Anxiety and experience-based learning in a professional standards context

Abstract

This article contributes an analysis of the use of experiential learning and reflection within a management education context where its use has received less attention: a learning environment dominated by the requirements of a professional body, where successful attainment of the qualification offered by the programme is linked with entry into the profession and to promotion within it. Using a psychoanalytic lens, this study shows the tension occurring between experiential learning methods and the ‘expert knowledge’ requirements of professional bodies. Tension is essential for learning but we argue that the consequences of it are uncertain and that it deserves more attention within the management education domain. We highlight the ways by which anxiety generated by this tension can stimulate meaningful and reflexive outcomes but our findings also indicate that ‘learning inaction’ (Vince, 2008) is also possible, particularly where tutors are unable to provide a sufficient ‘holding’ environment when anxieties arising from experience-based learning and expert knowledge demands become too hard to bear.

Keywords

anxiety assessment experiential learning professions psychoanalysis reflection

Introduction

Since the early 1960s, experiential learning theories have increasingly influenced a diverse range of management education approaches (Kayes, 2002; Miettinen, 1998: 170; Vince, 1998). These affirm the humanistic belief in the capacity of individuals to grow and learn through a process that has spontaneity, space for individual insight and reflection; focusing on how managers acquire and transform new experiences and how these experiences lead to the development of more holistic views of managers as managers (Kayes, 2002). Using a psychoanalytic approach, this article depicts a critical case spanning a full academic year where experiential learning methods were adopted by a Learning, Training and Development (LTD) module teaching team within the context of a professionally accredited programme: a context with a good fit between the subject area and experiential learning approaches. Our findings suggest that a deep-seated tension exists between experiential learning methods and the expectations of accreditation bodies relating to the demonstration of ‘expert knowledge’ as an assessed outcome; highlighting that this tension is consequential for all parties involved in the learning process. It also illustrates how assessment and an associated need for clarity or certainty is a fundamental defining feature of students’ and tutors’ experiences (Struyven et al., 2005). The emotions and tensions involved in such a context can operate as a source of significant anxiety (Antonocopoulou and Gabriel, 2001) and the article highlights how this can underpin productive learning processes, for both students and tutors, but that in some circumstances it can also serve to inhibit learning.

Experiential learning in management and professional education

In the areas of management and professional education, experiential learning is becoming increasingly prominent, particularly for post-experience student programmes (Reynolds, 2009). Many such programmes now publicly promote the view that learning takes place most effectively when using the experiences of learners (Elliott, 2008; Rigg and Trehan, 2008) and when those experiences are subject to critical individual and collective reflection (Reynolds, 1999). According to Boud et al. (1985) the capacity to reflect directly relates to how effectively individuals can learn from their personal experiences as a meaningful way of gaining understanding. Concepts such as reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983), action learning (Revans, 1971) and ‘learning-in-action’ (Vince, 2008) have become increasingly influential as ways of surfacing tacit understanding through critical, reflective conversation on experience (Ahmad and Broussine, 2008; Boud and Walker, 1999; Boud et al., 2009; Senge et al., 1999) enabling more open talk about ‘undiscussable’ subjects enabling learners to reveal the complexities of experience and generate ‘rich learning’(Rigg and Trehan, 2004). However, the extent to which this form of learning encourages critically reflexive ideas rather than the reinforcement of existing knowledge continues to be an area of debate (Reynolds, 1999; Vince, 1998, 2002; Vince and Reynolds, 2004; Wilson and Beard, 2003). One area of difficulty concerns the affective features of experiential learning. Experience is often synonymous with emotions and their deeper meaning but this is rarely taken into account within higher education programmes where tutors tend to see emotion as something to control or ignore (Moore and Kuol, 2007; Rigg and Trehan, 2008; Vince, 2010), suppressing it in order to encourage rational argument and objective thought. This is further exacerbated where learners constitute a practice community because the deployment of emotion might prohibit or undermine the effective questioning and critique of the assumptions held by this community and its professional institute (Kayes, 2002).

An additional problem with the deployment of experiential learning concerns the ways by which learning outcomes and processes are assessed. Assessment is differently understood by those involved. Within the academic community assessment is depicted as a means to motivate students and provide feedback to enable improved academic performance and encourage learning (Boud and Falchicov, 2006;Yorke, 2003) and methods of assessment that aim to engage and involve students in the learning process, to contextualize learning and to develop and affirm the use of higher level thinking and intellectual skills are increasingly advocated (Maclellan, 2004). However, professional accrediting bodies expect assessment to enable students to demonstrate the acquisition and ability to deploy forms of expert knowledge that are often enshrined in specific professional standards. In this context, expert knowledge is seen as crucial in providing a basis for a profession’s aim to create credible, trusted future professionals and new generations of members (Macdonald, 1995). From the perspective of the assessed the consequences that arise from the contradictions, emanating from the various knowledge stakeholders within professional and management education programmes, combined with a sense of unequal power relationships that is implicit within assessment processes have an emotional cost: heightening student anxiety and potentially causing disruptions to learning (Elliott, 2008). This suggests that the process of experiential learning and the products of it, might sit uneasily within an environment where outcomes are ultimately assessed on the attainment and demonstration of expert knowledge (Stein, 2004). Given the growth of professionally accredited management programmes, coupled with the take-up of experiential learning methods, this may be an issue in a wide range of management development and learning contexts.

Emotion and learning: a psychoanalytic perspective

Psychoanalytic approaches towards learning emphasize the psychological work involved: trying to provide a way of understanding what goes on in human beings when we attempt to make sense of our experience, accepting and tolerating the anxieties associated with it. Anxieties can be triggered by earlier experiences of failure and disappointment or by threatening feelings of uncertainty, dependency and vulnerability. From this perspective, learning is not seen as a spontaneous unleashing of individual or collective potential but is involved with overcoming resistances to it, many of which will be operating unconsciously (Antonocopoulou and Gabriel, 2001; French, 1997; French and Vince, 1999). In this way, learning represents a challenge to individuals because it has the potential to endanger some valued ideas and beliefs about the individual, about others in their organizations and about the world. The emotions involved in learning can generate a degree of discomfort or even pain that can lead to both encouragement and transformation but can also re-shape, subvert or prevent learning (Vince, 2008).

Our article makes use of a Winnicottian perspective (Winnicott, 1960, 1965, 1989) which places the ability to learn within a developmental model that involves a profound intersection between internal and external processes and as such finds resonance with our data findings. At the heart of Winnicott’s view of learning lies a deceptively simple developmental model where our ability to learn depends upon our ability to navigate the internal stages of unintegration, integration, personalization and realization. This process is highly dependent upon a ‘holding environment’ which facilitates a space for experimentation and play and is appropriately balanced between security and overbearing, stifling attention. It also requires ‘primary maternal preoccupation’: a facilitating carer whose adaptive consideration underpins this process.

This focus on physical and mental holding is also witnessed in Bion’s concept of containment (1959) which is seen as an important feature of the learner-tutor relationship (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983). Because learning instigates anxiety, what is needed is not only a figure who can care and worry but one who can think about, clarify and differentiate between kinds of feelings. Within a classroom setting, the tutor’s imaginative reflection (what Bion terms ‘reverie’) enables him/her to bring together the different elements of experience into meaningful conjunctions. When anxieties become heightened, they are evacuated. What is required within a teaching and learning setting is not just tutor tolerance of anxieties and their evacuation but an ability to enable the learner to sort out the nature of the experience, to digest it mentally and give it meaning, to be a thinker in an emotional sense. If this occurs, learners become able to internalize not only a ‘container’ of feelings but a mind that can hold thoughts. Ultimately, if a person has repeated experiences of the anxiety of learning being understood and detoxified by another, they can gradually come to contain those frustrations and pain and find it less overwhelming and be able to think about those experiences. Hence, the task of the teacher may be thought of as resembling the parental function: acting as a temporary container for anxieties of students at times of stress. This will inevitably involve the tutor him/herself experiencing some of the mental pain of learning with the potential of seeing an example of maintaining curiosity in the face of chaos (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983).

Using a psychoanalytic frame of reference, therefore, facilitates an exploration of the frustration and disappointments that can occur in experience-based learning in professionally accredited situations, where time, critical reflection, toleration of ambiguity and persistence are required to seek out, probe and digest experiences to provide the foundations of knowing and critical reflection (Bion, 1962; Raab, 1997). Whilst there has been a focus on the use of experiential learning within the management and professional learning domains (e.g. Cheetham and Chivers, 2001) few studies address the emotionality of learning within this context or connect these issues with assessment (Elliott, 2008). This study contributes to the growing body of empirical studies which, using psychodynamic approaches, highlight the interdependent relationship between emotion and learning, particularly the paralysing and productive effect of anxieties (Levine, 2002) and tensions involved in reflection upon experience whilst simultaneously coping with curriculum assessment expectations (Valentin, 2007).

The article is structured in the following way. The research aims and the professional educational setting of the study are outlined and the research approach and data-gathering and analysis processes are then described. Key issues emerging from the data are highlighted before a discussion of the psychodynamic features of the way in which student and tutor expectations and responses to the experience-based learning process changed over the year-long duration of the module. Finally, the implications for those involved in learning and teaching in educational environments that are also sites of professional assessment are discussed.

Research aim and setting

The article addresses two central questions: first, how did student and tutor expectations and responses to the experience-based learning process change over the year-long duration of the module? Second, what emotions were evident as the programme went on and what effect did they have on learning? The respondents comprised 65 part-time professional students over a full academic year, distributed across three class groups over two different sites, and five members of their teaching team from a UK University delivering an LTD module on a Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) accredited education programme. In the UK, the CIPD is the largest UK professional body for those specializing in people management and development (CIPD, 2010a) and the attainment of their accredited Professional Development Scheme leading to Chartered membership of the Institute, effectively operates as a licence to practice in an HRM or HRD role (Gilmore and Williams, 2007). In this way, the CIPD and its accreditation mechanisms achieve a degree of social closure in that access is restricted to ‘ineligibles’: denying access to those who fail to demonstrate successful completion of this award and concomitant membership of the profession (Larson, 1977). For the students in this study, success and failure were consequential and would cement the status of successful students as a professionalin terms of their career progression and personal, professional identity—with uncertain occupational consequences for those who did not pass.

Achievement of the CIPD accredited qualification requires the successful completion of an approved postgraduate-level course where the curriculum and its assessment strategies have to comply with professional or capability statements which specify what practitioners ‘need to do’; what they ‘need to know’, and what ‘predominant behaviours’ are considered to be essential (CIPD, 2010b). The students were mostly employed in HRM or LTD roles and the two-semester long module was positioned in the final year of their two-year course. Each class of about 20 people had already established relationships from the first year of their course. The students were generally employed in post-entry and junior management HR or LTD roles and about half were sponsored by their employer. For these students who enjoyed company sponsorship, their progression through the programme is typically subject to forms of scrutiny and semi-public evaluation through informal questioning by colleagues (many of whom have often gone through the programme themselves) or via more formal reviews such as performance appraisal—arguably exacerbating learner anxiety because of the degree of transparency their progress was subject to.

The teaching team comprised five tutors, all of whom had extensive higher education experience (ranging from five to 16 years) and had worked in general management, HRM or HRD roles prior to their careers in higher education. There was also a depth of experience of teaching on the LTD module (ranging between three and eight years). Although the group had a loose identity of themselves as the LTD teaching team, the approach to working that had developed over the years can best be described as relaxed coordination. Over time the module had become dominated by a tutor-orientated and mostly didactic pedagogy. Handouts and teaching materials were centrally designed and issued to all three class groups to provide a measure of consistency of input. Individual tutors then used the materials as they thought fit, devising their own approach to the delivery of each session.

However, as with other management-orientated and professionally based disciplines, a defining characteristic of LTD education is a close relationship between theory and practice (Wang and Sun, 2009) and the didactic approach was increasingly seen as problematic by members of the teaching team. An experiential learning pedagogy was attractive, offering both immediacy and relevance, particularly for students employed in related, professional roles in organizations. An evaluation by the teaching team at the end of the 2007–8 academic year led to a proposal to introduce amore participative and experience-based approach to encourage critically reflective thought and action (Barnett and Coate, 2005). The pedagogic intention of the new approach was to enable learners to construct meaning from conversation and reflection based on their experiences so that the tacit and explicit features of knowledge could be brought together (Ahmad and Broussine, 2008; Baker et al., 2005; Kayes, 2002), and sense-making and ‘metacognitive’ learning skills could be developed (Barnett and Coate 2005;Cameron et al., 2003). In taking forward this approach the team sought to address the apparent contradiction involved in teaching an HRD module in a practice-based context that did not involve some form of experiential learning. This kind of pedagogic strategy is conceptually congruent with key principles within both the LTD and general management subject domains where the basis of ‘learning from each other’ takes a more dialogic and less hierarchical and tutor-dominated approach and application of knowledge is encouraged as part of the development of an informed critique of ‘taken for granted practice’ in a range of different individual, group, organizational and societal circumstances (Kuchinke, 2007).

The resultant pedagogic approach involved students working in small groups to research, design and deliver interactive sessions for their peers in both semesters. An individual coursework assignment based on the first tranche of sessions was designed for submission at the mid-point of the year and, in line with accreditation requirements, the module concluded with an unseen examination that covered the remainder of the syllabus. Four of the five tutors involved in this decision had experience of using some form of experiential approach, either in their teaching or in their HRD practice outside of higher education. However, there was no prior experience of using it in a professionally accredited context and the teaching team were mindful of the potential challenges of letting go of a content-led and assimilative approach in a context where professional examinations loom large. The context of post-experience management education processes such as workload demands, other stakeholder interests (in our case: university, employers and the accrediting body) is also a powerful influence on the extent to which experience-based learning can be encouraged and achieved (Elliott, 2008; Griffiths et al., 2005; Haggis, 2004; Kember and Kwan, 2000; Prosser et al., 2003) and power-relationships within student groups may also limit critical reflexivity opportunities as prejudice and pre-judgement may influence what can and cannot be said as well as what and who is heard (Baker et al., 2005). Given these concerns we undertook to carry out a careful and continuous evaluation of the first year in which the approach was utilised and this article is grounded in that process.

Methodology

We adopt an interpretivist orientation, grounded in the assumption that knowledge is created and understood from the point of view of individuals in a context of practice. Our intention was not to provide evidence from which to justify action or generalization but to understand the features of experience-based learning in the context of an accredited programme; working with practitioners (as learners and teachers) to enhance the learning process (Huang, 2010). As such our data-gathering process resembled action enquiry; both of us are researchers, curriculum designers and teachers (Kember, 2000). We set out to engage students and tutors in partnership and participation (Vince, 2001) and to encourage ongoing reflexivity so that a learning process could guide action, interpretation and sensemaking.

An iterative approach to data gathering and analysis was undertaken. We planned to gather teaching team and student reflections and reactions on three different occasions within the year, accepting that the focus and detail on each occasion would be influenced by the experiences of the new pedagogic approach by both tutors and students. We were conscious that a potential limitation of action research is that it may be descriptive and unduly influenced by power relations (Coghlan, 2007) and in all but one instance we were able to ensure that the data gathering was carried out by a member of the team who was not responsible for week-by-week teaching of any particular student group. A process resembling a focus group procedure was initially anticipated; we felt this to be congruent with our overall aim of encouraging participation and a more collective approach to meaning making and knowledge creation. For tutors the data gathering occurred in pre-arranged meeting times and was followed with a summary of the data being circulated to participants, inviting further comments or reflections. With students data gathering was incorporated into scheduled class-time; each class group formed into four or five smaller groups to discuss our questions and summarize their responses on flip-chart paper. Towards the end of the sessions each group offered an oral summary to the larger group and this gave the opportunity for other students to hear and respond to points made and also for the facilitator to probe further into areas that may have been initially unclear. We also invited students to continue their reflections and to share, in email form, any subsequent observations.

The flip-charts formed the basis for initial analysis of student data which occurred on each occasion within 24 hours. This involved identifying themes and issues and was undertaken by both researchers who reviewed the flip-charts and compared and evaluated the themes they had identified so that an agreed set of categories could be defined. After the first data set had been gathered we identified six main data categories: cognitive (the intellectual expectations of the approach); functional (the likely practical implications); skills issues; assessment issues; the ‘novelty’ of the approach and emotional responses.

As a result of our emerging awareness of the importance of emotions and feelings we decided in subsequent data gathering to probe more into this aspect and the value of a psychoanalytical perspective was discussed. At the half-way point of the module we encouraged students and tutors to revisit their initial expectations and concerns to reflect on whether these had been realized but, in addition, asked them to reflect on their feelings about the learning process. As we later came to realize this encouraged participants to reveal what might have otherwise remained hidden or obscured in a conventional module evaluation process; students were encouraged to articulate issues that are not normally surfaced during formal learning and teaching processes in higher education (Rigg and Trehan, 2008; Vince, 2010). Our initial analysis at this mid-point provided us with more data for our original categories and a further category was identified: lack of clarity. Table 1 provides an illustration of data that informed our categorization at these two stages. As the analysis process went on over the course of the year we revisited the data to look for patterns and trends within and between groups and to identify and probe for meaning within the various categories.

Table 1.

First and second data sets— illustrative quotations

Category	Student group 1	Student group 2	Student group 3
Cognitive/intellectual—1st data set	Active learning—take in more; retention	Feel positive about finding out for self rather than being taught	Better understanding; able to remember better through practical learning
Cognitive/intellectual—2nd data set	Over-used active learning; need equal amount of structured learning and active learning.	Time dedicated is disproportionate to the outcomes for the student-led sessions, except for the one we participated in	I only focused on my own sessions so didn’t learn as much from other presentations.
Functional/practical—1st data set	We won’t be provided with the information so we will have to do the leg work	Lots of reading will be needed	Concerned about getting my preferred topic
Functional/practical—2nd data set	Difficult for those who live outside the area or have different time commitments.	Not enough time to meet the lecturer’s expectations in terms of reading and acquiring knowledge.	Difficult to commit to additional time—but still committed though!
Skills—1^st data set	Transferable skills—might be useful for the day job	Competency in key areas—not just broad knowledge of everything	Forced to be more interactive
Skills—2nd data set	Good insight into LTD profession but will we recall anything in the exam?	Interaction helped with the assignment	Group work was beneficial—it was easy to learn through practical activities
Assessment—1st data set	Will we learn what is required for the exam? Could a bad session turn into a bad assignment?	Making sure we get what is needed from the sessions for the exams	The self-teaching approach is new and our assignment will be on a self-taught topic
Assessment—2nd data set	Don’t feel I took enough in from student-led sessions and no way of knowing what is missing for the exam.	Concerned about preparation for the exams; don’t know where to start with revision.	Not convinced that handouts/reference information received from student led sessions are going to be adequate to answer exams
Novelty—1st data set only	Familiar with this approach, used in parts of other courses/modules and in the workplace	Already done something like this last year so it can be done although it may be harder in some subject areas	This is very unfamiliar—so unlike anything we have done before
Lack of clarity—2nd data set only	Confused about expectations of assignment with student-led sessions.	Don’t know what we are meant to have learned—different perspectives have been taken	Getting it right—want back-up information from tutors so I know it is right.
Emotions—1st data set	Nervous, excited, apprehensive, worried, open to change!	Excited, apprehensive, ‘proof in the pudding’; reserved, concerned	Panic, dubious—need to be convinced: it’s a bit complicated
Emotions—2nd data set	Scared, tearful, feel the need to go away and start from the beginning for the exams with very little notes from lectures.	Frustration; don’t know what we’ve learned so far and what to revise.	Unmotivated; ready to finish; don’t feel prepared for the exams; don’t feel we have learned anything; bored.

We had to revise our plans for the final data-gathering process. A focus group meeting with staff occurred as planned but students were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire based on open questions. As discussed later in this article, this came about in response to many of the emotional and relationship consequences of the learning and teaching approach. The response rate to this questionnaire was poor and responses tended to reflect a polarisation of opinions.

Findings

In this section we offer a brief description of the main features of the data. We provide some illustrative quotations from the flip-charts, notes from meetings, associated email correspondence and extracts from the questionnaire responses but, to preserve anonymity, the discrete quotations are not labelled in more detail than to denote group membership.

Early stages: nervous enthusiasm to anxiety

Indicative examples of comments from the flip-charts in the first two data-gathering processes are shown as Table 1 although these quotations inadequately reflect the breadth of responses and the elements of difference as well as commonality between the groups. The early data indicated a mixture of positive feelings, familiarity, novelty and excitement at the prospect of assuming greater involvement and responsibility for knowledge creation and assimilation but also some concerns about assessment and knowledge acquisition. Although one group, Group 3, stated their general unfamiliarity with experiential learning, this pedagogic approach had been used within three mandatory two-day workshop sessions held each academic year and this potentially accounts for Group 1 and Group 2’s greater familiarity with a less didactive learning mode.

Group 2 were very articulate about their cognitive expectations, identifying the potential for enhanced insight and better integration between different aspects of LTD, between theory and practice, and about skills (such as facilitation, giving and receiving feedback, practical application skills) that they hoped to develop. However, by the mid-point of the module most of the responses indicated that students in all three groups felt the approach took up too much time and comments expressed concerns about the experience-based approach such as: ‘fun and interactive, but did we really learn anything?’ (Group 1); ‘not learned much from student-led sessions: would prefer to learn via lectures as it could be interactive but not student-led’ (Group 2) and ‘we feel that we have more important things to concentrate on than having to produce a student-led session’ (Group 3).

Concerns about assessment were expressed by Groups 1 and 2 who articulated concerns about the implications of the pedagogical approach for both the assignment and the examination. By the mid-point stage of the module members of all of the groups were very anxious about assessment and also about a perceived lack of clarity. Concerns about clarity related to feedback from the student-led sessions but also related to the assignment that had (by then) been submitted and returned, for example: ‘no real feedback from student-led sessions so still unsure as to whether the research carried out was right or wrong’ (Group 3) and ‘assignment criteria was very vague; lack of structure; self-reflection shouldn’t be in the word count and shouldn’t be marked’ (Group 3). Although Groups 1 and 2 made fewer comments in this area at this juncture, they shared the general concern as to their learning.

At the beginning of the module members of Group 1 articulated more apprehension than the other groups; words such as worry, fear, apprehensive, lack of confidence were used along with excited, positive, comfortable and pleased. However, at the mid-point of the module the data indicated high levels of anxiety about the examination across all three groups, for example: ‘Exam anxiety! Limited learning on topics: not having enough for the exam’ (Group 1); ‘Exam concerns—help!’ (Group 3) and were accompanied by concerns about ‘not knowing enough’ and a lack of notes or information. Additionally, all groups strongly expressed heightened emotional states and these were frequently linked to exams. The words used most frequently at this stage were: worry, scared, frustration, fear, tearful, panic, concern, anxious, unmotivated, bored.

Data from tutors, however, reflected a very different set of understandings and experiences. At the beginning of the module tutor expectations were similar to those expressed by students and could be characterized as nervous enthusiasm. Examples of their comments included: ‘concerned as to whether students will adapt’; ‘will the new assignment be effective?’ At the mid-point of the module, unlike the students, tutors levels of enthusiasm were maintained and, in one or two cases, increased reflecting greater engagement with pedagogy:

I am thinking more of the audience and reflecting more carefully after each session so that it informs the way I prepare for the next one.

Instead of thinking about content and then thinking about learning and teaching, the emphasis seems to have changed and I am thinking about learning and teaching as well as content in a more interrelated way.

Tutors also reflected positively about student progress and the classroom environment:

Engagement levels are good and certainly higher than last year and the assignment shows more, better work and less of a tail.

Therefore, divergence of experiences between students and tutors was apparent, especially at the mid-point. Some positive points were made by students at the mid-point stage particularly by members of Groups 2 and 3 such as: ‘allowed for “food for thought” rather than “memorizing” what we were told’ (Group 2) and ‘active learning—we benefit when we are involved in a group’ (Group 3) but such positive observations were the minority. Tutors were pleased with the improved achievement levels in the coursework assignment; felt energized by the experience-based pedagogy and, perhaps, had not yet turned their minds to examination issues. Students, on the other hand, were focusing ahead with trepidation to the end of unit summative assessment.

At the beginning of the second half of the module a planned change-over of tutors from within the teaching team was implemented and differences of views between the student groups became more pronounced. Although, at the mid-point review, all of the groups expressed concern about the continuation of the experience-based learning, Group 1 was prepared to work with their new tutor to maintain the approach, amending it where necessary to meet student needs. Group 2, however, effectively rebelled and refused to participate demanding a return to more traditional pedagogy and Group 3, which retained their tutor, strongly advocated a return to tutor-led sessions with many students expressed their ‘unhappiness and resentment at having to take part in the [student-led] exercises’, predicting that ‘commitment to the task; motivation and attendance levels’ would drop, thus ‘making the sessions even less effective’.

Following an intervention with Group 2 by the course manager, an uneasy compromise was initiated although in the following weeks some of the members of this group attempted, unsuccessfully, to generate discontent with students in Group 1. The antagonism towards the teaching and learning approach in Group 2 also negatively affected student-tutor relationships and, as tutors became aware of the difficulties, different labels began to be applied; the two classes that had been more receptive to the experience-based approach were referred to as ‘good’ whilst their counterparts in the other class were characterized as being ‘joyless’ and ‘militant’ with one of the tutors commenting that: ‘there was no joy of learning within that group’ and another observing that: ‘I was really taken aback by that group’s militancy and the “if you continue with this approach, I am not coming in” line’.

During this period, some students in the disaffected class established their own study groups (something that was only revealed to tutors after the end of the module). The students involved indicated that they had done this to circumvent any reliance on their tutor (with whom productive relationships had broken down). After the module these study groups were characterized as having being a helpful learning vehicle; something that might be interpreted as an expression of the achievement of the group-regulated skills that the module had set out to develop. However the students involved perceived the need to undertake this process as a criticism of the module, rather than as a positive outcome.

End of module data: polarized responses

Once the teaching and assessment processes for the year were complete and the module results (which were better than previous years) had been published, a final tutor focus group took place and an individual questionnaire was administered to all students in addition to the standard end-of-module questionnaire. Despite the difficulties witnessed in the second semester, focus group data from tutors confirmed the belief of those involved that the new approach remained appropriate to the subject domain:

The more positive group did some great sessions with great level of learning coming out of them and even the more militant one did good work in relation to some theory/practice in organization presentations with a good level of discussion.

Student concerns about the time-constraints involved were acknowledged and points made by them about a lack of clear objectives and structure were, with the benefit of hindsight, also accepted. All the tutors agreed that the assessment requirements were problematic; singling out the disjuncture between experiential learning methods and the (required) summative assessment:

The exam assessment strategy at the end just doesn’t fit with what we’re trying to do in class and the 50 percent weighting is just wrong too.

Students’ perspectives at this point are harder to evaluate as the response rate to the final questionnaire was poor. However, the data indicate frustration that tutors had significantly underestimated the strength of concern felt by students about the learning and teaching approach that had been implemented. Questionnaire responses were anonymous with no indication of membership of any of the groups. Selections of illustrative comments made are provided in Table 2 which sets out some of the dominant themes emerging from the data which were expressed to different extents and with different nuances by different individuals. For the illustrative purposes of Table 2 a selection of quotations from the responses of some, but not all, of the respondent group is provided.

Table 2.

End-of-unit questionnaire—illustrative quotations

Student	Response to student concerns	Tutor style/tutor relationship	Lack of clarity	Overall reflections
D	Disappointed and resentful about not being listened to … having provided feedback … twice … to continue with the same approach demonstrated not being listened to or respected as students.	Tutor’s style of teaching; subject to inappropriate unhelpful comments to contributions made … Learning approach changed with a change of tutor and after students demanded a different approach be taken … I was able to engage in debate and constructive comments with [tutor x] which enhanced the learning experience all round.	Part-time students [need] some degree of guidance and ‘feeding’… the learning approach was self-taught with minimal input and guidance … very loose structure and ambiguous outcomes … The unit would benefit from more prescribed reading with clear questions … Semester 2 would benefit from consideration as to how to ‘download’ information to students who are feeling pressured.	The balance was nearly there—certainly semester 1 worked … The group assignment was useful and worked really well.
F	When the group attempted to give constructive feedback … this was disregarded and received with a high degree of hostility.	Discussion and application were actively discouraged … I felt that I was treated like a child during lectures … the teaching styles of [tutor x] and [tutor y] are in direct contrast with each other… the group was described as ‘hostile’ by lecturers and this actively discouraged an effective learning environment.	I felt there was not clarity around the subject matter and knowledge that would be required in the exam.	I am an active contributor in class who likes to question and debate. I did not feel the styles used in LTD were able to draw on any contribution I could make. Once I took control of my own learning and disengaged from teaching in LTD I feel my performance improved significantly … LTD did not create a learning environment that could then effectively expand and apply …and develop our critical thinking.
H	It did feel like a battle … I feel that the compromise was acceptable, although could have been more effective had a quicker means to execute it been found … Felt very disappointed that feedback was not received and acted upon in a positive manner.	An air of blame rather than collaboration emerged … My feelings ranged from optimism, disappointment, frustration, resentment, anger and acceptance. Having raised genuine concerns regarding semester 2 … our lecturer failed to appreciate that our needs were different from those of the full-time group.	I wondered what real value the presentations had in creating genuine knowledge transfer/development.	It is not helpful to be asked to prepare and deliver a presentation … that is neither assessed nor evaluated by the lecturer … I did experience learning and gained a good pass mark.
K	Issues that were raised overshadowed the need for learning and did not create a comfortable learning environment.	Although the self-led sessions weren’t my preferred way of learning, it was much more successful than in the first semester. After our presentations and exercises our lecturer re-capped on the session to ensure we had met our learning objectives and understood what we were meant to have learned.	I felt I hadn’t fully learned the aspect that I was trying to inform the other students of … Our lecturer appeared …‘wishy-washy’, which didn’t help me because I needed to be confident about what I was going to do and have clarity and direction.	The 1^st semester session didn’t enhance my learning and what I learnt regarding each of the topics was learnt during my own personal revision sessions.
B	Not being listened to infuriates those taking part and makes them feel that they have wasted their time.	There was animosity from some teachers about changing the approach to fit the groups. It was only through the students ‘rebelling’ against the teaching style that the valuable time we have was used more wisely … once feedback was noted and the style was amended the feelings and emotions about this subsided and the students were able to concentrate on preparing for exams.	Worried about how much we were learning.	I feel that the unit itself and the learning from it was good.
M	Angry that the situation was not addressed sooner and more head on.	Hostile approach and confrontational approach to start … felt upset that after having a good relationship with all the lecturers … one of them was now being hostile … changed over time when a different lecturer took over.	Did not feel confident about my revision and that I had the information and guidance through the year … confusion and lack of clarity manifested during the exam and for the first time in my life I nearly walked out.	I was successful in this unit and exceeded my own expectations but I don’t feel this was due to how the unit was delivered.

Student data indicate a breadth of opinion; some responses described the learning approach as: ‘good’, ‘useful’, ‘the balance was nearly there—certainly semester one worked’, ‘I got a buzz from seeing people learn’, and ‘I found it a very rewarding experience’. Such comments were in the minority, however, and rather more students expressed more negative sentiments such as:

The teaching and learning approach…took too much time out of the hours outside of university which could have been used more productively on reading etc.

The majority view was encapsulated by this comment:

Whilst experiential learning may help longer-term development, that wasn’t what we wanted to achieve; we were there to learn how to pass an exam.

All but one of the questionnaire respondents commented on what they felt had been a loss of clarity as a result of what was perceived as the self-taught nature of the module and this was felt to have had an adverse effect on examination preparation:

Revision for this unit caused me a great deal of stress and anxiety. I struggled to know where to start and what to revise.

The student data from this stage also suggest a depth of anxiety that was not appreciated by the teaching team, leading to frustration being expressed concerning tutor unresponsiveness. In addition, stringent critiques were made about the teaching style of more than one of the tutors and the breakdown in the students-tutor relationship, for example:

I became more dissatisfied as the semester went on…we had tried to give constructive feedback to improve the service we were receiving (and paying for) from LTD. This feedback was largely dismissed by both (the module tutor and co-ordinators). They took a critical parent role and ‘blamed’ the students for the failings of the course rather than responding in an adult way and actively exploring how concerns could be addressed.

Towards the end of the L&D unit, I took the approach I would at work…I joined a study group…remained professional and refused to be held back.

Discussion

Our article highlights how the introduction of experiential learning was marked by a recognition by some students as to its difference and newness, whilst others acknowledged previous connection with it and saw value in the new approach. We would therefore argue that at the start of the module, students generally experienced themselves as being sufficiently able to adapt to a new learning mode but that some found the anxieties it came to generate too much to bear. Possible interpretations of our data might be that a change in pedagogy (any change) might evoke apprehension. The data we gathered do indicate that concerns about the use of experiential learning were expressed at the early stage of the process but these concerns focused on the impact that the new approach might have on examination performance, particularly in relation to a lack of notes and not knowing the kinds of right answers to get good marks because not enough might be concretely known about the subject. Therefore, although some unease about a change of pedagogy was evident from the start of the module, the data indicate that it was the anticipation of the looming summative assessment that triggered heightened expressions of anxiety in relation to the experiential pedagogy.

As noted by Le Doux (1998), anxiety is an emotion that might be felt and expressed as a brooding fear of what might happen. This may be interpreted within a psychoanalytic frame as a sense of ‘danger to the self’ arising from internal, instinctual sources as well as the external world (Freud, 1926) with those experiencing this emotion potentially linking these feelings to other, earlier experiences of a fearful event (like examinations) which have become lodged in the unconscious and thus have the ability to exert a long-term influence (Antonocopoulou and Gabriel, 2001). It is also more likely to be present when individuals, groups or organizations experience change. The need for organizations to contain anxieties experienced at the primitive, personal or work level is often at odds with the demands for change of an institution or a teaching team. Should that requirement for containment fail to be recognized, as it often is, then even the best-intentioned changes can become highly problematic because they dismantle the structures (such as lectures and didactic pedagogy) which were erected in the first instance to defend against anxiety (Obholzer and Roberts, 1994).

Our study highlights how, in spite of evidence of some support for experiential learning, students increasingly articulated frustration with the approach and a preference for a pedagogic approach that they felt would prepare them most clearly and effectively for the examination. The desire to return to traditional methods was very strongly articulated and can be interpreted as a phantasy of an escape from anxiety (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983). Additionally, our article also illuminates how the potential benefits of being prepared for work roles and situations requiring a deep understanding of LTD issues were set aside by students as the more immediate and pressing requirement to demonstrate sufficient expert knowledge to pass the exam came to the fore, exacerbated by the relationship between accredited course success and professional career potential.

The tensions described remained a constant feature of the module from the mid-point onwards. Where tutors were perceived as being willing and able to adapt their pedagogic approach to take account of student concerns, the levels of anxiety were diminished (but not expunged). However, anger and frustration increased where students felt their tutor had not been able or willing to change the approach, something that became perceived as a collective failure by the teaching team to recognize, acknowledge and act on anxieties when they were expressed. The ways by which these anxieties were expressed by more disaffected students may be understood through the psychoanalytic concept of projective identification (Klein, 1946), a mental mechanism that may be used in such situations whereby we try to get rid of the part of the personality which causes anxiety and conflict. The mechanism of projective identification does not simply operate in phantasy but can result in modes of behaviour and action (Bion, 1959). These impacts can be positive but, as anxieties build, it is more likely that what is projected may be negative feelings that seem overwhelming such as helplessness, confusion, panic, guilt or depression; all of which featured in our data from the mid- and end points of the module.

Here it is possible to suggest that the behaviour and perceptions of the students at this stage might be the result of group development processes (Bion, 1962; Tuckman, 1965) such that pent up anxiety from a ‘confictual stage’ was projected onto the tutors and/or the experience-based learning pedagogy. We acknowledge this point but highlight that our students were working with colleagues with whom they had developed group relationships in the first year of their course, prior to embarking on the LTD module. In addition, although many of our students found the experience of anxiety to be threatening, for others it was strengthening, particularly where there was a corresponding sense of ‘good enough’ support from the teaching and learning environment and especially from the tutors (Abram, 2007: 173). Gregory and Jones (2009) offer a typology of different tutor orientations towards student groups ranging from ‘distancing’, ‘adapting’, ‘clarifying’ and ‘relating’ that is helpful in understanding the development of different approaches by members of the tutorial team at the mid-point (Anderson and Gilmore, 2010) and our data indicate that the provision of a predictable continuity of care and support as well as a degree of adaptation towards, and clarifying of, student needs enabled some tutors and some students to make contact with the teaching and learning setting creatively (Winnicott, 1960). In this way, in addition to ‘learning inaction’ we also witnessed ‘learning-in-action’ occurring with some individuals who were able to use their peers and tutor(s) for learning: working through conflicts, uncertainties and challenges and anxiety (Vince, 2008: 100).

In our discussion we have been careful to consider competing explanations of the learning processes we have outlined and another potential explanation is that the challenges arose as a result of poor module design, inappropriate tutor delivery or a combination of the two. During the post module evaluation these issues were extensively considered. Changes have subsequently been made to the sequencing of topics within the module and peer support processes have also been established for tutors as well as students. However, the contradiction involved in offering an HRD module that does not include some form of experiential learning practice, even in an accredited context, suggests that the fundamental module design was appropriate. Vince (2010) highlights the problematic issue of student perception of tutor intentions with a non-didactic pedagogy and in our case, although productive relationships between one student group and one of their tutors did break down, the data from students in smaller groups and in their individual questionnaire responses indicate a far from simple characterization of tutor quality and different (and sometimes contradictory) ascriptions are apparent in the data from different periods of the academic year.

Therefore, in this article, we argue that psychodynamic concepts are appropriate and helpful ways of understanding the challenges and unconscious resistances to learning from experience and the discomfort that may be involved in experience-based settings where professional accreditation is also required. Our study has highlighted the extent to which classrooms (like organizations) are emotional places for both students and tutors. Tutors, who were enlivened and invigorated by the experience-based pedagogic approach and for whom assessment processes reflected comfortable positions of power and knowledge authority, were unaware of the emotional consequences of the pedagogic approach they were facilitating. They lacked the awareness to hear or recognize the anxieties, tending to try to neutralize emotion and to evade it. This served to exacerbate an already difficult situation where students were feeling increasingly anxious and powerless and, for most (but not all) of the students, this served to inhibit learning rather than to enable it. As the end of the year approached tutors came to feel increasingly uncomfortable, many of us felt uncertain and vulnerable for much of the time. However, in a higher education environment dominated by a tacit acceptance of the need to neutralize or suppress emotions (Levine, 2002; Vince, 2010) we, like our students, had no clear way to surface, handle or hold such feelings.

Conclusions

This article highlights the anxiety that may be involved in learning and the particular challenges posed by an experiential pedagogy when applied in a professionally accredited education context. It addresses two central questions: first, how did student and tutor expectations and responses to the experience-based learning process change over the year-long duration of the module? Second, what emotions were evident as the programme went on and what effect did they have on learning?

In relation to the first of our questions, our article illuminates the changing landscape of expectations of the students and tutors over the duration of an academic year. In particular it highlights the effects of summative assessment processes and the ways that these can be consequential for expectations, particularly in a professionally accredited context where substantial emphasis is placed upon the assessment of knowledge acquisition and its deployment. Our article considers a situation where these challenges were also linked with an ongoing experience-based learning process that required students to seek out, engage with, probe and digest experiences that might then provide the foundations of knowing (Bion, 1962; Raab, 1997). In this context our study demonstrates how, over time, the frustration and disappointment that can result from the expectations associated with learning through experience may exacerbate students’ feelings of the loss of a sense of clarity of knowledge acquisition associated with familiar, didactive pedagogic approaches and their assessment. In our case, as the year progressed expectations changed profoundly and the impact of this was differently experienced. We found that some students were able to tolerate anxieties about not knowing until a meaningful pattern emerged and sense making relating to the learning, training and development subject area and its wider context was achieved. Most students, however, whilst acknowledging the sound basis in using an experience-based approach for learning about learning and development, found the process to be too challenging and after the mid-point of the academic year, sought to return to didactive approaches which were arguably associated as being more suited to examination navigation and success. In practical terms our study draws attention to the need for careful and intentional tutor responsiveness to changing student expectations. In our case tutors remained committed to the experiential methodology throughout the year (in contrast to many of our students) but were unsure of the most appropriate method to flex the way the experience-based approach was enacted in response to the changing expectations of students. A clear implication for practice in similar situations is the requirement for an ongoing, supportive and reflective discussion space to enable members of teaching teams in similar circumstances to articulate pressure points and take forward an appropriate response to changing expectations that does not lead inexorably to the abandonment of experiential learning with the consequent loss of learning opportunities for both learners and teachers.

Our second question relates to the effect of these emotions on learning in experienced-based learning and professional accreditation contexts. We show how the emotional features of learning can provide the basis for profound and enduring development at both a group and an individual level. Indeed, without some emotional experiences individuals are unlikely to move beyond a superficial level of knowledge acquisition. However, our article illustrates a feature often overlooked in prescriptive approaches to pedagogic development: not all learning is productive; conflicts and collaborations arise from attempts to organize and facilitate learning, created from and reinforced by emotions expressed both individually and collectively (Vince and Salem, 2004). Whilst we witnessed learning-in-action occurring we also witnessed learning inaction with inaction being mobilized through anxieties and antagonisms that were sometimes inadequately worked through or held (Vince, 2008). Our study illustrates the inhibiting effect of tensions caused when the formation of occupational and professional identity associated with an accredited programme is perceived to be based upon the mastery and memorization of knowledge as information rather than the less certain and less defined methods witnessed in experiential learning. Those involved in learning and teaching, therefore need to be alert to the frustrations for students that may be caused by this tension as it can lead to increasingly urgent demands for a more short-term, tangible learning process perceived as being helpful in passing examinations (Bradley, 2005) to the detriment of the achievement of learning processes that foster critical individual and collective reflection incorporating growth, development and the surfacing of tacit understanding. The emotional responses provoked by these learning-assessment-professional accreditation tensions require an appropriately skilled helper (Bion, 1959; Winnicott, 1965). Where these feelings and anxieties can be received by another and understood, an opportunity can be provided for growth and development. Our article, therefore, highlights the underestimated importance of the learning environment and specifically the figure of the tutor in such situations (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al., 1983; Winnicott, 1989). The need for such responses raises significant challenges for tutors, for which they are rarely prepared (James and Arroba, 2005). In our case we observed that more than one of the tutors, from time to time, were overwhelmed by the negative emotions expressed and projected by students. Although all members of the teaching team were confident in their subject and were experienced in teaching in higher education, their professional formation left them mostly unprepared to identify, hold and enable students to work through intense feelings and experiences that arose as the module progressed.

There are important implications for those engaged in learning and teaching in a professionally accredited context. First, there is a need for an acknowledgement and understanding of the emotional consequences for students and tutors of bringing together dialogic and experiential learning methods (appropriate to management and professional domains) with the expert knowledge requirements of professional bodies. A more skilled reading of the emotionality of the classroom learning environment by those involved in experiential learning in higher education is required if improved levels of self-insight by both students and tutors is to be achieved, so that ego defensive behaviour by both parties is reduced and the production of anxiety is used as an opportunity for learning and working it through. Second, if the anxiety and emotions associated with experiential learning are to stimulate meaningful and reflexive outcomes a more consistent holding environment is necessary to enable anxieties arising from experience-based learning and expert knowledge demands to be appropriately held.

In the areas of management and professional education both experiential learning and the requirement for additional accreditation are becoming increasingly prominent, particularly for post-experience student programmes. Although the higher education learning environment tends to see emotion as something to control, ignore or suppress in order to encourage rational argument and objective thought our article highlights the emotional consequences that may result. A clear implication of our analysis is the requirement for those involved in professionally accredited domains, and those involved in the professional formation of educators, to recognize and attend to the skills required by tutors to undertake this emotionally laden work, something that is currently under-acknowledged and under-researched.

Footnotes

The authors acknowledge with thanks the support of a research honorarium awarded by the University Forum for HRD (UFHRD) and the HEA Business, Management, Accountancy and Finance (BMAF) subject centre associated with the project discussed in this article.

References

Abram

(2007) The Language of Winnicott: A Dictionary of Winnicott’s Use of Words. London: Karnac.

Ahmad

Broussine

(2008) Pedagogic implications of anxiety and loss of agency in public services managers and leaders. International Journal of Public Sector Management 21(4): 340–352.

Anderson

Gilmore

(2010) Learning, experienced emotions, relationships and innovation in HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training 34(8/9): 753–771.

Antonocopoulou

Gabriel

(2001) Emotion, learning and organizational change: Towards an integration of psychoanalytic and other perspectives. Journal of Organizational Change Management 14(5): 436–451.

Baker

Jensen

Kolb

(2005) Conversation as experiential learning. Management Learning 36(4): 411–427.

Barnett

Coate

(2005) Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Buckingham: SHRE and Open University Press.

Bion

(1959) Attacks on linking. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 40: 308–315.

Bion

(1962) Learning from Experience. London: Karnac.

Boud

Falchicov

(2006) Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31(4): 399–413.

10.

Boud

Walker

(1999) Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education 23(2): 191–206.

11.

Boud

Keogh

Walker

(eds) (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning. London: Kogan Page.

12.

Boud

Rooney

Solomon

(2009) Talking up learning at work: Cautionary tales in co-opting everyday life. International Journal of Lifelong Education 28(3): 323–334.

13.

Bradley

(2005) Psychology and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Cameron

Dutton

Quinn

(2003) Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

15.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2010a) HR’s Profession Map. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-profession-map/about.htm.

16.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2010b) About the CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/about?area=hs.

17.

Cheetham

Chivers

(2001) How professionals learn in practice: An investigation of informal learning amongst people working in professions. Journal of European Industrial Training 25(5): 248–292.

18.

Coghlan

(2007) Insider action research: Opportunities and challenges. Management Research News 30(5): 335–343.

19.

Elliott

(2008) Emancipating assessment: Assessment assumptions and critical alternatives in an experience-based programme. Management Learning 39(3): 271–293.

20.

French

(1997) The Teacher as container of anxiety: Psychoanalysis and the role of the teacher. Journal of Management Education 21(4): 483–495.

21.

French

Vince

(1999) Group Relations, Management, and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22.

Freud

(1926) Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. SE 20. London: Hogarth.

23.

Gilmore

Williams

(2007) Conceptualising the ‘Personnel Professional’: Acritical analysis of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s professional qualification scheme. Personnel Review 36(3): 398–414.

24.

Gregory

Jones

(2009) Maintaining competence: A grounded theory typology of approaches to teaching in higher education. Higher Education 57 (6): 769–785.

25.

Griffiths

Winstanley

Gabriel

(2005) Learning shock: The trauma of return to formal learning. Management Learning 36(3): 275–297.

26.

Haggis

(2004) Meaning, identity and ‘motivation’: Expanding what matters in understanding learning in higher education? Studies in Higher Education 29(3): 335–352.

27.

Huang

(2010) What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest? Action Research 8(1): 93–109.

28.

James

Arroba

(2005) Reading and carrying: aframework for learning about emotion and emotionality in organizational systems as a core aspect of leadership development. Management Learning 36(3): 299–316.

29.

Kayes

(2002) Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 1(2): 137–149.

30.

Kember

(2000) Action Learning and Action Research: Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning. London: Kogan Page.

31.

Kember

Kwan

(2000) Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science 28(5): 469–490.

32.

Klein

(1946) Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 27: 99–110.

33.

Kuchinke

(2007) Birds of a feather: The critique of the North American business school and its implications for educating HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development Review 6(2): 111–126.

34.

Larson

(1977) The Rise and Fall of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. London: University of California Press.

35.

LeDoux

(1998) The Emotional Brain. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

36.

Levine

(2002) Thinking about doing: On learning from experience and the flight from thinking. Human Relations 55(10): 1251–1268.

37.

Macdonald

(1995) The Sociology of the Professions. London: Sage.

38.

Maclellan

(2004) How convincing is alternative assessment for use in higher education? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29(3): 311–321.

39.

Miettinen

(1998) About the legacy of experiential learning. Lifelong Learning in Europe 3(3): 165–171.

40.

Moore

Kuol

(2007) Matters of the heart: Exploring the emotional dimensions of educational experience in recollected accounts of excellent teaching. International Journal for Academic Development 12(2): 87–98.

41.

Obholzer

Roberts

(1994) The Unconscious at Work. London: Routledge.

42.

Prosser

Ramsden

Trigwell

(2003) Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relationship to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education 28(1): 37–48.

43.

Raab

(1997) Becoming an expert in not knowing: Reframing teacher as consultant. Management Learning 28(2): 161–175.

44.

Revans

(1971) Developing Effective Managers: A New Approach to Business Education. Harlow: Longman.

45.

Reynolds

(1999) Critical reflection and management education: Rehabilitating less hierarchical approaches.Journal of Management Education 23(5): 537–553.

46.

Reynolds

(2009) Wild frontiers: Reflections on experiential learning. Management Learning 40(4): 387–392.

47.

Rigg

Trehan

(2004) Reflections on learning with critical action learning. Action Learning Research and Practice 1(2): 151–167.

48.

Rigg

Trehan

(2008) Critical reflection in the workplace: Is it just too difficult? Journal of European Industrial Training 32(5): 374–384.

49.

Salzberger-Wittenberg

Williams

Osborne

(1983) The Emotional Experience of Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

50.

Schön

(1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.

51.

Senge

Kleiner

Ross

Roth

Smith

(1999) The Dance of Change. New York: Doubleday.

52.

Stein

(2004) Theories of experiential learning and the unconscious. In: Miller

Gould

Stapley

Stein

(eds) Experiential Learning in Organizations: Applications of the Tavistock Group. London: Karnac, 19–36.

53.

Struyven

Dochy

Janssens

(2005) Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (4): 331–347.

54.

Tuckman

(1965) Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 63(6): 384–399.

55.

Valentin

(2007) How can i teach critical management in this place? In Rigg

Stewart

Trehan

(eds) Critical Human Resource Development: Beyond Orthodoxy. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall, 169–196.

56.

Vince

(1998) Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education 22(3): 304–319.

57.

Vince

(2001) Power and emotion in organizational learning. Human Relations 54(10): 1325–1351.

58.

Vince

(2002) Organizing reflection. Management Learning 33(1): 63–78.

59.

Vince

(2008) Learning-in-action and learning inaction: Advancing the theory and practice of critical action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice 5(2): 93–104.

60.

Vince

(2010) Anxiety, politics and critical management education. British Journal of Management 21 (Supplement s1): s26–s39.

61.

Vince

Reynolds

(2004) Critical management education and action-based learning: Synergies and contradictions. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3(4): 442–458.

62.

Vince

Saleem

(2004) The impact of caution and blame on organizational learning. Management Learning 35(2): 131–152.

63.

Wang

Sun

(2009) Clarifying the boundaries of human resource development. Human Resource Development International 12(1): 93–103.

64.

Wilson

Beard

(2003) The learning combination lock - an experiential approach to learning design.Journal of European Industrial Training 27(2): 88–97.

65.

Winnicott

(1960) The theory of the parent-infant relationship. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 41: 585–595.

66.

Winnicott

(1965) The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development. London: Hogarth.

67.

Winnicott

(1989) Holding and Interpretation: Fragment of an Analysis. London: Karnac.

68.

Yorke

(2003) Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education 45(4): 477–501.