Connecting Personal Development Planning (PDP) to a

theory of self-regulated learning

Norman Jackson Surrey Centre for Excellence in
Professional Training and Education

Introduction

The Progress File initiative is a unique teaching and learning project in UK higher education
(Jackson 2002a). The policy was developed by the sector, approved by the Board of Universities
UK and the Standing Conference of Principals, and is being promoted and supported through a
collaborative process involving Universities UK, SCOP, the Quality Assurance Agency and the
Learning and Teaching Support Network.

When implemented the Progress File will provide each student with a transcript - a record of their
learning and achievement and a means by which the student can monitor, build and reflect upon
their personal development (QAA 2001). The term Personal Development Planning (PDP) is
used to denote this process and HEIs are expected to have their own policies in place by
2005/06. The espoused benefits claimed for the Progress File are twofold: 1) to improve the
quality of information available about what people know and can do for the benefit of anyone who
needs to know; 2) to extend the repertoire of learning skills of students and enhance their self-
awareness and their capacity to communicate what they know and can do.

PDP is a particularly interesting development because it combines an ideology that values

certain types and ways of learning for the purpose of enhancing the economy, with the
educational belief that being able to learn from structured reflection and act on this personal
knowledge, is a good thing for both individuals and society.

Higher education is concerned with the mastery of complex learning. This has traditionally been
focused on disciplinary knowledge (Gibbons et al 1994) and the development of capacities to
use this knowledge. Whether we accept it or not, the world outside higher education relies much
more on the use of transdisciplinary knowledge (Gibbons et al 1994). Knowledge about teaching
across all subjects is transdisiplinary and students working in paid or voluntary work will be
working with this type of knowledge. Working with this type of knowledge does not rely
exclusively on the existence of codified knowledge to solve current and emergent problems that
are heavily contextualized. Rather, it seeks to harness the know-how embodied in current and
emergent practice residing in work teams, activity groups, networks and organisations. Curricula
and teaching that are designed to promote behaviours that are consistent with this world pay
particular attention to the processes of learning, particularly processes that foster capabilities and
attitudes for collaborative enquiry.

Jackson and Ward (2004) argue that the Progress File is the current solution to the problem of
representing (documenting, certifying and communicating by other means) students learning for
our complex/supercomplex world. The Progress File has the potential to embody the disciplinary
and transdisciplinary modes of knowledge formation and application and Personal Development
Planning provides an essential mechanism for improving self-awareness and the production of
personal representations and connections of these types of knowledge and learning.

Teachers often accuse those who create policies that impact on their teaching and students
learning of not basing policy on scientific evidence. This paper sets out to demonstrate that
there are well researched scientific theories of learning to which the policy of personal
development planning, can be connected.

What is PDP?

The policy statement for PDP (QAA 2000) defines it as 'a structured and supported process
undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and / or achievement
and to plan for their personal, educational and career development.' I was responsible for

1
creating this definition (in consultation with the HE community Jackson in press) and my
understanding of what is meant by the words is as follows:

structured means designed and intended;

supported means that it is valued and facilitated by teachers and other professionals who promote
and support student learning;
process means that, while PDP is based on a simple learning process, a strategy for promoting
PDP through students programmes may involve a collection of processes that are connected in
some way rather than a single continuous process;
personal, educational and career development conveys the message that this supports
development of the whole person.

Underlying this conceptualisation of PDP is that it is about building self-identity, self-awareness and self-
efficacy. But regardless of the rhetoric that surrounds PDP, the primary objective is to broaden
the repertoire of students skills and capabilities to learn so that they are able to:
learn in a wider variety of ways and a wider range of contexts and be conscious of the way that they
are learning;
recognise, judge and evidence their own learning and the progress they are making;
draw upon and use their expanded personal knowledge to achieve particular goal;
review, plan and set new goals;
action their learning in ways that are consistent with their planning: their planning being a
source of energy and motivation;
create new opportunities for themselves as a result of their new personal knowledge.

This poses a major challenge for HE teachers many of whom are not sympathetic to notions of
learning beyond what is accepted in their discipline and which they have experienced
themselves. Teacher conceptions of teaching fall into two main types (Lueddeke 2003), teachers
who see their primary role as transmitting concepts of knowledge (information transfer / teaching
focus) and those teachers whose approach to teaching is essentially to help students develop or
change conceptions (conceptual change / student focus). In terms of underpinning learning
theory the former is based on behaviourist principles while the latter assumes a constructivist
approach. Facilitating learning in ways that are consistent with PDP requires teachers to work
with the full range of conceptions about teaching and learning (e.g. Biggs 2003, Trigwell 2000,
Houghton 2002). In particular, it requires teachers to adopt constructivist conceptions that focus
on:
what the student does (Biggs 2003 level 3)
what the student perceives (Trigwell, 2001 level 4)
how the student manages what the student does, initially within frameworks created by the
teacher, but ultimately negotiating or creating his/her own framework (Houghton 2002).

Houghton believes that this latter conception is fundamental to supporting learning through PDP
and to the objective of developing real learner autonomy.

Students can work very hard, actively and effectively, doing what they are told to do. This is
not quite spoon-feeding, the students are doing the work, but they arent taking responsibility
for deciding what to do. They can learn a great deal, but are not be able to learn
independently when they leave university and do not have a teacher to tell them what to do.
Managing ones own learning is therefore an important ability. Indeed I would argue that it
is the ultimate objective of HE, that graduates should be autonomous individuals capable of
advancing their own learningIt involves students in reflective planning of their own
learning.

When viewed from the perspective of teacher perceptions, we can see how challenging the idea
of PDP is. For implementation to be successful PDP requires teachers to adopt the role of
facilitator of students learning (that constructed by each individual) rather than a transmitter of
knowledge developed and synthesised by the teacher. By the same token it is also a significant
driver for encouraging teachers to think about this way of learning and teaching.

Another dimension of PDP that is worth highlighting here and one that is also challenging for
teachers, is its potential to value and foster the intrinsic motivations for learning. Recognising and
valuing an individuals motivations for learning seems to have been abandoned in an education

2
system that is driven by the widespread belief that students only learn if they are assessed,
typically in ways determined by the teacher. Self-motivation is what fuels learning throughout life
when there are no assessment hurdles to jump through and we cannot claim we are preparing
students for the life of learning they will encounter if we do not recognise this.

What types of learning is PDP intended to promote?

PDP attempts to connect and draw benefit from reflection (reviewing and evaluating) -recording
(self-evidencing of learning)- action planning (specific intentions for doing and learning) and
helping students to align their actions to what they think they need to do to develop/improve. All
these things require students to think and behave in particular ways.

When expressed as a set of actions PDP processes contain a set of interconnected activities
namely:
thinking and planning how to achieve objectives or general change;
it can also be about stimulating imaginations and thinking creatively about future
possibilities and choices
doing / acting on plans learning through the experience of doing with greater self-
awareness;
recording thoughts, ideas, experiences, both to understand better and to evidence the
process and results of learning;
reviewing reflections on what has happened, making sense of it all;
evaluating making judgements about self and own work and determining what needs to
be done to develop/improve/move on;
using the personal knowledge and sense making derived from PDP to do something
different and / or change behaviours or future actions

From this we can generate a process-based definition of PDP i.e. Approaches to learning that
connect planning (specific goals for learning), doing (aligning actions to learning goals),
recording (self-evidencing learning) and reflection (reviewing and evaluating learning and
actions).

Thinking PDP frameworks and processes are intended to encourage people to think in
certain ways. Firstly, they are intended to encourage people to take stock of situations /
contexts, create/generate possibilities and choices for future actions; and evaluate those
choices to make decisions about what to do. Secondly they encourage people to be more
self-aware about what they are doing when they act on their plans and thirdly they encourage
contemplative processes aimed at reviewing and evaluating events and experiences for the
purpose of learning.

Doing The idea of learning through reflection is meaningless unless it is rooted in the
experiences of learning or past experiences of learning. Learning through the experience of
doing enhances self-awareness and self-motivation. In the context of PDP the doing is
connected to the action planning. To obtain benefit people have to be conscious of what they
were doing

Planning the capacity to plan for change and then align subsequent actions to personal
plans is an essential part of the process. However, life is very complicated and such plans
should be seen as guides to be modified and refined rather than checklists that have to be
adhered to. This requires people to be conscious of the effectiveness of their strategies in
realising their goals and to plan in a way that enables changes to be made should this be
necessary.

Recording The extent to which recording is a feature of PDP will vary according to the context.
We naturally learn through reflection without recording anything but the discipline of recording
helps us understand what we have learnt and provides us with evidence and a personal record
of our own development. Developing the habit and skill of codifying ones own learning is a useful
skill in a world that creates new explicit knowledge from the tacit knowledge of people (Nonaka
and T). But the requirement to keep records can become the driver for PDP and lead to a
bureaucracy that impedes learning and stifles enthusiasm. care must be taken to define the

3
rationale for recording information and how this is integrated into learning processes and
facilitative conversations with tutors.

Reflecting (Reviewing and Evaluating) - The idea of metacognition or self-awareness. (how

did I? why did I? how will I?) is central to the idea of learning in this way. PDP can
therefore be thought of as a way of building knowledge about self and through this
a stronger sense of self-identity. The idea of evaluating requires people to make
judgements about their own learning and performances. It requires people to
develop the knowledge and skills in creating and using reference points and
feedback mechanisms in order to enable themselves to make evaluations that are
realistic and helpful.

The idea of learning through reflection is central to self-awareness. Reflection is a necessary part
of the process of trying to assimilate and understand new knowledge and to relate it to what is
already known modifying existing knowledge in the process and creating new meaningful
learning. Reflective learning will already be incidental in the academic activities of most students
but deliberate strategies for its use will make students more conscious of it so that it can become
an integral part of their approach to learning. PDP tends to emphasise reflection on action and
performance after the event or experience. In reality reflective deliberation occurs in the planning
stage of the process (reflecting on similar situations in the past in order to plan for the future).

Using personal knowledge - The strength of PDP is that it is a method of creating

knowledge about self. Ultimately the real benefit is to the individuals who create this
knowledge and who are able to draw upon it and use in ways that are meaningful and useful
to themselves. Such knowledge might be used in an instrumental way eg being able to relate
personal knowledge and skills to the needs of en employer. Or it may be used in more
profound ways to modify conceptions, attitudes, behavioiurs that lead to personal change.

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the actions and behaviours that underlie PDP.

trigger and motivation doing something

to do something eg a learning activity

creation of personal records of

learning and the experiences of
learning for the purpose of new
thinking about learning
doing something
self-evaluation using records as
prompt for reflection and the
formulation of new actions

In summary, PDP is a process with a purpose to encourage people to learn about themselves
and to act up on this learning by fostering and supporting the habit of personal change. The
processes, actions and outcomes described above can be connected in the manner shown in
Figure 1.

Evidence that people learn through the processes that PDP promotes

A key question for the policy on PDP is whether the actions, attitudes and behaviours that PDP
promotes do result in positive learning outcomes and improved achievement. While there is an
extensive anecdotal and self-reported literature to this effect, scientific evidence derived from
researcher manipulated study, is hard to come by. Gough et al (2003) have mapped the field of
knowledge relevant to the research question what evidence is there that processes that
connect reflection, recording, planning and action improve student learning?

An initial trawl of the English language world literature since 1982 resulted in 14,271 potentially
relevant studies being identified. The abstracts and titles of these documents were evaluated

4
using a range of criteria developed by a PDP user group in collaboration with the research team
and 982 documents were identified as being worthy of further analysis. 813 of these documents
were accessed and read and evaluated using the criteria developed and of these 158 documents
were subject to more rigorous analysis and key wording to produce a map of the research field.
Twenty five experimental researcher-manipulated studies, considered to provide the best
research evidence on the impact of this type of learning, were subject to detailed analysis and
data extraction. Nineteen of the experimental studies had a moderate or high quality rating using
quality assessment criteria developed by the research team. Seventeen of these studies
provided evidence of positive impact on students learning.

What theory might we apply to the process of learning that underlies PDP?
PDP attempts to engage students in thinking about the experience of learning as well as the
results of learning. It also encourages them to engage in actions to improve their learning.
There are a number of theories that might be used to explain partly or fully the processes,
actions and results that flow from the strategic process of thinking and planning; doing;
recording experiences, learning and performance; reviewing evaluating experience,
learning and performance and using this personal knowledge in future actions.

All educationalists are familiar with the seminal work of Schon (1983) and Kolb (1984), and the
Kolb learning cycle is the best known theory to explain how we learn through the experience of
doing. Many discussions of PDP appeal to the Kolb model (the best known version of which is
shown in Figure 2).

Figure 2 Kolb (1984) experiential learning cycle

1. concrete experience

4. active 2. reflective observation

experimentation
3. abstract
conceptualisation

The central propositions in the theory are that we learn from concrete experiences (1) by
reflecting on those experiences from different perspectives (2) and reform our perceptions and
learn through this process (3) and then apply this learning to new situations (4). Active
experimentation becomes the starting point for a new concrete experience so the process can be
modelled as a continuous helical spiral rather than a single cycle. But the Kolb conceptualisation
of a learning pathway does not always map on to real learning pathways and it doesnt map very
well onto the idealised representation of a PDP learning pathway (Figure 1).

Marsick and Watkins (1997) developed a theoretical framework and a model for understanding
informal and incidental learning in the context of problem solving. When learning takes place
from experience, under non-routine conditions people frame the situation they encounter
(diagnosis) by using their judgement based on previous experiences and knowledge (problem
framing). In order to develop a strategy to deal with the situation, they view the situation through
the lens of the context, assessing the constraints and limitations of the context against the
feasibility of each solution (contextualisation). Once a strategy is developed (invention) people
may need to learn how to produce the strategy (learning to produce invention). The
implementation of the strategy (production) leads to intended and unintended consequences.
People then embed into their consciousness assumptions about whether or not the strategy
worked. Because so much of the process is tacit or unexamined the potential for error is great. To
avoid this and improve the effectiveness of the problem solving process Marsick and
Watkins( 1997) identified the need for critical reflection throughout the process. People who learn
best are those that ask challenging questions about what they are doing: a process that can be
assisted by colleagues and mentors. Cseh et al (2000) adapted and reconceptualised the model
for informal and incidental learning developed by Marsick and Watkins (1997) to emphasise the
centrality of context in the framing of experiences and work situations.

5
These theories offer a number of advantages over the Kolb view of experiential learning in the
context of PDP learning processes. Firstly, they recognise that PDP learning is triggered by
something (eg the need to satisfy a requirement to complete a portfolio) and a problem (how do I
do it and get good marks for it/ or do enough to pass!). Students learning is also undertaken
within contexts (e.g. disciplines, skills modules, personal tutor systems, personal circumstances)
and these have a strong influence on their learning behaviours. Another advantage of the model
is that it explicitly recognises that people have to invent things that working with problems
including those generated by the need to engage with PDP is an inherently creative process
involving imagination and experimentation. A third advantage is that the model recognises the
need for critical self-reflection throughout the process and the need for external challenge and
facilitation e.g. via teachers and tutors.

Theory of self-regulated learning

While the theories outlined above provide some insights into the patterns of learning which PDP
is intended to promote they are deficient in providing a comprehensive explanation for what
happens when students learn through the strategic process that good PDP frameworks provide.
The self-regulated learning model (Zimmerman 2000, Zimmerman and Schunk 2003) addresses
these central concerns.

Discussion

The model of self-regulated learning provides a scientific explanation of the processes that
underlie PDP and helps us understand how the actions, behaviours, attitudes and emotions of
individuals engaging in PDP learning processes might be connected. There appears to be a
good correlation between the key actions and behaviours in the PDP model of learning and
those of self-regulated learning (Figure 4). But the model of self-regulated learning provides
much greater detail of the thinking processes, motivations, values and belief systems that
underlie PDP. It provides a more balanced and holistic view of this type of strategic learning and
problem working process than has previously been demonstrated through theoretical modeling.
As such it provides us with a useful scientific analytical tool with which to evaluate the different
types of PDP processes we create. The following observations can be made.

PDP processes tend to focus on the instrumental features of action planning, record keeping and
reflection on action and performance. The other important features of self-regulated learning are
often implicit.

There is often little consideration given to the richness of the forethought process and the
underlying motivations, values and beliefs that underpin the sense of self-efficacy that drives the
whole process. PDP offers a real opportunity to value the intrinsic motivations of learners yet we
see PDP being driven by the extrinsic motivation of teacher assessment which takes no account
of the personal motivations that drive individuals. This runs counter to the ideal of preparing
students for a world in which their personal motivations will be far more important in securing
their own success in life than any external motivations.

Forethought is also the home of imagination (idea generation) and creative thinking (how own or
other peoples ideas might be used). If we are to nurture imagination and creativity in students
learning this should be explicit in both PDP and self-regulation models of learning. Imagination is
a source of personal energy that motivates us to do something in a particular way. The ability to
imagine goals and impacts and then imagine interesting ways of achieving these things is
important to sustaining the motivation to learn and do and fuels self-regulated behaviour. We can
of course encourage students to develop creative habits of thinking (thinking divergently as well
as convergently) through the use of creative thinking techniques (DeWulf and Baillie 1999 list a
number). Thus extending the potential of forethought to be useful to subsequent actions and
performance.

The doing (action and performance) part of the self-regulation model distinguishes many sub-
processes that are implicit in under-theorised PDP practices notions of self-instruction, help-

6
seeking and using the environment to create resources for learning. These are all crucial in
problem-working throughout life and they are rarely explicitly recognised in PDP models for
learning. Doing is the home of creativity in action (making use of own or other peoples ideas).

The process of engaging with emergent problems in real time, the structuring of the environment
to create resources for learning, the adaptation and transfer of ideas to new contexts, the juggling
of numerous tasks and the nurturing of relationships are all manifestations of creativity in action.
These things all rely on self-efficacy and personal motivation to sustain them.

Comparing own performance and attributing causal significance to results requires evaluation
against criteria, standards or previous performance to what is good/poor performance attributed
to? The extent to which we provide students with the knowledge and skills to do this and the
opportunities for practising self-evaluation are quite variable in PDP processes.

Emotions like anger (resentment, annoyance, hostility and even outrage), sadness (dejection/
depression, flatness, energyless, loneliness), fear (anxiety, misgiving, apprehension) and
enjoyment (contentment, satisfaction, pride and even pleasure) are all part and parcel of
everyday learning. But higher education, with its focus on the development of rational/analytical
mind, tends to ignore the emotional dimensions of learning. PDP provides an opportunity to put
emotions back into learning within contexts that are meaningful to the learner and to
acknowledge that learning is an emotional business.

How we feel about something has a major effect on whether we want to pursue something or
abandon it. The interplay of emotions, beliefs, actions and contexts are complex and
unpredictable but we need to be conscious of them as they will impact on our decision making
processes. The self-regulatory model acknowledges these things in a way that PDP models
often do not. Golemans (1996) book on emotional intelligence depicts a world in which the
capacity to cope with life is strongly dependent on attitudes of mind that have little to do with the
thinking rational part of the brain and more to do with emotional, non-rational and intuitive brain.
The roots of self-efficacy, our senses of personal and professional satisfaction with what we have
done and our willingness to adapt in the future, lie in these attitudes of mind. If we are to improve
our ability to promote personal knowledge of these things through the higher education
experience then we need to develop PDP strategies and evaluation criteria that clearly address
and work with emotional intelligence.

The map of self-regulation shown in Figure 3 can be used to evaluate PDP implementation
models to identify the aspects of learning, behaviour and attitudes that a particular strategy is
seeking to develop. The map can be used as a tool to:

aid professional conversations about teaching and learning

design/review tool when planning a curriculum or learning process
aid the design and review of PDP processes
help students evaluate their own thinking processes, motivations, behaviours, attitudes and
actions.

7
 Figure 4 Map showing how PDP subprocesses relate to the subprocesses within the self-regulation model
of learning (Zimmerman 2000 and Zimmerman and Schunk 2003).

Actions/behaviours in Actions/behaviours in What people do and think

personal self-regulated
development learning
planning
Thinking and FORETHOUGHT Self-regulated learners must analyse tasks in order to set
planning Task analysis appropriate goals and plan strategically how they will be
attained.
Includes imagination and Goal setting Specification of intended actions and outcomes.
creativity Learners need to be able to define and work towards
Task strategies general and specific goals.
Methods of learning that are matched to specific tasks.
Capacities to imagine and visualise different ways of
achieving goals are important.
Thinking and planning Self-motivational beliefs Self regulating learners must be self-motivating and be able
to sustain their motivation. The use of mental imagery is a
This important aspect of good way of creating and sustaining a motivational
PDP is weakly articulated framework.
in many PDP models Self-efficacy Beliefs about having the means to learn or perform
effectively. eg master a difficult concept, acquire a body
Includes imagination and of knowledge in the time available
creativity Outcome expectations Beliefs about the ultimate ends of performance eg a
positive/negative view about the likely impacts of
teaching
Intrinsic interest in work Genuine interest in the work
Goal orientation Able to focus on goals and not be distracted
Doing (performing) PERFORMANCE Able to teach self.
Self-control Able to use mental imagery to visualise and adjust
Self-instruction performance
Use of imagery Able to manage own time in complex multitasking
Time management situations
Task strategies Able to implement strategies
Help-seeking Seek help when necessary
Environmental structuring Able to utilise the resources in the environment and
structure the environment to acquire resources
Recording Self-observation Thinking about own performance, the conditions that
experiences, Cognitive monitoring surround it and the effects that it produces.
learning and Self-recording Recording observations and evaluations of own actions
performance in and performance
action
Reviewing evaluating SELF-REFLECTION Comparing own performance and attributing causal
experience, Self-Judgement significance to results requires evaluation against
learning and Self-evaluation criteria, standards or previous performance
performance Attribution To what is good/poor performance attributed to?
after action Attribution of errors to a fixed ability cause learners to
Self-theorising react negatively, while attribution of errors to ineffective
learning strategies can be a source of motivation to
change strategies.
Making sense of experiences and learning through
self theory.
Self-Reaction Courses of action that result in satisfaction and positive
Self-satisfaction effect are pursued. Self-regulated learners condition their
satisfaction on reaching their goals.
Using this personal Adaptive-Defensive Capacity/willingness to modify self-regulatory
knowledge in inferences approaches during subsequent efforts to learn or
future actions. perform. Adaptive inferences direct a person to new and
potentially better forms of behaviour. Defensive
inferences inhibit personal development.

8
Autodidactic theory a powerful ally to self-regulation

The arguments for connecting PDP to the self-regulation model of learning are cogent but we
need to have a vision of other worlds of learning that lie outside formal
education settings in the world of work that lies at the edge of chaos
(Stacey, 2000). A world that only makes sense if you view it through the
lens of complexity theory1. The model of self-regulated learning is still very
much applicable to this world but this conception of learning is enhanced if
it connected to the concept of the autodidactic learner (Tremblay, 2000).
Tremblays model of the autodidactic (self-instructed) learner (shown in
Figure 5) incorporates the self-regulating model of Zimmerman. It offers us
an insight into a learning objective for PDP that lies beyond higher
education.

Figure 5 Representation of the autodidactic model of learning (Tremblay 2000).

The process develops without prior condition
Knowledge emerges through action and the individual is open to
recognising and exploiting its value
The individual works with the process heuristically

emergent process

individual planned and

unplanned
outcomes

The individual and the environment

The individual creates her own rules and vocabulary for are reciprocal determinants
learning The individual gains knowledge
The individual is strongly self-regulating through a complex, diversified and
expanding web of resources

An autodidactic process is heuristic, iterative and contextual (individual meta-learning). Situations

are not predetermined they may be conditions of coincidence (a stochastic condition). The
learning project does not develop in a linear way and the actions necessary for the realization of
the task are not presented in a sequential and predictable manner. The autodidactic process
appears to operate differently from problem-management or problem-solving processes.

Knowledge emerges through action (process). Action/reflection, practice/theory,

learning/teaching can emerge in the same place and time. It is a continuous experiment in which

1
Complexity theory is a cluster of ways of thinking that have developed from branches of `new science concerned with
the behaviour of natural systems, such as Chaos Theory and Quantum Physics (Tosey, 2002a). Complexity Theory is
useful for explaining the apparent illogicality of human systems. It offers a radical challenge to notions of prediction and
control (e.g. `no individual or group of individuals can be in control of the whole system. This departs from the dominant
discourse in which the only alternative to an individual being in control is thought to be anarchy (Stacey et al 2000 p.124).

Complexity refers to the condition of the universe which is integrated and yet too rich and varied for us to understand in
simple common mechanistic or linear ways. We can understand many parts of the universe in these ways but the larger
and more intricately related phenomena can only be understood by principles and patterns - not in detail. Complexity deals
with the nature of emergence, innovation, learning and adaptation (Santa F Group, 1996; cited in Battram, 1998 p. v)
and more intricately related phenomena can only be understood by principles and patterns - not in detail. Complexity deals
with the nature of emergence, innovation, learning and adaptation (Santa F Group, 1996; cited in Battram, 1998 p. v)

9
action and reflection share the same space. Theory (self-theory) develops from action and the
knowledge that emerges through action. This is an appropriate conception of the way that
people approach learning as a sustained experiment in which action and reflection on action and
the shaping of future actions share the same space.

Networking (general methodology). Adults who teach themselves invest a lot of time and energy
in identifying the resources they need to learn. Networking is a central methodological tool for this
type of learning project. Typically they establish a network in the immediate environment and
grow the network connecting with increasing levels of expertise and/or broadening enquiry
through different expertise advancing their knowledge in the process. The network reflects the
knowledge needs of the autodidactic learner and what is available to the learner. Resources that
are not originally educational in their nature become educational through the processes
constructed by the learner. This is a core working methodology in learning through work
situations.

Organizing circumstances (context). Autodidactic learners are dependent on the elements for
learning that are available in their immediate environment and learning projects are shaped
through taking this into account. Autodidactic learners often do not plan to use particular
resources but see and exploit opportunities as they arise. Autodidactic learners seize every
opportunity that chance offers to learn.

It can be argued that the ultimate objective of the approach to learning that PDP is trying to foster
is to encourage people to acquire the habits of learning that are consistent with the conception of
the autodidactic learner in the complex transdisciplinary world of learning. This conception of
people engaging in learning is quite different from conceptions of learners and learning held by
most HE teachers yet, if they pause to reflect, it is the world that they themselves inhabit.

Acknowledgements
The paper was originally prepared as part of the Higher Education Academys programme of
work to support the introduction of personal development planning. I am grateful to Paul Tosey
and Rob Ward for comments on early versions of the manuscript and to Professor Barry
Zimmerman for his encouragement and for sharing some of his current thinking and ongoing
research.

References
Biggs, J.B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: The Open
University.
Cseh M, Watkins K and Marsick V (2000) Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. In G
A Straka (ed) Conceptions of self-directed learning, theoretical and conceptual
considerations. New York, Waxman 59-74.
Dewulf, S. and Baillie C, (1999), CASE Creativity in Art, Science and Engineering: how to foster
creativity, Department for Education and Employment.
Ertmer P A and Newby T J (1996) The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated and reflective.
Instructional Science, 24, 1-24.
Gibbons, M. Limoges, C. Nowotny, H. Schwartzman, S. Scott, P and Trow. M (1994), The New
Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
(1999 edition) Sage.
Goleman, D. (1996), Emotional Intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ, Bloomsbury.
Gough, D.A., Kiwan, D., Sutcliffe, S., Simpson D. and Houghton N (2003) A systematic map and
synthesis review of the effectiveness of personal development planning for improving student
learning. Report on-line at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?
page=/reel/review_groups/EPPI/LTSN/LTSN_intro.htm
Jackson N J (2002) Personal Development Planning Curriculum Guide at
(http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre projects and curriculum).
Jackson N J (2003) Building capacity to support PDP: An optimistic vision of large scale and
complex change. In D Gosling (ed) Personal Development Planning. SEDA Paper 115 p37-48

10
Jackson N J and Ward R (in press) A fresh perspective on Progress Files a way of representing
complex learning and achievement in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education.
Houghton, W (2002) Promoting constructive alignment through programme specification and
subject benchmarks. Paper presented at the Imaginative Curriculum Symposium
Constructive Alignment in Action, November 2002 on-line at
http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/index.asp?id=17721
Kolb D (1984) Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
Lueddeke G R (2003) Professionalising Teaching Practice in Higher Education: a study of
disciplinary variation and teaching scholarship. Studies in Higher Education 28, 213-228
Marsick V J and Watkins K E (1997) Lessons from informal and incidental learning. In J Burgyne
and M Reynolds (eds) Management learning: integrating perspectives on theory and practice
295-311 London Sage.
QAA 2002 Guidelines for the HE Progress File (www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/
progfileHE/contents.htm 25th November 2002).
Schunk D H and Zimmerman B J (1994) Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and
educational applications Hillside NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schunk D H and Zimmerman B J (1997) Social origins of self-regulated competence.
Educational Psychologist 32, 195-208.
Schunk, D H and Zimmerman B J (1998) Self-regulated learning: from teaching to self-reflective
practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Stacey R D (2000) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: the Challenge of
Complexity, Routledge.
Tremblay N A, (2000) Autodidactism: an exemplary model of self-directed learning. In G A Straka
(ed) Conceptions of self-directed learning, theoretical and conceptual considerations. New
York, Waxman p207-220.
Trigwell, K. (2001) Professionalism in practice: the role of research. Institute of Learning and
Teaching Annual Conference, York, July, http://www.ilt.ac.uk/
Zimmerman B J (2000) Self-regulatory cycles of learning. In G A Straka (ed) Conceptions of self-
directed learning, theoretical and conceptual considerations. New York, Waxman p221-234
Zimmerman B J (2003) Self-regulating Intellectual Processes and Outcomes: A social cognitive
perspective. In D Y. Dai and R J Sternberg (eds) Motivation, emotions and cognition:
Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Version 1 September 2003

Version 2 January 2005

11