Innovations in Education and Teaching International,Vol. 41, No. 4, November 2004

ISSN 1470–3297 (print)/ISSN 1470–3300 (online)/04/040473–17© 2004 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1470329042000277048

Achieving a doctorate: metalearning and research development programmes supporting success for international distance students

Gina Wisker

*,

Gillian Robinson, Vernon Trafford, Jaki Lilly and Mark Warnes

Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge and Chelmsford, UK

Taylor and Francis LtdRIIE410407.sgm10.1080/1470329042000277048Innovations in Education and Teaching International1470-3297 (print)/1470-3300 (online)Original Article2004Taylor & Francis Ltd414000000November 2004GinaWiskerUniversity Centre for Learning and Teaching2B Eastings, East RoadCambridgeCB1 2PTg.wisker@apu.ac.uk

Most studies on metalearning and metacognition have focused on undergraduates where reflective and activeawareness of learning practices and achievements, or metalearning, has been seen to be useful, indeed essentialfor the learning achievement of undergraduates (Biggs

et al.

, 2001; Veenman & Verheig, 2003). This paperreports on the latest development in action research carried out at Anglia Polytechnic University for the last sev-en years and concentrates on developing and supporting the successful research-as-learning of internationalpostgraduates studying at a distance. It argues that students encouraged to develop metalearning through reflec-tion upon results of the Reflections on Learning Inventory (RoLI) (Meyer & Boulton-Lewis, 1997), supervisorydialogues from groups and research development workshops are likely to achieve success in their research aslearning, while others who are less able to develop metalearning are less successful.

Introduction

International postgraduates and those studying at a distance or ‘offshore’ present a challenge foruniversities in terms of growing numbers and cultural differences, of which differing learningapproaches and preconceptions of studying at postgraduate level are a special case. Additionally,the specific requirements of appropriate support, development and supervision at a distance fora diversity of students studying part or full time, provide a challenge to the working practices ofsupervisors and universities more used to local, full-time students. An ongoing research projectat Anglia Polytechnic University, UK, uses quantitative and qualitative methods in an actionresearch framework with distance, international postgraduates and their supervisors to:

●

identify research students’ learning approaches and preconceptions;

*

Corresponding author. University Centre for Learning and Teaching, 2B Eastings, East Road, CambridgeCB1 1PT, UK. Email: g.wisker@apu.ac.uk

474

G. Wisker

et al.

●

enable research students to develop their metacognitive awareness and their metalearning inrelation to learning demands;

●

enable students to benefit from provision of support for research-as-learning;

●

identify learning, support and supervisory strategies, determining at which key momentsand how they empower and enable research students to be successful in achieving theirdoctorates.

The Reflections on Learning Inventory (RoLI) (see, e.g., Meyer & Boulton-Lewis, 1997) is useddiagnostically to identify learning approaches and research students who might be ‘at risk’through taking dissonant approaches. It is also used to underpin workshops to help developeffective research-as-learning strategies. Following these workshops, focus groups, interviews,dialogues and analyses take place in the three-stage research method development programmethat is provided for our Ph.D. students. This enables them to identify successful strategies, keymoments of reflection, metalearning and development, which support them in their achieve-ment of the doctorate. The RoLI is used again upon completion to identify the learning distancetravelled.

Earlier papers (Wisker, 2000; Wisker

et al.

, 2003) have focused on research students’ choiceof methods, and development of conceptual frameworks. This paper focuses on both early andfinal stages of their work, specifically tracking changes in approaches to research-as-learningthrough the RoLI, and identifying student metalearning, i.e. recognition of their own develop-ment of successful strategies. Preliminary findings seem to suggest a negative correlationbetween dissonance, lack of involvement in the programme, poor metalearning activities andlack of progress or success in the Ph.D. research; conversely, non-dissonant results and engagedinvolvement in the programme seem to support students in their postgraduate research success.

Metacognition and metalearning

As Jackson (in this issue) notes, metacognition is awareness of how one learns. Metalearningdescribes the critical, reflective, self-evaluative process of being aware of one’s own learningneeds, problems and achievements. Flavell (1979) was probably the first to refer to metacogni-tion. He is reported as describing it as:

awareness of how one learns; awareness of when one does and does not understand; knowledge of howto use available information to achieve a goal; ability to judge the cognitive demands of a particulartask; knowledge of what strategies to use for what purposes; and assessment of one’s progress bothduring and after performance. (Gourgey, 2001, p. 18)

Hartman (2001, p. 33) defines ‘strategies’ as ‘a conscious, deliberate use of a specific method’.Metacognition ‘refers to “thinking about thinking,” such as deciding how to approach a task’(2001, p. 35). Two fundamental aspects of metacognition are ‘

awareness

of and

control

over one’sthinking’ (2001, p. 34). It is considered ‘teachable’ and high achievers ‘have been found topossess more metacognitive awareness and engage in more self-regulatory behaviour than lowachieving students’ (2001, p. 33). Clearly this self-awareness is a skill worth developing in allstudents, and most particularly those researching at doctoral level.

Cognitive style, learning style and learning strategy are terms often used interchangeably in theliterature. Sadler-Smith (1998, p. 188) discusses how these may be more clearly defined, suggest-

Achieving a doctorate

475

ing that ‘a style may be thought of as largely a function of the individual … whereas a strategy isa function of the interaction of the individual and the situation’. He cites Hayes and Allinson(1994) as suggesting that strategies are more easily modified through training/experience, thanstyles. Veenman and Verheij (2003) point out the difference between metacognitive knowledgeas defined by Flavell (1979), and metacognitive skilfulness. In the former ‘for instance, a studentmay

know

that monitoring one’s activities is necessary and yet refrain from doing so for variousreasons’ (Veenman & Verheij, 2003, p. 907) whilst in the latter ‘task orientation, planning,monitoring, checking, and reflection are manifestations of such skills’ (Flavell, 1979, p. 261). Inthis study, it was claimed that ‘meta-cognitive skill training programs may be advantageous toboth high and low intelligent students’ (Flavell, 1979). The connection is that metalearning asa reflective process enables students to be aware of, own and progress their own learning.

In a study of students’ approaches to problem solving, Antonietti

et al.

(2000, p. 1) foundstudents were knowledgeable about the metacognitive skills suggested as being most appropriatewithin problem-solving, i.e. ‘free production, analogy, step-by-step analysis, visualisation andcombining’ together with the abilities required for successful application of such skills (creativ-ity, memory of past experience, synthesis, logical reasoning and analysis and accuracy, respec-tively). The most used, and easiest to employ, problem-solving strategy is analogy, which theauthors suggested ‘may depend on the fact that such strategy is the most spontaneous becauseit does not involve “technical” aspects … and does not require an intentional attitude to beapplied’ (Antonietti

et al.

, 2000). The respondents considered step-by-step analysis to be themost efficient strategy for study problems, although this, together with combining, was consid-ered to be the most difficult to employ. However, this study sought no evidence as to whetherstudents actually used the strategies they suggested, when faced with the anticipated problems.

There appear to be cultural influences on metacognitive strategy use. Research into the highfailure rate of black students in college mathematics (Treisman, 1985) suggests that culturalpractices promoting metacognition can be transferred successfully to other groups. In this study,the more successful group of Chinese students was found to be more likely to study in groups,checking each other’s work, offering opportunities for evaluation and sharing knowledge. Onaverage a Chinese student studied for 14 hours a week. Black students rarely studied in groups,and spent about eight hours a week on the same tasks. Treisman (1985) set up a collaborativeworkshop, where black students spent six to eight hours a week. Those participating ‘consis-tently earned one full grade higher than black students who did not participate in the workshops’(Hartman, 2001, p. 38). In addition, retention was improved.

The postgraduates with whom we work on the research development programme, and whohave formed our action research groups since 1998, present interesting cases as international,distance, mid-career learners internally as well as externally motivated. Our workshops deliber-ately employ group work, and analogy. Studying in a cohort, students are well placed to utilizegroup learning strategies.

Biggs

et al.

(2001, p. 134) suggest that student learning strategy use is ‘dependent upon a hostof factors, such as students’ values and motives, their perceptions of task demands, teaching andassessment methods, classroom climate, and so on’. However, the characteristics of metacogni-tive learning strategies can be aligned to deep learning. Learners taking a deep approach areconsidered to be motivated by intrinsic interest, and ‘actively try to understand meaning byworking out relationships between concepts, relating new material to previously known

476

G. Wisker

et al.

information and adopting a critical attitude to information’ (Boyle

et al.

, 2003, p. 268). Incontrast, learners taking a surface approach are considered externally motivated and depend onmemory to retain information. However, in some cases a student may knowingly select poorer,surface (non-metacognitive) learning strategies because of the demands of the assessment task.So, Biggs

et al.

(2001, p. 137) give an example of where a ‘brilliant’ undergraduate essayist wasadvised to write learned terms in order to pass the test. Biggs

et al.

highlight the interaction ofthe environment and context with a student’s approach to learning, and warn against assumingthat an approach to learning is a stable trait. As they point out, responses to their Study ProcessQuestionnaire (SPQ) are a ‘function of both individual characteristics and the teaching context.Both teacher and student are jointly responsible for the outcome’ (Biggs

et al.

, 2001). Thus theysuggest that ‘an approach to learning describes the nature of the relationship between student,context, and task’ (2001, p. 137).

The way teachers encourage learning in their students also plays a big role in the kind of learn-ing approaches taken. Trigwell

et al.

(1997, p. 53) lent further evidence to the interaction theoryin that students who adopted significantly deeper approaches to learning ‘were more often taughtby teachers who adopted approaches to teaching that were more oriented towards students andto changing their conceptions’. In contrast, ‘teachers who described their approach as having afocus on transmitting knowledge more often had students who reported surface approaches tolearning’ (1997, p. 53). Teacher awareness of such learning interactions could usefully lead totheir own metalearning and so to the development of learning activities encouraging and reward-ing metalearning in students, of which postgraduates undertaking research are a special case.

Metalearning is recognized as a key stage in student learning development. Cross (1998, p. 3)describes ‘three major developmental positions’ of college students, derived from Perry’s (1970)scheme of intellectual development. Initially students assume ‘that there is a right answer toevery question, and that the answer is known by an authority’ (Cross, 1998, p. 4). This isfollowed by a stage where students discover that ‘authorities often disagree, and the views oftheir fellow students often differ from their own’ (1998, p. 4). In the last stage ‘the persondiscovers that truth is relative and depends on context. There is not a single right answer, nor isone answer as good as any other’ (1998, p. 5). Such awareness of one’s own learning develop-ment is essential for the postgraduate researcher who is largely autonomous, problematizing,conducting their planned research, and reflecting on its success, necessary changes and researchskills learned in the process.

Action research and metalearning

Action research (Elliott, 1991; Zuber-Skerrit, 1996) is a form of collaborative, practitioner-based research, which fully involves participants in the research process as active membersreflecting on and contributing to the research process any suggestions arising from the interpre-tation of its results. It is our contention that working with research students in an action researchframework aligned with the three stages of our research development programme can in itselfencourage metalearning. The students are invited to reflect upon, and engage with, theirresearch-as-learning approaches and their best fit or otherwise in terms of manageable and real-istic research outcomes. In doing so, they become involved in reflecting on their own learning,articulating how their research-as-learning processes and approaches engage with actioning their

Achieving a doctorate

477

question, underpinned by theories, methodologies and methods. Reflection aids metalearning,enabling both a clear focus on the research and articulation between its parts as well as articula-tion of its arguments and achievement, using the metalanguage of research itself (words such as‘conceptual framework’, ‘conceptual conclusions’).

Our action research begins with using the RoLI (Meyer & Boulton-Lewis, 1997; Wisker,1998) to identify potential dissonance. It uses workshops followed by focus groups at threestages in the programme:

1. First stage: methods and data analysis workshops.2. Second stage: focusing on maintaining momentum and reshaping in the light of research-

based findings about what is expected in a Ph.D. (Winter

et al.

, 2000; Leshem & Trafford,2002; Hockey, 2003).

3. Third stage: focusing on conceptual findings, conclusions and the mock viva, which deliber-ately concentrates on reflection in both senses.

Students work in cohorts and supportive peer groups, engaging in developmental dialogues with‘guardian supervisors’ comprising the programme team of three UK facilitators including theprogramme director, and three Israeli postdoctoral colleagues who successfully completed theprogramme and attained their doctorates. This paper focuses on developing metalearningthrough action research, workshops and supervisory dialogues to empower students to achievetheir doctorates.

Earlier cycles in the action research

Our earlier research has focused on the identification of dissonance in some postgraduatestudents’ approaches to research-as-learning, which could lead to their failure to achieve post-graduate learning outcomes and the Ph.D. (Wisker

et al.

, 2003). The RoLI (Meyer & Boulton-Lewis, 1997) and the Research-as-Learning questionnaire (Wisker, 1998) have proved usefulindicators of students who are at risk in relation to dissonance between their approaches toresearch-as-learning and their intended outcomes because they are using a relatively confusedset of learning approaches. The identification of dissonance is diagnostic—our intention asguardian supervisors is to work with students to enable and empower them to become reflective,active learners, successful researchers, aware of their own learning and able to manage it well,i.e. metalearners. In line with Trigwell

et al.

(1997) as well as Biggs

et al.

(2001), we recognizethat context and interaction are crucial elements in the encouragement of successful learningpractices so metalearning, insofar as it involves reflection, awareness of learning and ability toarticulate that learning, is a prime goal alongside that of successful completion of the Ph.D. andthe development of postgraduate transferable skills. In our workshops (methods workshop, dataanalysis, maintaining momentum), the mock vivas and supervisory dialogues, we specificallyadopt approaches to teaching orientated towards students’ development and to changing ordeveloping their conceptions both of the research-as-learning processes and of their field ofstudy in terms of their own actual research.

Significantly, in relation to our own research work with the Ph.D. students, and our desire totranslate the diagnosis of potential ‘at risk’ students into practices supportive of their learning,it has become obvious that those students who combine problematic dissonant scores on the

478

G. Wisker

et al.

RoLI with a refusal to take part in the programme (asserting they do not need the sessionsbecause they know exactly what they are doing) experience intense difficulties with the researchin terms of articulation between question, methodologies and methods and in terms of the scopeand level of the project and its achievement. The following case studies have been chosen toillustrate this particular finding.

Case studies: students who do not seem to have developed metalearning

Our experience with students suggests that engagement with the programme can open mindsand create an ability to articulate and defend reasons behind choices of theories, methodologyand methods. It can also lead to openness to alternatives and surprises in the research, as wellas benefiting from sharing in the supportive process of the work of others (if only to help putyour own into perspective). All are valuable in the development and achievement of a Ph.D. buteach cohort produces examples of students who neither engage with the programme nor developmetalearning skills and to date have not been successful.

Case A, 1998

Student A insisted that he knew exactly how his research was going to work, and what it wouldachieve, and attended the entire programme. However, both in small workshop groups and inindividual supervisory dialogues he was clearly intent on insistence and description rather thandiscussion. In groups, he did not let others speak but summed up for them, made statementsabout his intentions and could not engage in discussion about his decisions. He insisted onattending the final stage workshop early, in his second year, to ‘get it over with’ because his workwould soon be finished. One year and a few months into a Ph.D., he then submitted his thesiswithout the support of his supervisor, who did not see a final draft.

The thesis failed. He was given immense personal and intellectual research support by theteam and his supervisor during the process of resubmission but some essential faults in thedesign and in the level of conceptualization of the whole research fundamentally undermined it.The case is still ongoing—it is semi-litigious and extremely painful for all concerned.

Our analysis of Case A’s RoLI scores at the start and at the submission of his Ph.D. can beinterpreted in terms of accumulation approaches to learning (Accumulation), which are surfaceapproaches to learning, or meaningful approaches (Meaning), which are synonymous with deeplearning strategies. Students with high accumulation scores tend to see even postgraduateresearch-as-learning, in terms of acquiring discrete facts, accumulating rather than problematiz-ing and making meaning.

Case A’s scores shown in Figure 1 indicate that, over the course of his Ph.D., he became moreaccumulative, less meaning-oriented and more dissonant (similar scores for both accumulativeand meaning-oriented approaches reflecting a confused study orchestration).

Figure 1. Accumulation and meaning progression for Case A from 1998 to 2001

Case B, 2003

Student B asserted his research project was completely straightforward and highly confidential.His own connections with members of the government would enable him to have access to the

Achieving a doctorate

479

information and participants, and the work would be of great significance. He had in advanceselected who he wanted as his supervisor and insisted on arranging individualized meetingsrather than attending the programme. He did not attend a single workshop in the summerprogramme, and left halfway through. A mechanistic proposal was produced—we are awaitingfurther developments.

Figures 2 and 3 show that Case B displays a dissonant study orchestration with similarly highscores for both accumulative and meaning-oriented approaches to learning.

Figure 2. Accumulation chart for Case B. Categories: ACC, Conceived as Accumulation; REC, Knowing as Recalling Information; FAC, Knowledge is Fact-based; MBU, Memorizing Before Understanding; KDF, Knowledge is Discrete and FactualFigure 3. Meaning chart for Case B. Categories: RAT, Knowing as Thinking Rationally; NKN, Knowing as Not Knowing; REW, Experienced as Rewarding; MAU, Memorizing after Understanding; IND, Knowing as Thinking Independently; SDI, Conceived as Seeing Differently

Figure 1. Accumulation and meaning progression for Case A from 1998 to 2001

Figure 2. Accumulation chart for Case B. Categories: ACC, Conceived as Accumulation; REC, Knowing as Recalling Information; FAC, Knowledge is Fact-based; MBU, Memorizing Before Understanding; KDF,

Knowledge is Discrete and Factual

480

G. Wisker

et al.

Other cases reported elsewhere (Wisker

et al.

, 2003) identify students who have overcomedissonant approaches and achieved their doctorates.

Strategies to encourage metalearning

There are several key moments in students’ early development during the first two stages of theprogramme focusing on metalearning and owning the research processes. A first crucial momentis early on in research development, during the first stage programme, where they are developingresearch questions, identifying and becoming more comfortable with research methodologiesand methods, developing a conceptual framework and beginning to write their research proposal.

To encourage metalearning about the appropriateness of research methodologies and meth-ods for intended outcomes, we have developed several workshops. The first is a ‘methods work-shop’ focusing on students’ clarification of chosen methodologies and methods, their defenceand explanation of these with peers. At the end of this peer-sharing workshop, each group isrequired to (1) explain the different debates they have had and (2) present on the identificationof appropriateness of methods or changes in methods of one of their peers. Taped and tran-scribed, this provides interesting evidence of metalearning. There is a growing awareness of waysin which appropriate methodologies and methods can act as vehicles for the asking and answer-ing of research questions; the pros and cons of different research methods in relation to differentquestions and research paradigms; and ways in which research students can articulate, debateand defend decisions with peers. Such an activity foregrounds the need to be aware of linksbetween elements of the research design and the practicability of actioning the research itselfusing appropriate methods. It also begins to encourage students to use the metalanguage ofresearch to explain their work.

Figure 3. Meaning chart for Case B. Categories: RAT, Knowing as Thinking Rationally; NKN, Knowing as Not Knowing; REW, Experienced as Rewarding; MAU, Memorizing after Understanding; IND, Knowing as

Thinking Independently; SDI, Conceived as Seeing Differently

Achieving a doctorate

481

This workshop, to be described, is an example of Treisman’s identification of the success ofstudents studying in collaborative groups as an element of metalearning (Treisman, 1985).Small group work in the workshops is but one of the several strategies we use to encourage grouplearning. Following the first stage of the programme, we encourage students to keep in touch:one volunteer hosts an e-mail discussion list; a web site run by a postdoctoral researcher helpsexchange ideas and questions; and small groups work together during the year to further theirwork-in-progress. The effects of the student group work will be reported elsewhere in a futurepaper (Wisker

et al.

, 2004) as a special factor in the success of cohort-based and culturallyinflected Ph.D. students’ learning.

The methods workshop

The workshop runs for 30 minutes near the end of the first stage, in a 10-day developmentprogramme during which the students have (1) had a series of interactive input on varieties ofqualitative and quantitative methodologies and methods, and (2) discussed their methodschoices, changes and developing proposals in supervisory dialogues. The facilitator asksstudents to explain and defend their methods to each other. One reporter summarizes thediscussion and the decision or changes of one student.

Group work here enhances reflection, support, clarification and metalearning. A transcriptexcerpt taken from a workshop run in 2003 illustrates how this works.

Methods Workshop 2, 2003, showing students’ awareness of metalearning

Student C: Although people were trying to explain what happened with the last methodology theydecided they are going to apply. This question of how to change them brought them to usually say thatafter listening and after thinking they just you know during the class, they wrote down changes. Andanother thing that I think is interesting is that the changes sometimes came from thinking and some-times they came out of pressure you know … And there were a few comments about double pressuresthat are put on when you are doing a Ph.D. Which is one thing about your focus, your theme, yourtheories, your group or whatever and the other one is that you’re like also researching yourself all thetime because you are checking because you have to explain the changes so you have all the time tocheck out yourself…

It was in a way a chance to evaluate your decision. First of all it’s, you hear yourself and you have todefend it, explaining and then when you get a chance to have questions and that starts another cycleof thinking about it. Like for me I have to get back to [X] asked me a question and I didn’t know theanswer and we have to find out. So it was in a way like really it was very clear but up to the point wheresomebody asked a question and this is another angle to look at it, yes.

Supervisor: Thank you. Can I just say that this business about the question—sometimes you are work-ing in here at a lower level than the complicated questions you are going to have to ask yourself. So beprepared to take a while to find answers.

Supervisory dialogues encourage metalearning

During the first stage, students engage in supervisory dialogues with guardian supervisors. Thedialogues are intended to enable students to think through and articulate their developingresearch questions and processes, encouraging metalearning. The following student D (below)

482

G. Wisker

et al.

has focused on and changed her original research question, so the methods she intends to useresult from work in the first part of the first workshop and her reflections in between. Theproposal as it develops is now more focused. She has a grasp of metalearning partly because itis the

focus

of her own study: ‘Learning Among Arab Students Learning English’. Her responsesto the RoLI indicated no dissonance, she attended each session and took time to find guardiansupervisors to systematically check out each concern and she thought about the development ofthe research proposal—identifying the proposal as the vehicle to explore and articulate herresearch aims and practical intentions. Working with her was like chipping away at a series ofproblems, approaching the work holistically so that at the end of the first-stage summerprogramme she was much more confident about ways in which her proposal could enable herto articulate the research, and how she would action it in order to ask and answer her researchquestions. Already, the metalanguage of research appears in discussions with the guardiansupervisor.

Student D: I’m going to study the Arab student as a case where they have … they have their well-think-ing, their learning styles. And it will be reflecting the way they learn other disciplines, like the way theystudy people, the way they study Arabic for example and I might—I’m talking about design now—atsome point ask students about the attitudes to learning, what is learning. I’m starting from where Iteach and the experiences of things I get during teaching my students last year. They are used to learn-ing. My focus is on learning not teaching so my students are used to learning in a way that everythinghas been prepared by the teacher. And all their learning has been given and the text was chosen andthe title of the text was determined by the teacher … I’m thinking about what I see in my school is thatlearning is teacher-driven and what I’m doing to my students is to focus more on how would thestudent learn and improving his learning style.

Individual dialogues with students indicate their awareness of how their research is developing.Student D is aware of learning in context, learning change among her students and encouragingtheir metalearning through taking part in her research:

Student D: My problem is to keep focus on the other side of the picture. I know where I’m startingfrom. I know what the background is and I know what the gap is, what the problematic issues are butI still … I wrote the second question, the impact of learning style, the student will undergo change inof learning the style. The question is, is he going to accept this, is he going to adapt or not. If not I haveto explain why it happens in this way. If yes so I will say student are changing and then the next stageis to explain how is this change reflecting in the student’s life. I’ll go another step, wider circle, I startwith the student and after the change I will see how the student will act in his wider circle which is theschool.

Supervisor: How did you think you were going to find their perceptions of the change that’s takenplace, how are you going to look at that?

Student D: Your’re talking about the design now. First I have to take a picture of the situation at thebeginning of the year and this is not an easy matter, as I understand. I understand that my researchwill have to do … will start from the frame work of qualitative, because you’re investigating students’feelings, perceptions and attitudes towards something that is changing. And it’s in the framework ofqualitiative but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to use quantitative methods at some point. If I wantto analyse for example data of the questionnaire of yes or no I need this process. I’m talking nowabout the methodology. You see that’s my problem, I was investing all my thinking on what I’mdoing.

Supervisor: [Yes] they are, i.e. [Ph.D.] one of the answers to the question, ‘why is this a Ph.D.?’ andwhy does it matter, is what you’ve been saying and that is that it’s about cultural change in a culturally

Achieving a doctorate

483

sensitive context of which you are a part. So they will accept that that’s important, and then they’ll needto say, how is your piece of research asking the questions it can ask?

Already the discussion is using the metalanguage of research and she’s aware of her learning.

Workshop: ‘what do I do with all of this data?’

Another moment in the first stage of the research development programme which encouragesmetalearning to take place is the workshop on analysing data, ‘what do I do with all of this data?’Here, students are asked to work in groups with the RoLI they themselves completed severalmonths previously. Results are discussed in relation to the overall group, although individualscan confidentially discuss them with guardian supervisors. Various pieces of information aboutthe RoLI’s use are re-presented: its intentions; the categories into which questions have beengrouped in relation to learning approaches, motivation and intended outcomes. The data havebeen analysed using SPSS using item-averaged mean scores in the various subscales, enablingpresentation in bar charts and other forms.

The students discuss the data, asking questions about its use and usefulness. Each group thenpresents so the process and their findings from the workshop can be shared. This feedback istaped and transcribed. Responses from the workshop indicate that involvement with a modellingexercise enables students to get to grips with some of the data analysis and processing activitiesthey will encounter during their own research, so they have a better idea of how to handle thedata. They see how absolutely essential it is to have a clear link between research questions,methodologies and methods—or useless data could be produced and time wasted; to be rigorousin terms of cataloguing, labelling, filing, handling the data, analysing it and knowing exactlywhat they want from it; they need to be open to surprises; to recognize there is rich informationhere, but not all of it will be either useful or related to their research question. They are alsoasked to define and defend what they have discussed and decided through undertaking the exer-cise—in terms of the process itself and the insights it gives them into the development of theirown research. This encourages metalearning shared among the group. The final essentialelement of this workshop is that, because the data are about their own learning, i.e.derived fromthe RoLI they have themselves completed, what is generated is a discussion about research-as-learning approaches and styles, and the relationship between these and intended researchoutcomes and research methods. This activity enables students to further develop their metale-arning principally and specifically in this instance about their own forms of research-as-learningand their own research project.

Using analogies in the workshops

In each stage of the three-stage research development programme, activities encourage studentsto become more aware of their of research-as-learning approaches. We utilize several of the basicstrategies highlighted (above) as encouraging metalearning. Students beginning their researchare asked to consider analogies between the research process and a journey: there is an end insight with much planning but there will be some surprises, some meandering, some refocusing,even some crises. Actioning the research design resembles putting a travel plan into action.Without some surprises, even risks or blocked moments, there could well be no progression in

484

G. Wisker

et al.

the research or it could be rather superficial. They are also asked to compare the developingthesis itself to a building or a piece of architecture: it seems logical, coherent, stable, wellfounded on a research question held together throughout by its conceptual framework, and itstands up safely, noticeably, makes a statement, an impact. The differences between the two inthe analogy help students perceive process and product, encouraging reflections on coping withlearning leaps, problems and surprises on the research journey. They appreciate the importanceof writing up as they go along, producing rough drafts, finally ensuring coherence throughoutwhile retaining in their log (and for the viva) expression of the messiness of the actual researchprocess, recording decisions, and changes. This is one of several analogies used.

Third (final)-stage dialogues and workshops

Students involved in Ph.D. research do several types of metalearning, some like those discussedabove occur early on in the research process—the establishing of appropriate learning asresearch approaches, methodologies and methods, the beginnings of familiarity with using themetalanguage of research. Others develop as the research develops; or firm up as the researchcompletes and is explored and expressed as entry into debates in the field and the academiccommunity, in the thesis itself, and, if there is one, in the viva. Ongoing supervisory dialoguesthroughout the three-stage programme focus students on the development of their ownresearch, their methods, their learning and working habits, and the gradual production of find-ings. Questions in the third stage of the programme will be focused on here as will the workshopitself insofar as it encourages students to prepare for the viva and for writing up final drafts ofthe thesis.

In the European and New Zealand modes, as well as throughout much of the rest of the world,except Australia, students are required to undertake Ph.D. vivas. For some countries in Europe(e.g. Finland), this is a staged event lasting the best part of a day with an invited audience rang-ing from experts to family. Students engage in a dialogue with their examiners throughout, actu-ally on a stage. Less terrifying perhaps, is the small examination-oriented viva with the student’sinternal and external examiners, a chair and, if possible, preferably the (silent) supervisor.Students are asked to engage in dialogue with the examiners in order to (the formal term) defendtheir thesis. For all students, the opportunity to discuss and defend their thesis is both dauntingand very important. It is in this moment they can engage in a discussion and dialogue withcolleagues, placing their work in relation to the wider academic community, explaining why ithas made a contribution to knowledge, why it justifies a Ph.D.; what gap in knowledge it fills;what the gaps and boundaries are; how the conceptual framework has been developed and actsto support the work and thesis; what the research question was; and why the theories, why themethodologies and methods, what the conceptual and factual questions findings and conclu-sions are. All of this should of course be explicit within the thesis. However, the engagement inan oral defence is a crucial moment when the metalanguage of the research process, conceptualframework etc. (as above) are articulated and shared.

In the third-stage workshop, mock viva training and supervisory dialogues explicitly focus onanswering questions which usually appear in viva. Students undertaking the mock viva can optout of a shared experience but most recognize how each benefits from being the audience inothers’ mock vivas. The process intends to make students more aware of ways in which their

Achieving a doctorate

485

research design, theories, methodology, methods, and the findings of the research are articu-lated, i.e. in this sense linked together, deriving from a need to address the research question.The discussion and defence process helps share their awareness and metalearning.

The role of mock vivas

This focuses on a student in the third and final-stage workshop commenting on their Ph.D. anddrafting sections towards the final thesis. The discussion is actually a part of a mock viva insofaras typical viva questions are being asked. It is a hybrid viva and supervisory session, differingfrom a viva in that there is still the opportunity to discuss setbacks, re-shape, explain and guide/empower. Students learn to be comfortable wth the metalanguage of research processes (not thelanguage of their subject as such) and the ability to articulate reflections and actions.

Supervisor: OK what is your conceptual framework? How and why was it selected, why did you askthose questions, use those theories, pick those methods?

Student E: I think that I chose this conceptual framework to improve my subject, in the beginning I’mrepresenting my theory, of knowledge transfer and building human capacity, and afterwards I’m repre-senting my methodology…, and then I’m going to represent the interview as a document … data, andthen my analysis and the conclusions.

Student E identifies the shape of her thesis. Student F talks about theory building rather thantheory testing, identifying a research question more clearly after preliminary research.

Student F: The questions I wanted to ask is … because I built a theory so it was not a question I wantto ask previously. It was questions that was leaning upon the question I was coming up with after thefirst observation and after the first interview. Because first it was open-ended interview. Then I start tominimize like how do you call it from the big to the narrow.

Supervisor: Whittling it down or narrowing it?

Student F is also aware of her research processes and the effectiveness of these in the researchprocess, here how they identified the categories with which to analyse and interpret their findings.

Student F: Yes. It’s like I am … analytical induction if you make … taking all the whole … making allthe details, the categories. And then you go for a little category and then you start again. Opening, andthen you minimize again. Opening and you minimize again until you get the precise erm … categoriesthat are building by itself you know. The categories which have their own life. They start in some ideaof … and then now they’re appearing out of this category and then it goes and goes and getting verywide. And then it has its own entity through this category. This is all I have … I have something.

Student F explains how she moves from a holistic picture and lots of details to definite categoriesunderpinned by theory, enabling the setting out of data into interpretable findings. She is alsoaware of constructing knowledge through action research in which her participants are collabo-rators, connecting what she discovers to her established knowledge.

Student F: Yes, I mean as because the dispute was very near to me so its like in any category that liesin your head ok so when you look upon things you make the connection from your ancient knowledge.I mean, you connect it with your own knowledge, you take the knowledge that comes up and youconnect it with what you know, yes and then you make the new connection. But of course it’s helpedme. Knowing though that to make creative ideas … you don’t have to be very familiar with the field.You can learn from the participants about what they know and then you make the connection from

486

G. Wisker

et al.

your discipline and then you come up with some new ideas. You can mix yours with them and youcome up with new things but to make this connection I need the dialogue between me and my partic-ipant. It’s a game. A game in a dialogue yes, when you talk with each other I respond but sometimesmy response is in my head, ok, to make the connection. You tell me things, yes, we make a dialoguebetween one another and then it stays in my mind and its having an incubation and then it’s like ateasing out.

Nearing completion

In interview students identified the importance of self-awareness, self-management, growth andgroup support.

Student G: I think in the beginning. Because I was looking for … something that I would, that I wantedto do but you know that you have a lot of difficulties to understand really what you are looking for andhow to do it. And these were the really bad moments and now I am working in it and you know stepby step and then going forward in my own time and it took quite a lot of time.

Although it is her responsibility, she managed stress and development:

Student G: With a lot of thinking and talking with others using groups and sharing to reflect on myown learning as the processes that are in the programme, and some that finished already and hear fromthem how they solved such a kind of, such a problem.

Supervisor: So it was mainly talking to other people about it and that contact was there, you were, youhad people by e-mail?

Student G: We were talking lot and were meeting sometimes.

These dialogue excerpts indicate our students growing awareness of:

●

development from area to research design;

●

the importance of talking with colleagues to share, build, clarify, support;

●

use of materials and seminars (this particular aspect was only realized with hindsight);

●

developing their own learning.

Students interviewed during the third-stage research development programme and others inter-viewed after completion of their Ph.D. have indicated the usefulness of dialogues, interviews,materials and workshops. The mock vivas have been seen as ways not only of rehearsing for theviva itself, but for encouraging and embedding metalearning, i.e. their own awareness of theways their research has developed, its elements articulated, and ways in which using the meta-language actually helps them to describe, discuss and defend this.

Some success stories

To date 55 students have gained their Ph.D.s. Transcribed dialogues and interviews, matchedwith ‘third-stage’ RoLI scores (see Wisker

et al.

, 2003) further illustrate success stories ofstudents who have had moments of revelation and learning leaps, using the metalanguage ofresearch to indicate their own metalearning and awareness of the cohesion and achievementof their research processes and products.

Student H: I think I have really developed as a learner from this Ph.D. process in the sense that I thinkthings through and the sense I think that I have developed ways of how to think and how to write and

Achieving a doctorate

487

how to be a good researcher. The most important thing for this intellectual experience, it’s really a trig-ger to continue, and every time I have this dream that when I finish my Ph.D. I’m going to carry outmore significant research. I feel even more motivated to go on and research things. I am more criticalabout things and when I attend a lecture or when I read something I read it with a deeper understand-ing of its contribution to knowledge, its structure and its significance. I now have a conclusive desireto research the issue more and publish and to write more and this Ph.D. has been a stepping stone forme in this way.

This postdoctoral colleague now publishes and presents her research internationally.

Conclusion

Metalearning is an essential element in postgraduate research-as-learning success. Actionresearch involves students who can be seen to benefit as active and reflective learners thoughtheir use of workshops, supervisory dialogues, groupwork and analogies used in the postgradu-ate research development programme. It is up to each individual to engage and make the mostof these opportunities, becoming fully aware of their learning needs, and achievements.

Those who have achieved their Ph.D.s indicate the usefulness of the developmentprogramme, supervisory dialogues and ongoing group support in their achievement and under-standing of their own research-as-learning processes. This leads to confidence building,extremely useful in postdoctoral life. 2003 saw the first postdoctoral symposium at which grad-uates shared completed research and work-in-progress, a major product of their confidence,achievement and metalearning.

Notes on contributors

Gina Wisker is director for Learning and Teaching Development at Anglia Polytechnic Univer-sity where she also co-ordinates women’s studies and teaches English. Gina is co-editor ofIETI and committee chair for the SEDA journal committee, and an Oxford Center for Staffand Learning Development consultant. Her

The Postgraduate Research Handbook

(Macmillan Palgrave, 2001) is to be followed in late 2004 by

The Good Supervisor

(Macmillan Palgrave).Gillian Robinson teaches in the Art department at Anglia Polytechnic University, co-ordinating

the International PhD programme and acting as Director of Research Degrees in the Schoolof Education. Gillian co-authored

Developing Art Experience

, which was published in 1997.In 1999 she produced a chapter on art teaching in each of seven

Teacher Year Books

. Hermost recent publication was a co-edited book,

Beginning Teaching: Beginning Learningpublished in 2002. Gillian’s continuing research interests and publications are focusedaround the value of journals and sketchbooks as tools for developing creative thinking skillsand metacognition.

Vernon Trafford works in the school of Education at Anglia Polytechnic University in CREATe,the Education Research Centre. His specialisms include doctoral examinations, researchdegrees and organisational management.

Jaki Lilly is a postdoctoral researcher with the University Centre for Learning and Teaching atAnglia Polytechnic University. Her thesis considered the methodological implications of

488 G. Wisker et al.

management research. Jaki provides support to staff undertaking research into their teachingand their students’ learning; supervises five doctoral students and undertakes collaborativeresearch with other units within the university. Jaki is currently working on and ESF-fundedproject which is investigating barriers to learning and employment for women with mentalhealth difficulties. She has recently collaborated with the National Disability Team on aHEFCE/LSC-funded project to scope hifher education and further education aspirationraising and transition activities for disabled students.

Mark Warnes is a researcher for the University Centre for Learning and Teaching at AngliaPolytechnic University. Mark is lead researcher on projects investigating studentapproaches to learning and studying for both undergraduate and postgraduates, bothnational and international. He also holds a fellowship for research into the impact ofongoing induction on retention. Mark is also a sociology lecturer.

References

Antonietti, A., Ignazi, S. & Perego, P. (2000) Meta-cognitive knowledge about problem-solving methods,British Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1–16.

Biggs, J., Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001) The revised two-factor study process questionnaire:R-SPQ-2F, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.

Boyle, E. A., Duffy, T. & Dunleavy, K. (2003) Learning styles and academic outcome: the validity and utilityof Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles in a British higher education setting, British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 73, 267–290.

Cross, K. P. (1998) What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know it?, paper presented at theAAHE National Conference on Higher Education (Atlanta, GA) March, 21–24.

Elliott, J. (1991) Action research for educational change (Buckingham, Open University Press).Flavell, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry,

American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.Gourgey, A. F. (2001) Metacognition in basic skills instruction, in: H. Hartman (Ed.) Metacognition in learning

and instruction: theory, research and practice (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers), 17–32.Hartman, H. J. (2001) Developing students’ meta-cognitive knowledge and skills, in: H. J. Hartman (Ed.) Meta-

cognition in learning and instruction: theory, research and practice (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers),33–68.

Hayes, J. & Allinson, C. W. (1994) Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice, British Journal ofManagement, 5, 53–71.

Hockey, J. (2003) Practice-based research degree students in art and design: identity and adaptation,International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 82–91.

Leshem, S. & Trafford, V. (2002) Starting at the end to undertake your doctoral research: predictablequestions and stepping stones, Higher Education Review, 35(1), 31–49.

Meyer, J. H. F (1991) The modelling of ‘dissonant’ study orchestration in higher education, European Journalof Psychology of Education, 15(1), 5–18.

Meyer, J. H. F. & Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1997) Reflections on Learning Inventory, paper presented at theRoLI Symposium, London, 25 July 2000.

Perry, W. G. (1970) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme (New York, Holt,Rinehart & Winston).

Sadler-Smith, E. (1998) Cognitive style: some human resource implications for managers, The InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, 9(1), 185–202.

Treisman, P. (1985) A Study of the mathematics performance of black students at the University of California(Berkeley, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley).

Achieving a doctorate 489

Treisman, P. (2001) in: H. J. Hartman (Ed.) Metacognition in learning and instruction: theory, research and prac-tice (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Lyons, F. (1997) Defining good teaching: relations between teachers’ approachesto teaching and student learning, paper presented at the 7th Conference of the European Association forResearch in Learning and Instruction, Athens, Greece, 26–30 August.

Veenman, M. V. J. & Verheij, J. (2003) Technical students’ meta-cognitive skills: relating general vs. specificmeta-cognitive skills to study success, Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 259–272.

Vermetten, Y. J., Vermunt, J. D. & Lodewijks, H. G. (1999) A longitudinal perspective on learning strategiesin higher education—different view-points towards development, British Journal of Educational Psychology,69, Part 2, 221–242.

Winter, R., Griffiths, M. & Green, K. (2000) The ‘academic’ qualities of practice: what are the criteria for apractice-based PhD?, Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 25–37.

Wisker, G. (1998) The research as learning questionnaire (Cambridge, Anglia Polytechnic University).Wisker, G. (2000) Research as learning, in: M. Kiley & G. Mullins (Eds) Quality in postgraduate research:

making ends meet (Adelaide, Australia, Advisory Centre for University Education, The University ofAdelaide), 40–46.

Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V., Creighton, E. & Warnes, M. (2003) Recognising and overcomingdissonance in postgraduate student research, Studies in Higher Education, 28, 91–105.

Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V., Shacham, M. & Lilly, J. (2004) Postgraduate research success: communi-ties of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities (Australia, Higher Education andResearch Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA)).

Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V. & Thomas, J. (2001) Improving postgraduate research students’learning strategically through learning and teaching strategies, in: C. Rust (Ed.) Improving student learning8—improving student learning strategically (Oxford, OCSLD, Oxford Brookes University), 69–92.

Zuber-Skerrit, O. (Ed.) (1996) New directions in action research (Lewes, Falmer Press).