitative approaches to teaching and learning interactions may likely create additional tension between academic and administrative requirements, as managerialism determines how higher education institutions are run. Hence, implementation will inevitably be challenged by resource availability, prioritisation and allocation, as well as the prevailing mental models of students, faculty, and administrators.

My own view, informed by literature, is that the term student-centredness already has so many perspectives in literature, it can be safe to assume that practitioner students too will have various understandings of the ways in which they conceptualise teaching and learning interactions with their practitioner-tutors. Furthermore, Ashwin (2012) and Ramsden (2008) caution that the proceeding changes to curriculum and pedagogy design to address such student expectations have blurred interpretations of student-

centredness, thereby impacting how these approaches could be implemented in a sustainable and realistic manner. That said, neither the practitioner-tutor nor the student holds the monopoly in teaching and learning interactions, particularly in graduate management education. Rather, as O’Neill and McMahon (2005) aptly argue, it is an interdependence borne out of mutual respect and responsibility that adds value to teaching and learning interactions. Nevertheless, mismatched expectations of teaching and learning interactions, between practitioner-tutor and students, will inevitably impact how such part-time students pursuing graduate management education conceptualise their teaching and learning interactions with the practitioner-tutor as being ‘effective’.

3

Chapter Three Phenomenography – Ways of Understanding