140 likes | 298 Views
SOLSTICE & CLT Conference 2014. Which way works better? A comparison of two forms of PDP initiative in a first year psychology curriculum. Linda Kaye 1 , Elizabeth Bates 2 & Susan Elliot 2 1 Edge Hill University, 2 University of Cumbria. 5 th & 6 th June 2014. Employability Agenda.
E N D
SOLSTICE & CLT Conference 2014 Which way works better? A comparison of two forms of PDP initiative in a first year psychology curriculum. Linda Kaye 1, Elizabeth Bates2 & Susan Elliot 2 1 Edge Hill University, 2 University of Cumbria 5th & 6th June 2014
Employability Agenda • Enhanced fees: • Employability expectations (Bates & Kaye, 2014) • Career-focused motivations (Kaye & Bates, under review) • Staff perceptions of “employability” role (Bates & Kaye, under review)
PDP context • Multi-dimensional concept • What actually is it? • How is it best implemented?
PDP in practice • Models (QAA, 2009): • Discrete • Linked • Embedded • Integrated • Extended • Resources?
Which way works better? Edge Hill University University of Cumbria Embedded model PDP activities within all first year modules • Linked model (some elements of Integrated) • Stand-alone first year PDP module
Why is this important? • Student satisfaction relating to employability expectations/motivations • Other factors on satisfaction? • Approaches to learning • Motivation
Methodology PDP indicators PDP indicators Awareness Awareness Attitudes Attitudes Intention Intention Motivation Satisfaction Approaches to Learning Time 1 (October 2013) Time 2 (March 2014)
Findings- Changes in PDP PDP indicators PDP indicators t(56) = 4.37, p < .001 Awareness Awareness t(56) = 1.44, p = .156 Attitudes Attitudes t(56) = 1.31, p = .795 Intention Intention
Findings- Embedded PDP PDP indicators PDP indicators t(35) = 6.29, p < .001 Awareness Awareness t(35) = .01, p = .989 Attitudes Attitudes t(35) = 1.04, p = .305 Intention Intention
Findings- Linked PDP PDP indicators PDP indicators t(20) = .12, p = .904 Awareness Awareness t(20) = 2.20, p <.05 Attitudes Attitudes t(20) = 4.14, p < .01 Intention Intention
Findings PDP change scores Satisfaction β = -.26, p =.065 Awareness β = .05, p =.715 Attitudes β = .19, p =.136 Intention Motivation β = .26, p =.166 Intrinsic β =.20, p = .230 Task value Self-efficacy β = .34, p < .05 Approaches to Learning β = -.09, p = .515 Surface β = .17, p =.305 Deep
Implications • Some indication that PDP provision was effective in enhancing awareness overall (particularly for Embedded) • Linked appeared to enhance PDP attitudes and intentions • Self-efficacy as key factor
If you’re interested…. Bates, E. A., &Kaye, L. K. (2014).“I’d be expecting caviar in lectures”: The impact of the new fee regime on undergraduate students’ expectations of Higher Education. Higher Education, 67 (5), 655-673.doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9671-3 Bates, E. A., & Kaye, L. K. (under review). Exploring the impact of the increased tuition fees on academic staffs’ experiences of Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education Kaye, L. K & Bates, E. A. (under review). The impact of the new fee regime on students’ reasons for attending university. Studies in Higher Education
If you’re interested….. • Dr Linda K. Kaye • Linda.kaye@edgehill.ac.uk • @LindaKKaye • @Edgehill_Psych • Dr Elizabeth A. Bates • Elizabeth.bates@Cumbria.ac.uk • @Uoc_Psychology