RRU Looking for magic

Magic in Mid-Career: Problem-Based Learning, the Changing Self, and MAL

a Research Report prepared by Tara J. Fenwick & Caroline Stuart, University of Alberta

Introduction

What purposes should drive graduate education for mid-career professionals?

Increasingly, higher education providers are incorporating a variety of non-traditional approaches to increase accessibility, to attract students willing to pay higher tuition, to cater (or appear as though catering) to the needs of the ‘field’, to reduce delivery costs, and to improve program quality. On-line learning, problem-based learning, field-based “service learning”, industry-driven curricula, and self-assessment (i.e. portfolios) have become increasingly common in the past decade’s proliferation of higher education programs specifically targeting professionals.

Many have voiced concern about the influence on higher education of market need, with the infusion of business plans, demand for flexibility, and emphasis on accountability via measurable, vocationally meaningful ‘outcomes’^[2]. From the perspective of postsecondary institutions struggling to remain viable and offer quality programs in today’s highly competitive market of providers, however, programs often must appeal to the needs of workplace organizations and individual staff within them seeking career mobility. The phenomenon of the nomadic learner has emerged, ‘shopping’ amongst global providers for a graduate program perfectly suited to his or her preferences. This has justifiably caused concern among postsecondary institutions about the image marketability, positioning, perceived currency and even vocational ‘capital’ of their program’s content and delivery methods in the ‘real’ (vocational) world.

This report presents a study examining the learning experiences of mid-career professionals graduating from one non-traditional graduate program in Canada attempting to position itself competitively, and succeeding so far, surprising many of its early critics. At first glance, this case is interesting for two reasons: (1) an overwhelming majority of learners not only report great satisfaction with the program, but claim it was “life changing”; (2) these learners, professionals occupying or seeking leadership positions in their organizations, appear to exert significant impact in their workplaces and often do so through the concepts and skills they claim to develop in this graduate program. The study focused on the problem-based learning and self-assessment dimensions of the program.

Program overview

In 1996, Harrington University (HU) in Victoria, British Columbia launched a new Master of Arts program in organizational leadership and training for mid-career professionals. Called MA, this program was centered on three practices^[3] which have continued to characterize its uniqueness: (1) a competency-based curriculum focusing on competencies in five areas: leadership, learning, communication, systems thinking, and research; (2) a residential component of two five-week summer ‘residencies’ at the lovely location of HU on the coast of Vancouver Island near Sooke; (3) problem-based learning; and (4) emphasis on self-assessment using various instruments such as the Myers-Briggs personality type indicator, reflective activities such as journalling, and an electronic ‘learning agreement’ maintained throughout the program. The program takes two years to complete, ending with final approval of the research Major Project report (normally in April of a learner’s second year in the MAL program).

Aside from the program director and administrative staff, all instructors are adjunct faculty hired on a contract basis to plan and conduct summer residencies, facilitate distance learning courses, and supervise students completing their research projects. Thus the program can recruit short-term faculty to fill emerging content needs, can make changes quickly without barriers that departmental structures and unionized and tenured faculty can pose, and can avoid the costly benefits, faculty insurance, support of research programs^[4], and other infrastructures that traditional universities contend with.

The MAL program has been designed specifically to appeal to learners’ “needs”, as described by the mid-career professionals targeted by the program. In different years, thorough learner evaluations and pre-residency needs questionnaires have been reviewed carefully by MAL faculty, with substantive program changes often implemented the following year. Learners from a wide variety of industrial and public sectors and professions are mixed together in ‘cohort’ groups of approximately 55. Accessibility is stressed. All courses outside the five-week summer residencies are delivered on-line^[5]. Applicants without a bachelor’s degree are accepted into this master’s program through a process of prior learning assessment, and some learners participating in this study explained that this is the reason they chose HU’s program.

The MAL approach appears to be successful in attracting its students. From one cohort in 1996, the program has grown quickly: four new cohorts of 55 are all beginning MAL degrees in the summer of 2001. The Program Director, Dr. Doug Hamilton, describes marketing as targeting the needs of the mid-career professional - especially those seeking a non-traditional educational experience - desiring a program combining technology and residential education, who are ready for serious self-examination and personal change. Many students apparently are attracted through friends’ and colleagues’ endorsement of the program as ‘life-changing’.

Definitions

HU Harrington University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, British Columbia

MA Master’s of Arts in Leadership and Training, one of several graduate programs offered by HU designed for mid-career professionals, involving two five-week residencies on campus, distance-delivered courses, and a Major Project of action research.

PBL Problem-Based Learning, a learning activity where participants are given one week work together in teams to analyse and suggest solutions for real organizational problems, then present their ideas to organizational representatives.

Part II

Study Methods

This project was focused particularly on understanding the long-term effectiveness, perceived by learners, of problem-based learning (PBL) and self-assessment (SA) activities in terms of their subsequent growth and practice of leadership in their own workplace. These two dimensions - PBL and SA - were chosen because of their centrality to the MAL program principles, their uniqueness in terms of graduate education, and the testimony to their significance reported by learners and faculty in informal conversations prior to the commencement of this study.

The study employed quantitative and qualitative methods to answer the following questions:

(1) What are the most meaningful learner experiences for personal and professional development provided by MA’s problem-based learning and self-assessment approaches?

(2) What evidence of this development do learners observe in their lives and work practice over the long term?

(3) What particular aspects of MA’s problem-based learning and self-assessment approaches do different learners perceive contribute most to their development as mid-career professionals?

Following acceptance of the study proposal and approval of the study methods as outlined in that proposal by Dr. Gerry Nixon, further permission was obtained from Harrington University to use address lists of all students enrolled in MAL cohorts from 1996-1999. As well, permission was obtained to use the Harrington University student listserve to post general messages related to the study.

Questionnaire

A questionnaire was prepared from conversations with faculty and a small group of program graduates, then pilot-tested with an additional small group of program graduates. In February 2000 the questionnaire was mailed to all past graduates and present enrollees in the MAL program from 1996-1999 across Canada, a total of 286: 166 were returned for a surprisingly high response rate of 58%^[6]. Three emails were distributed to potential respondents via the Harrington listserve. One outlined the study purpose and appealed to MAL enrollees to complete the questionnaire, a second reminded questionnaire recipients to respond, and a final email thanked all respondents and announced the winners of the draw.

Aside from demographic information, the questions asked respondents to indicate their greatest learnings, the extent of its long-term influence on their work practice, and their personal satisfaction with various aspects of the problem-based learning and self-assessment components of the MAL program. A copy of the complete questionnaire is appended to this report (see Appendix A).

A ten-point scale was chosen for the questionnaire’s closed items to allow respondents as much flexibility as possible. These questions were each coded by category and entered into an SPSS quantitative analysis spreadsheet. Written responses to open-ended questions were analysed to identify thematic patterns, which were each assigned codes. Any additional written comments, added by respondents to questions requiring selection and rating of items, were likewise coded and entered into the program.

Descriptive quantitative analysis was employed for the ten-point scale questions. Responses to each question were calculated first to determine frequency of distribution of respondents’ ratings for each item, as well as median and mean of responses for each question. Then for each question, findings were calculated for each of the following dimensions to determine rating frequency, median and mean:

(1) gender

(2) age category

(3) year of program

(4) category of professional discipline

(5) geographic region

(6) gender plus age category

(7) gender plus year of program

(8) gender plus category of professional discipline

(9) category of professional discipline plus age category

(10) category of professional discipline plus year of program

(11) category of professional discipline plus geographic region

All results were calculated and represented as tables^[7] showing frequency of responses. These were then analysed for thematic patterns and areas of most concentrated responses.

Written qualitative responses were also analysed to identify new themes, to determine issues not adequately addressed in the questionnaire, and to highlight areas of particular interest to particular respondents. On the basis of this and other analyses of the questionnaire responses, a semi-structured interview schedule was designed for use in the telephone interviews.

Telephone interviews

Twenty respondents were selected for follow-up interviews from those questionnaire respondents who had completed and mailed in a special form indicating willingness to be interviewed. Interviews were scheduled at a time convenient to each participant, and conducted by telephone. Most interviews were approximately 30-45 minutes in length. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed, with the written permission of participants (complete ethical procedures are described in a later section). Interviewers took extensive content notes throughout the interviews, as well as field notes following each interview to record impressions and what appeared at the time to be key themes.

These interview conversations were semi-structured, in-depth and open-ended in nature. Participants were asked to describe critical incidents in their MAL experience related to problem-based learning and self-assessment, and to give examples of ways they found themselves integrating their learning into their workplace practice. Participants were also asked to explore themes that emerged in the analysis of the questionnaire responses, and to expand comments they had volunteered on the questionnaire. The interview schedule is appended to this report (see Appendix B). However in the spirit of emergent qualitative research, interviews did not always follow this list of questions closely. Many were guided by the particular interests, stories and emphases of participants.

Transcripts were analysed using interpretive techniques of qualitative data coding and categorizing^[8] towards generating themes for comparison across the interviews. All transcripts were read and tapes listened to multiple times. Conversations were divided into small bits, and analysed for topics and sub-topics which were then coded as categories of meaning. These categories were read against one another within each transcript, seeking patterns of commonality as well as points of difference and contradiction.

A master list of categories was then generated and read comparatively against each transcript in turn. After these categories and sub categories were refined, the next readings of whole manuscripts sought to identify deeper themes across the transcripts. Notes taken during and after the interviews were analyzed at this stage, and their themes compared to the emerging template of patterns. The entire analysis process was conducted by each researcher in turn, then results were combined, compared and refined.

In the final stage of analysis, themes from the transcripts were compared with results from the quantitative analysis to locate general patterns of similarity, points of clarification or intensification offered by the transcripts to the questionnaire responses, and points of contradiction.

Themes and discussion of the patterns generated in this analysis were sent to each interview participant in the form of a first draft. Participants were asked to validate the themes for trustworthiness, and to suggest any deletions, additions or changes to their own quoted comments in the manuscript. Revisions were made according to the wishes of all those who requested modifications pertaining to their own contributions to this study.

Thus the study results have been validated by three methods:

(1) peer audit (two researchers;

(2) triangulation of data (qualitative and quantitative findings); and

(3) member check (validation by all twenty interviewees).

Ethical considerations

This study was governed by the ethical guidelines for educational research stipulated by the University of Alberta. Respondents to the written questionnaire were anonymous. Questionnaires were distributed and returned in hard copy, by post. Those respondents choosing to enter the draw and/or wishing to volunteer for interviews did so by placing their name and contact information on a separate slip of paper and enclosing it in a sealed envelope.

All interview participants gave written and oral informed consent for their interviews to be tape recorded, transcribed, and excerpts included in a report (see Appendix C). Strict confidentiality of participants’ identity has been maintained as much as possible, through the removal of real names and most identifying characteristics from the final report. No deception was used and the researchers have endeavored to ensure that no harm has come to the participants as a result of their involvement in this project. All raw data (tapes, transcripts and notes) connected with this project are kept secure throughout its duration and will be destroyed after a period of five years unless participants give permission for their further use. Participants were given the right to withdraw from the study at any time for any purpose. No one chose to exercise this option.

Participant demographics

We chose to invite all those who had enrolled in the MAL program between its inauguration in 1996 and 1999 to participate in the study. Questionnaires were thus sent to 286 people, the total number on the contact lists maintained by Harrington University.

Questionnaire respondents

Of the 166 Questionnaire respondents 106 were women and 55 were men, reflecting the approximate gender balance of the MAL cohorts. Interestingly, there was very little difference among men’s and women’s responses. There was also little distinction based on age, partly due to the heavy concentration in the 40-50 age group (61%)^[9].

There was far greater distinction amongst respondents based on previous education and areas of employment. For some, this was their first higher education program: only 58% had a bachelor’s degree (7 of who had also obtained another Master’s degree) before beginning the MAL program. The rest (42%) indicated their highest educational level completed prior to beginning the program was high school, a trade or professional certificate^[10].

Professional occupations were concentrated in education (28%) and health care (25%), while 19 people were employed in government, 19 were in social/civic services, 18 were self-employed, 7 in non-profit organizations, 6 in human resources, 3 in each of industry and business services, and 1 in each of financial services, ministry and retail. This wide occupational diversity was the source of positive comment by many respondents, who noted that the “mix” of people from sectors and fields different to their own offered a welcome freshness of different perspectives.

The majority of respondents resided in British Columbia (78%). Of the remainder, 6% resided in Alberta, 3% in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, 7% in Ontario, 1% in Quebec, 2.5% in Atlantic Canada, and 2.5% in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. No significant differences were apparent among participants’ responses based on geographic region of residence.

Interview respondents

Twenty interview respondents were chosen from those questionnaire respondents indicating their willingness to be contacted for an interview. The original plan had been to interview five MAL graduates from each year of the program (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999), striving to balance a variety of gender, geographic regions, and professional disciplines among the interviewees. Five were interviewed who began their MAL program in 1996 and five who began in 1997. However due to an identification error, only three people were interviewed who began MAL in 1998, and seven who began in 1999.

Eleven of the participants resided, at the time of interviewing, in British Columbia, four in Alberta, three in Ontario, one in PEI and one in NWT. This reflects a significantly lower overall proportion of BC representation than is found in the general MAL population and in the questionnaire responses.

Eleven interviewees are women and nine are men. Although this provides gender balance for the findings, it does not echo the general gender proportion of the MAL program (which has been closer to 70% women and 30% men for the period 1996-1999).

Occupational range of the interview participants was difficult to classify accurately, a fact that raises some questions about how questionnaire respondents classified themselves. For example, while eight people indicated their primary occupation to be “education”, five were located in the post-secondary sector (four in administration), and one had transitioned to full-time administration during the study. Thus their professional practice would be arguably far different in context and activity than that of public school teachers.

Six indicated their primary occupation to be “health care”, but again embracing a wide diversity of practice: three were mid-level administrators (all 100%, two with no health care background), two combined middle-management with hospital-based practice, and one was an organizational CEO in a very specific field of health care.

Three were administrators in police forces or the military, two in training and development (one of who was formerly an educator, not a police officer). Two were mid-level managers in large government departments. Two were self-employed as organizational development consultants

These combinations raise the question, How can we accurately understand and ‘classify’ a mid-career professional’s occupation? Several employment factors appear to influence a mid-career professional’s actual work activity, professional identity, and learning needs. These employment factors include

1. Sector of employing organization (government, health, education, industry, finance, etc.);

2. Actual practice (senior management, middle management, technical professional practice, helping professional practice, etc.);

3. Size and nature of employing organization (ranging from large bureaucracy to self-established, self-owned small business); and

4. Professional training and background experience (and its relationship to one’s current work activity).

As we saw among the interview respondents, these dimensions likely combine in different ways to influence a person’s perspective about and approach to work-related learning (including knowledge most valued, competencies required for the work, workplace opportunities or lack of opportunities for learning, and general orientation and values related to work).

An additional question is related to mid-career professional’s occupational transition. Five interviewees indicated they either had experienced significant career change since completing the MAL program, or were seriously considering a significant change. (For example, a former military commanding officer was developing a career as an organizational consultant and fiction writer; and a former director of a national non-profit organization had moved to postsecondary teaching). All five attributed their career changes directly to personal transformations they experienced in the MAL program.

Other interviewees indicated having experienced significant change prior to beginning MA. For example Sal^[11], a former trade construction worker, had become a teacher before moving to educational administration. Still others indicated they were thinking seriously about career transitions they were confronting. Earle, a postsecondary administrator, was looking to his retirement in a few years, considering ‘what do I want to accomplish before I leave?’ and ‘where am I headed afterwards?’

These findings suggest that, at least for a proportion of MAL graduates (among our study interviewees, about 25-30%), the program either induces, enhances or supports significant career change for mid-career professionals.

PART III

Findings: Valuing Group Process and the Changing Self

My wife was absolutely amazed. She said she hadn’t seen me this alive for years. I’d just be bouncing. It was a magic experience for me – Mel, an armed forces officer

General Comments About Study Findings

This section presents findings from the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study. The findings are organized into four main sections, each addressing significant learnings related to the Master’s of Arts in Leadership and Training program reported by MAL graduates: learnings related to problem-based learning (PBL) activities, learnings about the changing self, learnings related to MAL self-assessment activities, and influence of learnings on participants’ continuing work practice. The ‘changing self’ category was added in response to a strong theme which emerged during data analysis, explained later. Within these sections, subsections report individual themes that appeared most frequently in participant responses, or were emphasized most strenuously by participants.

However before discussing the actual findings, four issues need to be clarified, as presented below. First there appeared to be significant differences in experience between different cohorts, although patterns could not be discerned in this study correlating particular cohorts to particular themes of learning. Second, the context of the MAL community living in residence throughout the activities, whether PBL or self-assessment, appears to be an important dimension which influences all other aspects of the program. Third, there were extreme variations between responses, some (in the same cohort) directly contradicting one another, and many indicating strong emotionality. Finally, there was little mention of the Major Project. This might be expected in a study focusing on other program aspects, but is worth mentioning.

Differences among cohorts

One dimension requiring special note is the variation among respondents according to their year of program. Because each MAL cohort is led by a different ‘team’ of five faculty, the programs vary somewhat in emphasis, tone, handling of the problem-based learning activities, and type of faculty-learner relationships. As well, Harrington University leads all faculty in reviewing learner’s evaluations, formulating recommendations for program modification or change, and implementing changes in time for the next summer of cohorts. Thus the program has continued to evolve in its five years of operation, with noticeable refinements and changes apparent since its genesis in 1996. 30% of questionnaire respondents had begun the program in 1999 and 30% in 1998; 26% in 1997 and 14% in 1996.

Some in the earliest (1996) cohort indicated their knowledge of program changes and improvements since their own experience. This was also apparent among the interviewees. However, comments such as “we were the guinea pigs” were not offered negatively: rather, interviewees seemed quite accepting of the necessary evolution of a program.

Questionnaire responses from the 1998 cohort reflected overall the greatest negativity towards different facets of the program. This could be attributed to a wide variety of possible factors that the study could not determine (different faculty and program design, certain dispositions or expectations in the cohort, possibly unpleasant events during residency that may have influenced respondents’ memories, etc.).

Context: MAL learning community

A second important dimension to understanding MAL graduates’ experience is the nature of the large collaborative learning community of 55, which learners create with the assistance of faculty. Many opt to live on campus in residence for the five week residency, working, eating and socializing together, which for some is the lengthiest departure from home and family they have experienced since their younger or pre-marriage adult years. Several interviewees talked about the importance to their whole learning experience of feeling bonded within this large community. Janice, a manager in natural resource services, observed that without immersion in the MAL community the techniques one learns can become superficial ‘tricks’:

It was interesting - There was a more senior person [in this department] who went to the week long executive version of the [MA] program. He came back talking about all the new tricks that he had. It was sort of like notches on a belt. It wasn’t at all the same flavor that we had in the Master’s program community

Because interpersonal relationship skills (listening, sharing, and helping others) are stressed in the program competencies, and because for most learners there are no distractions from memberships in other family, workplace, and other communities, members of the large MAL community tend to be unusually focused on supporting one another. Within this support, interviewees talk about finding confidence to try new skills, express creativity, share personal feelings, even experiment with new personas. A few respondents talked about this in terms of the “integrated” nature of the MAL program, making it difficult to focus only on ‘problem-based learning’ or ‘self-assessment’ as program activities leading to learning.

Strong responses

A third interesting aspect of this study are the surprisingly strong opinions offered by respondents. Although most were extremely positive about the MAL program, some were just as extremely negative. On the 10-point scale for response, there were often as many 1’s and 2’s chosen as 9’s and 10’s, resulting in some average responses around 6-7 that obscured the range.

As one example, some critical comments were pointed at certain faculty which some respondents accused of being inconsistent in approach and grading, insensitive to professional learners’ needs, or lacking commitment to the learner community “culture” emphasizing affect, interpersonal closeness and caring. There was some impatience expressed related to what certain respondents indicated to be a patronizing lack of respect for their own competence. As one interviewee described his peer learners, “These people are all mid-career professionals who are accustomed to dealing with billions of dollars in budget and working with millions of people”. However, others praised the faculty in glowing, superlative terms as “wonderful”, “amazing”, “inspiring”.

While a few expressed concern about “lack of rigor”, “low standards”, or “touchy feely” program aspects, others were extremely positive about the program, describing it in elevated terms as “magical”, “incredible”, “life-changing”. Such a range indicates that, perhaps more than in ‘traditional’ graduate programs, MAL engages participants at an emotional level which for some is very satisfying and for others, very unpleasant.

Few references to Major Project

Finally, although interview questions were open-ended, encouraging participants to talk about the learning related to the entire graduate program, only one person in twenty mentioned the research Major Project, and she described it as “the loneliest period of my life”.

This surprised us for two reasons: (1) graduate students in other university programs commonly refer to their own research projects as their most significant important learning opportunities, and (2) the Major Project in the MAL program occupies almost one year of the two-year program and is the last thing learners experience.

The lack of reference to the research experience as significant learning is likely due to the study’s frame, which is clearly problem-based learning and self-assessment. However, interviewees often chose to talk about other aspects of the program to explain the source of their perceived greatest learning in the program. We may cautiously suggest that at least for some MAL graduates, their experience completing the Major Project was not as valuable to their most significant long-term sustained learning as their experiences working in PBL groups during the HU summer residency.^[12]

Problem-Based Learning (PBL): Experiencing Group Process

It was magic, it was absolutely incredible – Mel, military commanding officer

Creativity and fun were aspects of the learning experience at Harrington that I think played a significant role in having it be meaningful. – Michael, human resources administrator

The problem-based learning approach in the MAL program focuses on problem cases prepared by organizations experiencing a complex issue. Following some briefing in the problem and its background, and some instruction in problem-solving approaches, group dynamics, conflict resolution, systems thinking and so on, learners are placed in groups of 8 and given one week to research, analyze and prepare recommendations about the issue for the organization. Groups work intensively all day every day, and sometimes into the night. Throughout the week the group is observed by different faculty members, who provide formative and later summative feedback about individuals’ and group problem-solving process. On Friday each group has 15 minutes to present their work to organizational representatives and the entire learning community.

A large majority of respondents (including 77% of the questionnaire respondents and 85% of interview participants) indicated the residential, small-group problem-based learning experience to be “very useful” to their long-term learning. And, in a list of ten MAL program components including distance learning courses and the Major Project, the most frequently picked response to the question “Which area of the MAL program contributed most to your long-term learning?” was problem-based learning.

The HU-PBL experience and its challenges

Some interview participants and a few questionnaire respondents offered comments related to their responses to the actual experience of problem-based learning in the MAL setting. These responses presented a wide range, from intense excitement to intense discomfort. It appears that these responses depend partly upon an individual’s prior leadership experiences working closely in groups, their past post-secondary educational experience, their expectations of the program, and their perceptions of their preferred working and learning styles.

Intense and exciting

For some, the problem-based learning (PBL) activity was a “high”, exciting, energizing, and challenging. As Gilbert, a postsecondary administrator who came to HU specifically for the PBL, explained: “Until you’re involved in [the HU approach to] PBL it’s hard to realize how intense the group sessions can be”. Susan, a self-employed leadership consultant, found:

It’s a thrill; it’s an adrenal rush to be part of a team that has a problem to solve and a presentation at the end, all under time pressure.

Interviewees who found the PBL experience exciting told stories about inventing creative solutions that amazed themselves, about significant learning related to group process and personal awareness, and about dramatic personal change. Leo, a mid-level manager in a large social services department, emphasized his developing a personal sense of responsibility for problems and a confident belief that they could be resolved:

It’s life altering -- nothing remains the same. It’s that confidence but also that sense of responsibility to not just let things go by but to address them, and have the tools and means to do that without being confronted or aggressive about it. It was an enormous privilege for me to be able to do this.

Terry, a hospital-based administrator, liked the creative challenge of approaching the puzzle:

It’s exciting - you kind of feel almost like a detective going to investigate. Some of the roads you are dead ends but you’re still learning along the way. You go where your strength is. It helps people to excel at their specialty.

Intense and uncomfortable

However, not all enjoyed the intensity and pressure. Of the questionnaire comments, 32% made explicit reference to negative aspects of the PBL experience: struggles with personality conflicts, emotional traumas amidst the groups that were too difficult to manage internally, and outcomes of “fracturing, ill feelings . . . some people devastated. . . animosities that carried into second residency”.

Several indicated they disliked the constant ‘people pressure’, and yearned for a break from the collaborative groups. Joyce, a nursing administrator, found it very difficult to adjust to “big time group work . . .thrown together with a bunch you don’t know” coming from different sectors, different capabilities and work styles, different priorities and values.

We were dumped into working with each other and having a problem solved without even knowing each other...I can appreciate the whole challenge of the approach but I’m not sure I would recommend [it]. It took me five weeks to get comfortable with the other people. I wish I’d known what to expect. I love a challenge, but if I’m going to scale a mountain tell me the mountain is there.

Joyce was enrolled in one of the earlier MAL programs, which may have affected her experience. She also indicated she “felt out of the group”, being older: “I’m not used to this. Maybe it was the way I was schooled”. She emphasized her belief that MAL ought to prepare learners with more details about the PBL activities.

Several others commented on their discomfort with the intensive group work. Terms used by questionnaire respondents to describe the experience included “frenzy”, “dog-eat-dog”, “constant chaos”, and “boot camp”. Several, including one interviewee who applauded the experience overall, expressed a wish for more reflective time during the PBL process. Several respondents referred negatively to strong inter-group competition. Some attributed this to the frame of continuous assessment by faculty; others to the looming end-of-week presentation that they said pressured groups to be original and entertaining.

Time pressure received negative comments from some interview and questionnaire respondents. Although some found this stimulating, others hated it: “We had exactly 28 hours to work it through and create a presentation. It was the most memorable, the most awful experience that I’ve ever gone through.”

Cultish

A few made reference to the “cultish” atmosphere of the residency itself (living and working together on campus with very few boundaries of privacy, forming intimate relationships quickly, some engaging in gossip and dramatic emotion, and some enduring ‘sleep deprivation’ when learners chose to work late into the night). Sal, a teacher-administrator, compared the experience to the “Survivor” television show:

It’s cult-like –you pull people out of their normal situation, deprive them of sleep, give unrealistic timelines and stand back to see what happens. It’s very intense, with a breaking-point time line, and people thrown in with little preparation and little follow up the next year. Some people are going to crack. . Some people thought there was an underlying current of encouragement of this, to see what leadership skills would emerge. It’s the same scenario as the Survivor TV show.

Not all references to the “cult-like environment” were negative. Leo focused on the beautiful setting, “the fun and laughter”, and developing relationships “to a depth that in real life you don’t have opportunity to do”. But for others, this was too intimate and intense for their preferred working styles. Joyce was glad she chose to stay off campus:

I had a way to get away from it - I wasn’t ground down into the fabric of Harrington. I wouldn’t have been able to do it otherwise. I just wasn’t comfortable with all the expectation that you had to join the buddy-buddy, huggy huggy, kissy kissy crap.

Experience depends on background and personal resources

Learners’ different responses to the PBL experiences appears to be connected somewhat with their previous experience with groupwork and their preferences for personal distance from colleagues. Some, like Connie and Darlene, were self-described “lone rangers” in their leadership styles, who had not worked through a problem with other people before in such intense collaboration.

However, those with much prior experience seemed to know what to expect from the process as well as people’s responses to the process, and seemed able to cope comfortably with the challenges of intense group work. Susan, a leadership consultant describing herself as “a big fan of PBL”, noted that “others had anger at the university and each other and often behaved like victims with a lot of finger pointing”. Catherine, a postsecondary administrator whose job involves helping others become comfortable with groupwork, acknowledged all the stress dimensions present in the HU-PBL experience, but described these as quite ‘normal’ in the workplace:

You’re brought together with a number of other people who are essentially strangers. You’re not quite sure who the other people are or what their skills or contributions might be, and you have to find a way of organizing yourselves and starting to share the information. That’s very similar to a lot of work that takes place today. Very frequently people spend a lot of time just trying to feel their way around, figuring out who are these other people, why are they here, what is it we have to do - and do it within very restrictive and finite time lines, while producing something concrete.

Some described overcoming personal resistance to the intense group process. Earle, another postsecondary administrator, called the HU experience “scary at first” partly because of what he called the “very extroverted” or aggressive environment, and partly the personal vulnerability involved when one must work through difficult group processes in a veritable fishbowl:

It terrified me - the whole idea of having to work with people I didn’t know very well, dealing with my own sense of how I would contribute and how I would relate to others -- whether I could do it. . . We set very high standards for ourselves. It led us to stretch ourselves.

But this administrator also explained the experience was transformative for him: “I became a different person”, more playful, more trusting, less serious about himself.

Learners’ assessments of the HU-PBL structure

Although this study focused on graduates’ learning in the PBL activities of the MAL program, several respondents volunteered comments about the structure of the program, including the nature of the problems, the guidance and feedback offered by faculty, and the overall community in which the PBL process unfolded.

“Real” problems

Two men employed in postsecondary institutions (an instructor and an administrator) and a woman who had worked a decade in organizational consulting praised the structure of the problems themselves as “very realistic” and “beautifully set up”. All three claimed they used PBL in their own work.

About half the interviewees commented positively on the importance of working on a “real live problem” for authenticity – not so much related to whether the organizational representatives actually used the solutions devised by the groups, “but the sense that you are working with something that has currency and relevance.” As Susan (a leadership consultant) explained, PBL offers . . .

. . . the chance to bring together textbook learning into the moment, into a real life situation that somebody is struggling with, trying to find a solution. So you can take it to the next level and see if your ideas actually do work, versus a case study which is historical. All you’ll find out is what other people did, and not get a chance to test out your ideas.

Practical, experiential

Others referred positively to the practical, experiential PBL activity, which for many was a novel form of learning: “it’s kind of like how babies learn to walk, trial and error to solve immediate problems, with immediate consequences.” As Catherine said,

Pulling the theory into that problem made the learning more interesting, more dynamic, and made the transitions to the workplace more seamless. It simulated the real world and reinforced the learning in a practical way.

Terry, a postsecondary administrator, liked the opportunity for “immediate and practical application of problem-solving tools one learns (such as ‘five whys’ and ‘coloured hats’)”. Leo, a government manager, explained that for him the key was systems theory brought together with the experience of working through problems, as well as the overall MAL environment (a residential collaborative community).

Jack, a health care manager, claimed that the concrete experience of working through a problem in a collaborative group process was the most important reason for his ability to implement group process skills as soon as he returned to his work community:

It’s just the whole idea of experiencing the principles and values that you bring back. Our workplaces have real problems and issues and a way to deal with them. But you come out of the problem-based learning saying, just hang on a sec. . . I was able to come back into the workplace and put everything I had learned into play right away. It wasn’t a matter of OK, this is how we did it theoretically. It was recognizing storming, norming, performing - and understanding that there’s a certain amount of conflict, that it’s very good - and how to get the constructive elements, versus losing some very good suggestions [because of] poor process. So that for me was hugely valuable.

Different group roles

Several explained the important learning opportunity offered by the chance to take different group roles. Susan, who always had played ‘facilitator’ in her work, found herself learning new things about group process in the ‘observer’ role. Nora, a nursing administrator, claimed she learned by watching others model particularly effectively ways to approach a group role, then trying out these techniques herself in later sessions.

Safe environment and helpful faculty

Many interviewees emphasized the importance of the “safe environment” they claimed was created at HU for problem-solving by faculty and learners: no terrible long-term consequences to one’s decisions, time to reflect, plentiful feedback, and assistance from staff who offered analytical tools to approach the problems. Catherine, a postsecondary administrator, described HU as “a semi-safe environment in which to do that group process, that team-building, and still step back and reflect - really intense, at times painful and at times rewarding”. A male postsecondary administrator applauded the “community building - clear mission and values, and a learning environment where everybody was treated with respect”. Another post-secondary administrator, Rhonda, emphasized the importance of . . .

. . . an artificial setting that was fairly realistic. There were time pressures, personality pressures, the problems were realistic - yet it was a safe environment . . . In real life there’s so many things outside our control that it’s a bit frightening to take a risk.

She told a story of her group’s presentation that elicited very critical feedback:

The Ministry representative said you’d have been laughed out. Go back and do your homework. We really blew it. But the faculty were great - we didn’t feel penalized. They said they knew what was happening.

For many graduates like Rhonda, the MAL environment offered some insulation from serious consequences, while experiencing certain pressures and conflicts that they felt were realistic when tackling complex organizational problems .

Critique: Non-helpful faculty

Interestingly, criticism of the PBL delivery tended to focus on faculty involvement. About one-third of questionnaire respondents indicated some dissatisfaction with faculty: 11% indicated faculty observations and feedback were “not useful” and 19% described them as only “somewhat useful” (19%) to their long term learning. Interview comments were made about some faculty inconsistency in quality and criteria applied to evaluate learners, some condescension to learners, and some lack of appropriate managing of emotional “fallout” in the PBL activities. One postsecondary instructor was very critical about the HU monitoring of the PBL process, describing the faculty as “incompetent”.

Staff did not administer PBL well. The debriefings were not as rich, or probed to be as critical as they should be. . . . The faculty did not monitor the emotional intensity, and we had an absolute disaster. . . The faculty had inconsistent standards. They were supposed to be a team, but they weren’t cohesive at all.

A teacher-administrator who otherwise was very enthusiastic about the PBL activity, stated,

I was left feeling that the people who were monitoring the problem-based learning were not equipped to deal with the counseling aspect of it, or the aftermath.

There appeared to be no distinct pattern between positive or negative comments about faculty and learners’ particular MAL cohort or graduation year. Such comments therefore must be treated as individual responses, certainly significant but related to particular MAL experiences, learner background and expectations, and dispositions.

Critique: Medical-model, business-focus

On a different dimension, two questionnaire respondents presented an ideological critique of the problem-solving approach to learning: one stated discomfort with applying a ‘medical model’, reducing complexity to ‘diagnosis -- prescription’. Another wrote, “The nature of the problem study should relate to social responsibility as much or more than corporate success”.

Critique: More implementation practice

Finally, two interviewees (from different MAL cohorts) suggested the program would be improved with an implementation segment in the problem-based learning process. Developing solutions is one thing: working out logistics and politics of implementation is much more challenging, they explained. The Major Project, both argued, offers this opportunity in a very limited way. But – working through the problem of implementation through the powerful learning vehicle of group problem-solving in a feedback-oriented, reflection-rich environment would invite broader, deeper learning.

Most significant learnings in the PBL experience

This section presents participants’ perceptions of their most significant long-term learning obtaining from their experiences in the problem-based learning activities of the MAL program. These reports are, of course, limited first by what participants remember and think to mention in the context of the interview, and second by what they consciously recognize as learning traceable to their experiences in MA. The most common theme was learning related to relationships (understanding group process, appreciating others’ diversity, listening to others, and so on).

Group process is a key learning for majority of respondents

On the questionnaires, 61% of respondents ranked their top learning in problem-based learning to be “managing group process”. The other two highest-ranked learnings were, in order, “understanding different perspectives”, and “systems thinking”. People commented most often on learning how to truly hear others’ views, and how to explain oneself to those with different communication styles and values. Other questionnaire and interview comments about long-term learning from the PBL activity emphasized:

• group process takes a lot more time than one thinks;

• the importance of process;

• the significance and role of emotion in group process;

• the complexity of building working relationships;

• camaraderie requires making oneself vulnerable;

• emotion must be recognized and dealt with (painful as well as joyful); and

• how to balance time spent on process with ‘task’ (productivity).

What follows are themes from the twenty interviews about their perceptions of their most significant learnings in the PBL process. As with the questionnaires, interviewees focused mostly on learnings connected with group process, such as its powerful value and communication skills required to function effectively in a group. Although a few commented on learning systems thinking, very little response focused on learning problem-solving skills or analytical tools. This may be because the process was so ‘holistic’ for people that they had difficulty separating particular skills or ways of thinking from the whole PBL experience. Or it may be because the most impressive, powerful and valued learnings for MAL learners had more to do with relational and personal knowledge than with conceptual, procedural, or technical knowledge involved in problem-solving.

Learning to hear and understand different points of view

A majority of interviewees described their most profound learning in terms of coming to understand other people’s perspectives. Sal, a former carpenter who had become a teacher and administrator, explained that the mixed occupations in each group forced learners to confront significant differences:

To appreciate and respect the diversity of others. . because in your organization you are surrounded by people like yourself, with the same lingo, values, culture. But in HU you’re thrown together with very different people. I’ve never been in a group where there were so many dominant people - I’m usually the dominant one and here I was being challenged continually – it was a very unusual experience for me.

Darlene, a national non-profit organization director, explained her learning to accept that “the world is full of shades of grey”, and to value the ambiguity of different perspectives and meanings about the same thing:

My world was very black and white - I didn’t think it was. Being a fairly strong leader, I thought it was my job to advance my opinions. Now I find that I’m able to stand back and appreciate and listen with greater respect where others are coming from. It isn’t so important for me to be right any more.

Dialogue for many appeared to be experienced at a deep, rich level. Some interviewees volunteered stories of emotionally traumatic occurrences within their group that sparked and even demanded honest talk, to work out the issue. One claimed this to be a key learning and a novel experience at HU: “the importance of open sharing of feelings within a team. The real importance of good, honest, deep dialogue within the team.”

Learning to value others’ strengths

Related to this themes of appreciating diversity through hearing others’ perspectives is learning to value others’ strengths. Nora provided an example of learning skills she’d not encountered before in her own workplace:

I always work in healthcare, never exposed to working in teams with such different people . . . [In the group] I was introduced to profitability - something I’d never considered.

Terry described the group members learning that others’ strengths were not a threat, but a complement to their own:

You’re really not competing against each other. When you get over that (some people obviously felt they were competing to start with), you’re thinking, OK, I’ve got this and this competency to do. You start to [cooperate]. I’m well aware of where I’m not strong, in research, but others would go away and come back with incredible amounts of information.

Learning how to cooperate, and the synergy possible through cooperation

Moving past competition or intimidation into cooperation, during the problem-solving activity, was a key transition for many interviewees. Rhonda, a postsecondary administrator, attributed this movement to the power leveling that she believed occurs in MAL PBL groups:

It’s the process of having people sit down as equals, working together to solve a problem, where cooperation is a requirement. People find a lot of ways of ducking out of that in their working lives. Either they have more power, or they reserve certain rights for some decisions and delegate others. Or there’s just not a true collaborative process that takes place and people kid themselves that it is, but really they’re withholding power. In the MAL setting, it’s impossible to do that.

Mel, a military officer, described as a “high” his group working with him to help realize his creative and rather risky idea for a group presentation: “Everybody pitched in, working till late - it was incredible”.

Many questionnaire respondents volunteered comments about their learning through what several called the “synergy” they experienced working in the small problem-solving groups. Some mentioned that their previous working style preference had been independent but now, as one questionnaire respondent explained, “I will always remember the power of collaboration even when I’m tempted to do it alone”. Darlene, a former information systems director for a national non-profit organization, explained:

I’ve worked in a team environment pretty much all my life, but I guess experiencing the true synergy where you really put on the back burner your own [agendas] and the group is leveraging the strengths of each individual. Everybody is working for the whole...It had a huge impact on me.

When probed on this point, some interviewees explained that the difference in the HU small group experience was its experiential intensity in a short time period, while being coached and assessed in different strategies of group process and problem-solving, in an environment removed from work and family that allows total focus on the learning experience. Thus the group process is foregrounded, perhaps accelerated and intensified, and brought to some closure and celebration in a short enough time period that participants could then analyse it.

Learning (or re-learning) how to lead group process

A few interviewees described learning small group leadership through the PBL experience. In her work as an organizational consultant leading others through problem-solving, Susan says she had always done PBL by intuition, but found the MAL experience strengthened her confidence in what she had been doing. Telling a story about a difficult job she had just completed, she reflected:

My HU training taught me the framework and all the pieces to remember. I could easily have lost my nerve in the middle of this facilitating because tempers run high and the hurt feelings have an impact on the group and the process. It’s very easy to go with solutions people offer in the middle of the pain. You need very strong facilitation skills to lead PBL so you don’t lose your nerve.

When asked what skills in particular she (re) learned through the HU-PBL experience, Susan stressed taking time to focus on group process:

The finessing, the essence, focusing first on team building, making sure the team is as cohesive as possible, that they have ground rules. Honor them, take time to agree why they’re there, using various roles . . .My HU experience highlighted the importance of preparing and doing the team work besides just simply doing the problem-solving.

Learning to balance ‘process’ and ‘task’ posed a dilemma, according to interviewees, that the PBL activity compelled learners to wrestle with in a hands-on experience. Different personal preferences and values had to be accepted and balanced, to create “a good work spirit, good interpersonal relationships, but at the same time make sure you get the task focused.” Rhonda said she watched people develop a whole new approach to leadership through the PBL experience:

It’s not being in charge, being in control, being right out front, and calling the shots. There’s many different ways...like servant leadership. It breaks down a lot of tension, a lot of pressure on one person. They realize, I don’t have to do it all, I don’t have to have all the answers.

But Susan also explained that “some people are terrible facilitators, coming from a command control position in their work (some leaders and teachers) and do not know how to help others talk.” The result is inevitable: group conflicts.

Learning to understand and accept conflict in group process

Many interviewees described significant interpersonal conflicts in the problem-solving groups. Some noted that they or their peers were unhappy with the process and “fracturing” outcomes of these conflicts. Michael, a human resources manager in the armed forces, explained that sometimes . . .

. . . conflict is not productive or helpful. It creates an atmosphere that I know there are people sitting there saying hey, I just paid thousands of dollars for this and I didn’t pay to sit down and get involved in a fist fight. I came to engage in a collegial, intellectual exploration and here we are having people break down and become petty over something.

Others talked about these conflicts as critical learning experiences. As leaders in their own organizations, certain graduates interviewed indicated that they already had extensive experience with group conflict. What was unique about their HU problem-solving group process appeared to be that they were expected to notice and analyse the conflict dimensions, work through it productively, and reflect as a group on the overall process. Group members were accountable for the group process: faculty observed and questioned or offered strategies, and group members were assessed on their willingness and ability to work out the process.

Perhaps another difference was that in problem-solving groups, there was no formally appointed leader whose responsibility it was to ‘do something’. All group members shared equal responsibility for working through their stuck places. Chris, a high school department head well-experienced in managing staff conflict, called this experience “eye-opening” for him:

On a weekly basis several difficulties arose in which members of the group didn’t see eye to eye, and it was like OK, how are we going to deal with this? Because as a group we have an objective, you have to pull yourself together and come up with something by a certain date, resolving our differences, trying to understand where others people were coming from and trying to be fair and honest. It’s learning how to analyze the situation to come up with possible solutions. And, getting to know yourself well, understanding how you think and react to situations.

Nora, a nursing administrator, said she learned “not to be afraid of conflict”, but to accept it as natural and resolvable. She learned skills in conflict mediation by observing role models:

Watching this man whose job was conflict resolution, and seeing him mediate a conflict – that was huge learning. I’ve used some of his techniques since.

“Getting stuck” in the PBL process created learning opportunity, according to many respondents (although some found the conflict dysfunctional and inhibiting to their learning). Earle was interested in the ways creative new solutions arose unbidden in a group: “You get to point in which you get stuck and then a member will say something that will spark somebody else - or you go away for a meal and someone comes back with a new approach - that was fascinating”. Gilbert, another postsecondary administrator, found sorting through the opposing values exposed through group conflict “a powerful learning experience”:

We sort of progressed and then hit a wall, and on reflection I think it was a very powerful learning experience, to go back and sort out the whys. . . .The friction point was whether to place the individual’s stress needs ahead of the deadline for presentation.

For Catherine too, a group conflict spinning from a person actually “abandoning” the group, then wishing to return and lead the same group, opened the potential for deep, honest talk to surface the different perspectives and make sense of the situation with others:

There was a lot of peeling of the onion around that, deep probing into group process. You learn the ripple effect that can have on the environment, how you deal with the delicate issues in the workplace. . .

Other interviewees described learning how various people respond to the tension, pressure and disappointment of conflict. Catherine found it interesting to observe “each group having their own dynamics and watching that unfold each week, what the impacts were of being too competitive or task focused or too process focussed”. Three interviewees narrated tales of witnessing childish levels of behavior they hadn’t seen before in a relatively professional context; some were uncomfortable with this, and deflected responsibility for ‘doing something’ onto faculty.

Susan, speaking from her experience as a leadership consultant, saw the conflicts and its effects as a natural part of group process: the only difference among people was their level of preparation and experience in dealing with it. She felt that the most significant learning opportunity in the conflicts erupting through HU-PBL activity was

becoming sensitive to where other people are. [One person] didn’t get the importance of one of our ground rules, which was ‘be responsible for your own participation.’ They operated in their own world, being on the outside unless someone begged them to come in . . . Some feel they arrive (at HU) unprepared for group dynamics . . . It really is a paradigm shift people need to make about how groups work. [Some come back the second year, who resisted what was happening the first] and say; now I understand . . .. But that’s not unique to PBL, it’s dynamics that surface in any planning group.

Validating own interpersonal and problem-solving skills

Developing confidence was frequently mentioned among interviewees, which will be discussed in later sections. Part of confidence is having one’s own skills, leadership and problem-solving approaches validated. Leo, a mid-level social service director, described this as an important learning offered at HU:

My intuition was to (approach problems through richer analyses) but the org wasn’t supportive of that. The HU experience, first five weeks, made me feel comfortable that my intuition was correct, a validation. game the tools to go back to my org with a confidence of saying, no, these are some of the important steps we need to be thinking about.

Rhonda, a postsecondary administrator, also found the affirmation of her leadership ability to be significant learning for her:

It was validation that I did have effective interpersonal skills, in a team setting, working under pressure, trying to integrate a lot of different new information. Normally I don’t get a lot of specific feedback.

Interesting to note is the fact that only those leaders employed in large organizations referred to the novelty of receiving meaningful feedback and validation of their skills in their workplaces. It is unclear whether this can be attributed to their greater need for such validation (perhaps understandable in light of the difficult organizational conditions many described), or to the scarcity of meaningful personal and professional validation in their workplaces.

Learning how to think in terms of systems

Systems thinking, as one interviewee put it, is one thing when you read about it and quite another when you try to work with it in a group. Only five interviewees talked either explicitly or indirectly about developing systems thinking in the PBL experience. However, all five emphasized this as key to their own learning – both in analysing influencing factors and structural problems bearing on a particular problem, and in negotiating organizational politics to involve others in resolving the issue. All four, incidentally, were situated in large public sector bureaucracies. Terry, a hospital administrator, said she learned how to . . .

. . . look at the background and complicated sub-issues and institutions involved, how to analyse the issues embedded in a problem, and take different perspectives on the problem. In health care we tend to band aid. We have a problem, we do a little fix or what we think is a fix, but it only temporarily fixes it and then it comes up bigger and bolder.

A nursing administrator, Nora, explained that PBL “helped me become more politically aware -- through systems thinking, looking outside of immediate environment to external factors”. She also learned, she said, “how to let informal leaders come forward - learning to help others sit down and look at whole situation instead of just what’s happening to them”.

Leo, director of a large social services department, found his practice deeply influenced by his learning to look at a problem within many dimensions: the organizational design, the human resources practices, leadership, and the environment. He said he learned to ask:

Whose problem is it and to what degree? Does everyone agree on the language analysing the problem in itself? . . . [I learned how to] seek for points of leverage to affect that problem and not get overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem. [I learned that] each problem can be approached from the point of resolution, that resolution can be possible. [I learned about] having the responsibility and capacity to address an issue like that.

Rhonda, a post secondary administrator, believed that in organizations like hers problems are viewed from a perspective of organizational design rather than the system dynamics creating and maintaining problems. Through PBL, she claimed, she learned to think differently:

The overall systems thinking I found very enlightening, [analyzing] the environment, and the circumstances around leadership related to the problem itself.

For Jack, a senior health care manager, his recent challenge to “completely reinvent the system” demanded application of his MAL learnings about systems:

Doing that in a collaborative fashion and applying those principles that I had learned . . . recognizing that the successful outcome involves a cast of thousands. Certainly from my leadership role, I’ve got to push and drive and strategize, but I can’t do that in isolation. . . . It’s not just about me, it’s about others who understood those [systemic] principles as well. It was real hard slogging. We’ve got a ways to go, but we’re able to get the policy support and the financial support to completely re-engineer our system.

Mid-Career Professionals and the Changing Self

The knowledge I gained about myself in the first five weeks is worth the whole tuition fee. You’re a changed person when you come out of that five weeks and for the better, because you know yourself and are way more tolerant of other people. – Terry, hospital administrator

A surprising finding of the study was the strong emphasis on personal transformation, by approximately 30% of respondents, evident both in written questionnaire comments and interviewees’ stories of dramatic personal change. One explained that the PBL experience was “turning yourself inside out - your whole personality is being reshaped.” Catherine described this as a “life-altering experience”, Mel as “magic”. Darlene experienced a transformation in her thinking and work styles that eventually led to a complete career change:

I was a real tight, triple A kind of person, very anal and linear in my thinking. That was my training. I still do have a tendency to get on my moral high horse. . . .Servant leadership - I’d never heard of it and now that’s what I am. My goal now is to facilitate others’ learning and success, it’s not directive at all. I’m a different person.

Interviewees said they learned by watching themselves in action in the PBL groups, seeing their own ‘learning style’, certain patterns of behavior (“what makes me panic”, “my trigger points”), and changes they consciously tried making. Some found it interesting to watch others’ transformations. Rhonda, a postsecondary administrator, explained it was “powerful to observe other people’s major break-throughs . . . some came in with a pretty authoritarian approach to things.”

Significant career change experienced by at least 25% of MAL graduates is one outcome of this change, discussed in an earlier section. Other outcomes in terms of personal transformation reported by interviewees included developing confidence in oneself as a leader, becoming significantly more attuned to others, and experiencing new levels of self-awareness.

However, this trend may set up a personal expectation that people will experience deep change. As Janice explained,

I do feel a little bit of blame or guilt about not having changed more, but I think I was doing pretty well beforehand. But yes, I would say I am more frustrated by the lack of change I can effect, now that I’ve put so much time and effort in and I’m so interested and I see the potential. I said somewhat jokingly to [the program director] at one point, you know a traditional performance measure tends to be the percentage of graduates employed. I think maybe for the MAL program it should be the percentage of graduates who’ve left their employment.

Confidence in self as leader

Many referred to developing confidence, both in recognizing personal strengths and unique talents, in making decisions quickly, and reinforcing values and methods (particularly related to group process) they had employed in the past. Several emphasized a change in their confidence to ‘speak out’ on issues, resulting in increased recognition from peers and superordinates. Connie, a former human resource administrator turned private consultant, claimed that . . .

. . . the number one lesson for me was the importance of individual leadership in creating change, the courage to state your own convictions and to hold forth what you believe in, in a way other people can hear it. I began to realize I really should take a stronger role . . .the action of one person can really be very influential.

Leo claimed that his colleagues “have noticed a significant change in me since I got back, around that degree of confidence. My director now consults with me on issues more frequently than before . . .I get a lot of feedback that people feel heard and understood when I deal with them.” Like others, Rhonda felt she didn’t change, but “certainly became stronger in the ways I was, more confidence, more able to speak out on issues, able to think through more complex issues . . .[resulting in] Recognition from my superiors - positive feedback, and their expectations of me rose.”

For Terry, a hospital administrator and radiation therapist, new confidence came in her ability to complete academic graduate study:

MA has given me so much confidence I’ve finally plucked up the courage and I’ve applied to med school.

While it is not particularly unusual for Master’s graduates in any institution to begin thinking about doctoral work for the first time, MAL graduates seem to voice a rather unusual level of increase in confidence necessary for pursuing further graduate work. This may be attributed to the fact that while most universities require an undergraduate degree to enter master’s-level work, some MAL enrollees have reached mid-life and mid-career without attaining a bachelor’s degree – and perhaps enter their master’s program with lower self-confidence about their academic ability than professionals holding at least an undergraduate degree. ^[13] But the emphasis on increased confidence is also attributable to a program that perhaps actively builds learners’ confidence in and awareness of their own leadership abilities.

Attuned to others

Several interviewees described their personal changes in terms of becoming significantly more attuned to other people, their issues and values. This has been discussed in the section Most significant learnings in the PBL process above, so will only be touched briefly here.

The PBL group process in particular, according to some people, changed their worldview from a “black and white” or task-focused perspective, to one more able to appreciate ambiguity, others’ strengths, multiple meanings or “the meanings behind the words”, and ‘a bigger picture’ of diverging interests. Concurrently people were, perhaps for the first time; experiencing dialogues where others were trying hard to listen to and care about what they had to say. As one pointed out, “Once you have that expanded picture of how things can be, you can’t go back to doing things they way you used to.”

Darlene, a director of information systems for a national non-profit organization, told a story about returning from MAL to a particularly obnoxious colleague who she decided to spend time observing, listening to, and trying to understand – rather than judging. She apparently experienced a personal transformation that was total and powerful in terms of truly appreciating others’ lifeworlds and perspectives for the first time. Her story is eloquent and worth sharing in full:

Being a fairly strong leader I felt it was my job to advance my opinions. And now I find I’m able to stand back and appreciate and listen with a greater respect for where people are coming from. And it isn’t so important for me to be right anymore...everybody brings to the table different things. The same thing invokes different meaning and yet it’s the same thing. . . .My world has become all these beautiful shades of grey. Before, I would wonder why people did not share my opinion because usually it was right, you know? Before, I was so eager to advance my opinions and astound everybody with my wealth of knowledge, thinking I was sharing that which was most important to me and therefore obviously to them - so I’m a leader because I’m an expert. And now, I listen. Unless you’re talking about specific things, there are no rights and wrongs, even in computer programming. It’s very creative. It all depends.

Self-awareness

To the questions, “What long-term changes have you observed within yourself that directly related to the problem-based learning portion of the MAL program?”, the majority of questionnaire respondents chose, as their number-one learning, “Self-knowledge” (66%). To the question “What long-term changes have you observed that directly related to the self-assessment portion of the MAL program?”, 84% chose “Self-knowledge”. Self-knowledge was selected over values related to leadership, patterns of work behavior, patterns of personal behavior, work relationships, and attitudes towards your work.

This theme of the significance of self-knowledge is the focus of the next section, reporting our study’s findings of MAL graduates’ experiences of the self-assessment portion of the program.

Self Assessment Learning

I think that was probably the biggest growth for me - the self-assessment. An incredible eye opener for me. Made me take a good long look at what I actually thought I was doing, looking at the competencies. It’s not something we do (back at work). It encourages you to be honest - you have to say where you really think you could do better. – Terry, a hospital-based administrator

Self assessment, in the HU MAL program, is a dimension integrated throughout the program and involving several activities:

(1) A journal or ‘learning log’ started in Residency 1 and supposedly maintained for the remainder of the program;

(2) Self-assessment instruments, such as the 360 degree assessment, the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator, and other instruments selected by faculty^[14] ;

(3) Reflective dialogue with other learners to assess behavior observed in a shared group experience, for example at the end of a day of PBL groupwork;

(4) Faculty feedback sessions one-on-one, encouraging a learner’s self-assessment;

(5) Peer assessment, encouraging self-assessment; and

(6) The Learning Agreement, a formal electronic ‘journal’ in which learners record their own learning plan, assessment from faculty and peers, and evidence supporting their self-assessment of their leadership competencies specified for the MAL program.

Experience and challenges of self-assessment

The majority of both questionnaire respondents and interviewees were strong in their criticism of the MAL “Learning Agreement”^[15]. Most commented negatively about the ‘“artificial exercise” of this “imposed tool”, claiming it was “jumping through hoops” that “got in the way” of significant personal reflection, and complaining that faculty were inconsistent in their expectations, commitment to and frequency of use of the tool. Some resented the requirement to write reflection, or reveal private inner worlds for other’s (faculty) scrutiny. For Sal, a teacher-administrator, his reflective self-assessment seemed linked to a negative overall experience with MAL assessment:

The whole assessment experience was disappointing. Peer assessment was just niceties . . . Faculty assessment was fairly traditional, and I felt like I was being put back in the box . . . . I’ve done [reflective journaling] before and I enjoy it, but by the winter no one did anything with it, no one looked at it or commented. So it became moot for me.

However, 88% of questionnaire respondents and 85% of interviewees spoke very positively about learning the importance of reflective processes, whether through written journals or peer dialogue, through the MAL program. Most (87%) claimed to not have kept a written journal prior to the program, and 84% indicated a significant change in their valuing of reflection for learning. The actual process of journal writing received varying endorsement. In any case, testament to the value of personal reflection from questionnaire respondents was clear: 73% indicated that self-assessment was “very important” to their overall long-term learning in the MAL program and commented “I learned to be more reflective”; “I learned a ton about myself”; “It marks where you’ve come in time”.

Lee-Anne, a program manager in a long-term health-care facility, explained that the journal was particularly valuable for her learning: “I loved that . . .body and soul time.” She described how she used the journal:

I got a big blank journal book and I decided other than the writing part, I would also use photographs. I would pick out every day a few of the key concepts that were my ‘aha!’ moments, and write them in the journal and illustrate them in some way. It was very valuable when some of our team work got a bit intense, to see what happened and what could be done differently.

Learning to value reflective self-assessment

All interviewees but two described as very positive their reflective self-assessment processes in the MAL program, usually referring to the journalling and reflective dialogue activities of residency 1 (and sometimes the 360 degree activity). For many, it was a novel opportunity to slow down and think about what was happening around them. Gilbert, a postsecondary program director, explained that leaders like himself “don’t have time normally, time to articulate ideas and make links between lectures and experiences”. Earle agreed: “ In many jobs we don’t comment on ourselves and our actions and the actions of others, we just sort of go on to the next thing.” Most questionnaire respondents indicated that they were not continuing written reflection: 32% indicated they have “never” journaled since leaving MA, and only 36% claimed they “sometimes” maintain a learning journal of some kind.

Some referred to the value of journaling as helping them “pay attention” to the complex details going on in the emotionally-charged and complex group dynamics of the PBL activity. Connie, an organizational consultant, explained why she believed personal reflection to be so important to her learning and change in the program:

You really come face to face with what you have to change about yourself and the changes that you have to make. It’s so much easier to make them when you decide yourself there’s something wrong. It’s a very safe place to learn and you can make those decisions to change without anybody knowing you’re doing it. And as long as you feel safe you will have the courage to change. When somebody else is telling you that you need to change of course there’s so much room for denial and resistance.

Many interviewees spoke about coming to value reflective time as productive, a change from former understandings of ‘productivity’ as ‘doing’ or ‘busy-ness’. Some told about building into staff meetings periods of short reflective dialogues, or continuing the personal practice of pausing to reflect. The focuses for reflection vary for different individuals, although MAL emphasizes “critical reflection” on assumptions as well as process. However, as Gilbert wryly noted, “ the irony is you acknowledge its importance but don’t keep doing it”.

Most interviewees’ stories showed an emphasis on process reflection in their MAL experience: reflection on procedure (‘what worked, what didn’t’); and focus (‘what’s happening here?’ finding coherence among bits of experience, and seeking clarity).

Only a few talked about premise reflection: critical reflection on purposes (‘what are we/I really doing here?’), values, and meaning (‘how does this make sense?). However, reflection appeared for many to be confined to local problems or interpersonal issues. Few indicated systemic reflection on political, economic or social pressures creating certain organizational problems^[16].

Most significant learnings in the self-assessment

Those interviewed emphasized that the value of self-assessment in learning was helping them to capture and analyze critical moments in the flow of their practice. Second, they appeared to value the opportunity to explore themselves and to build their confidence through the self-assessment process. Third, some explained that ironically the process of self-assessment helps one to understand other people. Finally, some interviewees felt they learned to observe their experiences with more focused, clear analysis through their MAL experience of self-assessment.

Writing helps capture, consolidate and analyze important moments of everyday life

Although some interviewees found they disliked writing out their reflection (discussed in a later section), others found the writing process helpful. As Gilbert explained, “It helps you coalesce your meaning as you write it out.” Catherine noted that after writing about a difficult incident one can read and reflect at a different level later on:

[Journal-writing] helped me play out those ideas going on my head as I ran into difficulties. I found it useful to go back later and read through them and see what I’d been thinking about.

Writing also helps one “get beyond the normal superficial stuff, learning to give honest meaningful assessment”, Catherine explained, because writing forces one to make reflection concrete.

Exploring self and learning confidence through self-assessment

Several interviewees reported they had not engaged before in personal reflective writing. Some found a significant benefit in becoming conscious of their own skills, or sensitive areas. Through the process of journalling, Earle confronted for the first time “an aspect of my character - I panic when faced with a new situation. It tends to shut me down. [Now] I am able to write those sorts of things out and come back and be present when things are happening that are difficult.” Terry, a hospital-based administrator, described herself as an ‘extroverted’ person who learned to enjoy exploring an inner world:

I don’t do journalling. It’s not my thing, I was resistant at first . . .but I really enjoyed it. It opened a whole kind of new world to me, the inside me world that I don’t go into very often.

Some interviewees (all women) explained they found themselves being overly critical in their written self-assessment and were surprised when others’ assessments praised characteristics they had overlooked in themselves. A few interviewees (both men and women) referred to the novelty of receiving serious personal praise for their work, and learning to accept it without embarrassment:

It builds confidence, and learning to accept concrete praise. The business culture is not that - you’re supposed to be modest. It was hard at first to sit and listen.

For some interviewees, the eye-opener apparently was discovering how others see them (in 360-degree assessments or peer assessment). Joyce found the 360 degree study “really fascinating -what everybody thought they were like compared to what other people thought they were. We all thought we were perfect and none of us is perfect. It helped me recognize not just faults, but ways of thinking about me in a different way.” Leo described this as “a bit of an epiphany” . . .

. . . coming to understand how others react to me. I really had no idea how I was presenting to others around...In my work environment there’s a degree of taboo around that.

Catherine also found significant learning through “respectful but honest feedback - you discovered perspectives on yourself that other people had - sometimes they were eye openers. In some ways it made people feel vulnerable, and honed our own skills at giving feedback.”

Thus the faculty and peer assessment was, for several interviewees, an important extension of the self-assessment processes: “It’s helpful to have others’ assessment too, to validate your own assessment of weaknesses and strengths, and also to practice giving them constructive concrete feedback without being sickly sweet” (Terry, hospital administrator). Janice emphasized her powerful experience of seeing and receiving frank assessments, which for her were rare in most work communities. In MA, “the message was loud and clear: be yourself. Be honest, be helpful, be open, be trusting and the rest is up to you.”

Becoming more aware of interactions with others through self-assessment

Chris, a high school department head, found that the continual promotion of assessment - self assessment, peer assessment, and faulty assessment - of one’s leadership behaviors heightened his awareness of human interaction. He began to notice specific behaviors of others and himself, and became generally more attentive to actions in the moment - a habit that he claims he maintains in his worklife.

Mel, a military officer, also found that self-assessment inevitably led to reflection upon oneself in interaction with others: “Learning logs offer a place to step back and reflect o the group dynamics, how you behaved, how you observed other people behaving, what the impact and outcomes were.” Terry’s comment summarizes this theme: that one important outcome of self-assessment along with peer assessment is, perhaps ironically, appreciation for others.

[Assessment] helped me understand other people. Made me more tolerant, that just because I’m this and they’re that, doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

Developing more focused observation and analysis

Throughout the stories of self-assessment shared by interviewees, a strong theme is growth in ability to self-analyse. Although some were quite used to self-reflection, the majority had not before been seriously exposed to it. Most of these talked about developing greater attention to critical moments of interaction, and becoming more adept at analysing these moments.

Nora also referred to the time required to become comfortable with personal reflection: “It took me three weeks to be decent at self assessment and the last two feeling comfortable with it.” She told a powerful story of self-awakening through reflection upon an incident, late in the MAL program. She was observing a street-person as part of a class activity. In her story Nora revealed herself peeling away the ethical layers of ‘gaze’ and constructions of identity going on in that moment with a sophisticated analysis that appears to have developed in the MAL program.

Finding different approaches to reflective self-assessment

Some said they found journalling to be tremendously important for their growth. The activity offered a disciplined routine of reflection; an “anchor” amidst the emotional swirling of the residential program; and a space in which to confront and work through complex dilemmas related to personal change and relationships through the group problem-solving experiences.

Others preferred different means of reflection: talking with trusted peers, talking into a tape recorder (“just sort of spewing into it whatever strikes me”), or walking and thinking. Dwayne, a postsecondary business instructor, discovered writing narrative to be . . .

. . . far deeper, more intense. I had to learn to write in first person . . . I had an absolute delight, a sort of epiphany [in creating a story to express an idea].

After trying written reflection, Earle decided:

I don’t actually learn from writing things down, I learn things from a combination - a lot of time to reflect, spending time on my own, talking to people, being reflective with people, time to absorb what’s going on. It’s very difficult [to find reflective time] in HU residences.

Susan also gave written journalling “ my best shot”. Although strongly committed to self-assessment in her own work, she explained that her preferred mode was mental reflection in the thick of action, not written reflection afterwards:

Self assessment I live or die on being self-employed. I need aggressive assessment from others. I request feedback from participants at the conclusion of everything I do. I’m my own worst critic. I’m reading the energy of the room all the time, and adjust accordingly.

Some people get dewy eyed passionate about journalling, and figuring out their personal lives. Such did not occur for me.

Nora also found journal-writing “too removed” from the live dynamics of the activity she wanted to process. For her, the best reflection unfolded in talk:

Best was small group dialogue at the end of the day [after a PBL exercise] – where we’d look at what happened, what did it mean, how did we feel and respond, what could be different – It made it more concrete for me. I don’t journal. I know I should - everyone tells me I should.

Struggles with reflection and self-assessment

Self-assessment created personal struggles with validity and value of personal reflection. As one interviewee put it, “How do you break out of self-reinforcement? You wonder, Is this right? Am I wrong here?” Another spoke of fighting a sense of self-indulgence or “narcissism” when engaging in personal reflection. A third described the whole process as “too touchy-feely for the real work environment”, and a fourth referred to the ongoing tension between ‘production’ and ‘reflection’, as if these two processes were dichotomized.

These struggles indicate discursive clashes between what may be described as a learning-focused community focused on supporting personal growth, and what typically prevails in workplaces as a production-focused community of practice supporting organizational goals. Thus some mid-career professionals apparently found themselves, during or after their MAL experience, questioning the meaning of work and the values of efficiency and productivity. Some spoke about wrestling with the standards of judgment prevailing in their workplace to measure the ‘worth’ of a task itself, and the level at which one performs a task.

Program graduates appeared to resolve these dilemmas in different ways. A few indicated that they understood their ‘new’ beliefs and values developed in the MAL program to be separate from their work. However some left their workplace feeling they could not reconcile their changed self and new vision with the organizational oppressions. Several others attempted to introduce change into their work communities (usually slowly, cautiously, and incrementally).

This theme of the interaction between MAL experiences and learnings, and MAL graduates’ workplace activity and environment, is expanded in the following section.

Influence of the MAL Program on Mid-Career Professionals’ Work Practice

Right now the climate [in my workplace] is not at all like the learning community at Harrington. – Janice, a manager in natural resource services

Many respondents described definite challenges of integrating their new knowledge (from MA) into their workplace communities. One participant, upon reviewing this report, wrote an extended email about this very point:

One of the difficult issues to deal with upon "re-entry" into the real world is that no one else has quite the headset anywhere that HU leaves you with. You come away steeped in hifalutin' theory and abstract concepts and face the wall of resistance and realism. It takes a long time to sort out everything and a part of you fights against the inevitable loss of momentum you know is occurring with every day that passes after graduation. There is always the tension between what you know is possible after HU and what represents realistic progress you can expect to achieve in any change management situation. When I am frustrated by this however, I pause and remember how difficult it would be if I hadn't had the training I got at HU. It's a strange see-saw.

However, all but one among those interviewed emphasized the long-term value to their own work of certain developing learnings, such as group process skills. Most talked about their deliberate incorporation of relational and communication skills into their leadership of small groups in projects and committees:

• more emphasis on group process, allowing time to dialogue about process issues;

• having more personal confidence and trust in group, rather than independent, problem-solving work;

• teaching staff certain protocols of group process: “check ins”, establishing group ‘rules’ and norms, naming process issues and stages as they emerge;

• involving all stakeholders early when tackling an organizational problem; and

• actually forming problem-based learning teams among staff to tackle organizational issues.

Interviewees particularly seemed to emphasize the significance of ‘tools’ that MAL provided them to succeed in these various activities. Lee-Anne explained,

[In the workplace] we hear a lot a ‘Let’s think out of the box’, but we actually need the tools to be able to do that. I think that’s what [my staff] have appreciated that I’ve been able to bring back.

Clearly the impact on MAL graduates’ workplace practice is significant. Not only do a majority report dramatic personal change in terms of leadership confidence, creativity and communication ability, but many believe they are directly integrating their graduate learnings into their everyday work activity. A majority of interview respondents (85%) indicated that the MAL program directly improved their effectiveness at work. Interview participants indicate their actions have directly influenced staff (both superordinates and subordinates) and organizational procedures. Overall, the theme of this influence appears to be concentrated in strengthened human relationships in the workplace.

Introducing ‘group process’ to their workplace

Lee-Anne, a program manager at a long term heath care facility, exemplified ways that several interviewees described bringing back to their workplace elements of self-assessment and group dynamics learned in the MAL program.

I find that in the workplace people take the process for granted, so having roles defined (like the observer, the leader, the facilitator) increased the team learning process because everyone had a part to participate and there was equal ownership and accountability for the outcome. As well looking at it from a personal development perspective you find out what roles you’re most comfortable in and what roles you can improve in. We often get so swept up in the end goal that we can do a lot of damage on the way to get there. We’re trying to move towards something more collaborative, less linear. People are a little bit more conscious of how their behavior impacts other people.

Jack claimed that experiencing the value of ‘process’ was his most significant MAL learning, and was able therefore to integrate back at work. In Jack’s action-oriented field, this was not easy:

The biggest [learning] for me was really nailing down the difference between the task and the process. And this was the emphasis on process, because I work in emergency health care and we react and we’re conditioned to react quickly . . . you deal with the solution before you know what the problem is. And that’s really the difference between task and process. [Now] I drive my staff absolutely crazy because I’ll slow it down, say let’s think about this. Ok, what have we covered, what do we really want to say, what kind of answer do we want to get here.

Catherine, a postsecondary administrator, became fascinated by the potential of incorporating specific team roles in her workplace groups. Following her MAL graduation, she pursued study of Belbin’s^[17] model of group roles (introduced in MA) in a doctoral program, and now involves her work colleagues in team analysis:

I’m managing a new project, thinking about the composition of the team and balancing out that team in terms of functional roles, expertise and team skills . . .I’ve had really good feedback from people in terms of how it’s helped them understand each other and enjoy each other, and be a little more open with each other. Because now they can talk about difficulties they have in terms of team roles instead of personal problems.

Catherine also experiments now with team-leading a group, herself assuming different roles than facilitation (such as being ‘observer’). She claims that since MA, “I spend more time sitting and talking with other people, before and during a project, also doing post meeting assessment, finding where they’re coming from.”

Terry, a postsecondary administrator, also uses more collaborative, mixed groups to solve workplace problems, and incorporates more opportunity for talk:

So when I went back to the clinic, instead of just doing the bandaid thing which in the long run causes more trouble, I managed to say, let’s discuss this. We would go through as a group: one nurse, a doctor, some of the therapists on the floor to get the best out of everybody, to get the different perspectives.

As a learning consultant for a national civic organization, Elizabeth has implemented problem-based approaches into the organization’s leadership development programs: “The experience at Harrington gave me the confidence to go ahead and know that PBL really works and be able to actually use it in an online fashion.” Earle claims he has “blatantly stolen” and incorporated into his administrative work various group process and problem analysis techniques that he learned at HU:

I use group techniques for developing processes and creative ideas. Sometimes I go into an ‘HU mode’ of thought and walk around and think well, How would we do this? How would we develop a way of dealing with this particular problem?, and then assemble a group of people to contemplate problems and work through to solutions and present these solutions in creative ways to others.

For a few, like Gilbert (program director in higher education), the group problem-solving process is well-established in their own workplace. The MAL experience apparently sharpened Gilbert’s understanding of others’ perspectives: “Certainly working through HU gave me an appreciation for diversity and really realizing the importance of having convergent and divergent thinkers in your group.” To illustrate her workplace application of MAL learnings about understanding group process, Elizabeth told a story about a recent crisis threatening her organization. She handled it proactively, defusing a conflict through a process of story-telling and encouraging each player to listen to others’ perspectives. One department in the conflict began defensively:

‘If we don’t get some answers right away, we’re going have a code of conduct investigation done’ and just very much command and control kind of memo. And some really false accusations.

Elizabeth examined the dynamics contributing to the situation, called some meetings, and ended up with the congratulations of a senior member of her organization who said: “I don’t know what you learned at Harrington, but way to go. You sure tidied that one up nice and clean.”

Caution and strategy

Of the many interviewees who talked about integrating their learnings about group process and self-assessment into their workplace practice, several indicated the need for caution and strategic interventions.

Mel, the armed forces officer, explained that the military hierarchy is so embedded that he proceeds carefully. He now incorporates concepts of group dynamics and ‘servant leadership’ into his office training sessions, one of which was observed by a general whose comment was ‘I don’t know if it’ll work in the military or not but it’s certainly opened my eyes to something new’. Mel explained, “My biggest attempt of using and employing this stuff is to change my boss’s way of seeing the world”, from an impersonal authoritarian enforcer of the military hierarchy to valuing and encouraging dialogue among staff. While gently pressing against his superordinates of the “military hierarchy” to become more collaborative, Mel has been trying to create, for his subordinates, an opportunity and place for them to solve their own problems. His dream is to form a new business for organizational consulting, “to establish a futures committee as a PBL group.”

Lee-Anne introduced to her staff many new approaches that had excited her in the MAL program, but she also has found it “tough” going:

Some of them are like, oh no, here she goes again! But I’ve tried to be conscious over not being a zealot as well, and to be respectful of where people are at. I’ve tried not to be too ‘far out there’. . . .It’s coming along slowly. Each team that we bring together, we have a positive experience and then we keep getting a little more adventurous.

Terry referred to the danger of overdoing “MAspeak” in the workplace. When she introduces techniques for problem-analysis or group process amongst her colleagues, “I just say, this worked when I was at Harrington, maybe we could try this approach.”

Although certain caution appeared related to avoid zealotry, others explained the need to modify certain approaches used at MA. Michael, for example, was enthusiastic about self-assessment tools such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator but explained changes he made to implement it in his work as human resources administrator in the armed forces:

When [the MAL instructor] presented it as the definitive analysis of who we were as individuals, people bristled at that. The way in which I use measurement and the emotional intelligence assessment is to minimize the quantitative aspects of it, but not to ignore it. To examine it. To treat it as a snapshot. It doesn’t hurt to measure things . . . it is the scientific approach and has it’s own validity and relevance. And if you treat it the right way and you use it as a tool, it can work for you. . . . I’ve been able to use it in my own work . . . in my own way.

Changing leadership style

Interviewees reported varying degrees of change in their actual leadership style, from a significant transformation (“I used to be a lone ranger”), to a shift incorporating more emphasis on relationships. Catherine experienced one of the more dramatic shifts:

I am very much a stewardship leader and guide my staff. I don’t force or push, I allow them to make mistakes. I allow them to acknowledge and to learn and I bring people together in a learning environment that’s conducive to moving them forward. And I believe that is one of the most powerful things that came out of HU for me, was to allow that and to acknowledge that.

By contrast, for Joyce (nursing administrator) there was no dramatic leadership change, but a noticeable change in “the way you do things, how you bring things up”. She noted that a few other colleagues had been through the MAL program, seeding a bit of a culture shift in her organization.

Modeling and promoting reflective practice in the workplace

One of the most frequently mentioned impacts of the MAL program on workplace practice among interviewees was a new incorporation of reflective self-assessment into work activity. Leo, a director of a large social services department, spends many hours travelling for his work. Since beginning MA,

I spend at least an hour each day reflecting on the day. I anticipate carrying on that - and this wasn’t my traditional way. . . . gives me a chance to explore a question that comes up during the day, or when I’m driving - helped me be more disciplined about reflection.

Earle described that although he was quite used to group work, he had not before reflected on the roles he played, and the specific contributions and responses of others: “Now [since his MAL experience] I reflect on things as they go on . . .It is buried quite deep and it does seem to have had a significant impression on me.” Nora, in her busy days of nursing administration, also reports a new discipline of reflection:

I’ve learned to stop after significant encounters and say, How did I do there? What did I do well? What could I have done better?

Nora also explained action outcomes of her reflection, both in her administrative work and at home, as a mother of teenagers:

I’m far more inclined to go back to [the person] and say, I messed up there and I shouldn’t have done this - Here’s my strategy for next time. I find that my sharing of my self-assessment with the person I’m sort of assessing the encounter with is almost as useful as the self-assessment itself.

This theme of integrating reflection into practice, and involving colleagues in reflective self-assessment emerged in others’ stories, albeit with certain cautions. Darlene, now a technology instructor, explained:

I never regarded my work as learning before. I learned how to reflect. Now I do understand. I encourage my students to reflect -- computer students, can you imagine? Tekkie guys thinking She’s going to make us link arms and sing kumbayah.

Terry introduced self-assessment with her staff: each person combines self-assessment with peer feedback from a colleague, and her own feedback as leader, and discusses its implications. Gilbert also has incorporated a simple feedback technique for “preferred work styles” with his staff since completing MAL which has met with “fairly good success, not seen as threatening” he says.

Developing courage to continue pressing systems approaches, reflective assessment, and group process

Only six questionnaire respondents and about 25% of the interview respondents explicitly indicated “systems thinking” to be significant long-term learning in the PBL group activity of residency 1. Five interviewees described how this new knowledge of “systems thinking” influenced their practice. For Leo, managing people in a large government department, systems thinking helped him see beyond immediate behaviors to make sense of larger patterns:

[In projects in my work] I encounter cynicism, staff morale issues, rules and responsibilities issues, and they’re very difficult to deal with. Without the knowledge of HU I’d just give up. But now I know some of the issues that contributed to that.

Leo dwelt on the usefulness of systems thinking in his ability both to ‘read’ organizational problems, and to understand his own connection and responsibility for them:

The systems approach gives a richness to addressing issues. It had practical application in helping me understanding the issues I need to be addressing, and examine them from different angles. I feel a responsibility to proceed. But I don’t want to minimize- it’s hugely difficult in an organization.

A hospital administrator facing similar stressful workplace conditions, Joyce, also described how “systems thinking” as she learned it in the MAL program grounds and fortifies her:

My workplace is a nut house, stressed out, burned out. The things I learned at HU are almost taking a back burner - almost, almost. I’ve got people charging at me saying, why do people do this, why do they lie, how can we deal with this, blah blah blah, and I’m thinking, ok, this is systems thinking at its most crucial. This is what we have to do. This is leadership.

Terry, another hospital administrator, found that her introduction of systems thinking to her work teams has increased their creativity in problem solving:

We have a management team and we tend to spin our wheels . . . My experience with PBL has helped me bring that group together and get us mobilized, finding all kinds of inventive ways of looking at an issue.

Many referred to a new patience with group process, particularly during the process of implementing change. Janice, a manager in natural resource services, explained:

When I make a suggestion that I know is a really solid suggestion, and it’s rejected, it usually bothers me less than it used to because I’m more aware of the factors that are moving against change or preventing change. I’m more patient, I think, with things taking a lot of time and push from a lot of direction before they happen.

Catherine, a postsecondary administrator, reported that her new approaches in her workplace of trusting others, working through collaborative teams, and linking today’s issue with larger systemic dimensions, has fundamentally changed the rhythm and quality of the work:

People do see me smiling and laughing. And it’s amazing how the work gets done, You can sit back and enjoy a laugh and the work still gets done. All that seriousness just contributes to a lot of stress.

For these five people and possibly others, the MAL PBL experience of intensive collaborative group problem-solving combined with rigorous continuous assessment appeared to help them develop and apply systems thinking to complex leadership dilemmas confronting them in their own workplace practice. This ‘big picture’ vision seemed also to help them reduce tension and ‘personalizing’ of the problem, approach issues with greater patience and understanding of others’ behaviors, and find more effective “levers” upon which to focus their own action.

PART IV

Discussion of Findings: Implications for Higher Education

and Workplace Learning

This discussion incorporates our interpretation and comments, as scholars, on the findings presented in Part III. These findings and their discussion are, of course, completely subjective and highly selective, reflecting our own emphases and ways of seeing. As qualitative researchers, we believe that the researcher is an instrument, that study “data” and study “findings” inevitably reflect the biases and meanings of the researcher as well as the researched.

We also believe that the final purpose of a study report is achieved in the response it stimulates in the reader. Perhaps new questions will be generated for the reader in the discussion below, or perhaps the reader will find him or herself nodding in confirmation, that something we’ve chosen to illuminate corresponds to his or her own experience. Our frame of understanding is interpretive. We accept that there are multiple meanings in any communicative situation and multiple readings possible of those interactions, that all knowledge is partial and tentative, and that no final closure or determination of “the findings” is possible or even desirable.

In the following discussion we have read some of the findings from a critical frame of understanding. Briefly, this frame acknowledges that human interaction and interpretation is strongly influenced by power relations embedded in a culture’s discourses and practices. Inequities and exclusions are created in these discursive practices, often along lines of difference (class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) These power relations are often naturalized to the point where participants in a culture (such as a particular workplace or higher education institution) are unaware of their functioning. Even those who suffer oppression and marginalization sometimes accept and are complicit in reinforcing dominant norms of behavior, knowledges, and identities.^[18]

This frame is an important one for this study as so much has been written about the links between knowledge and power in higher education (particularly in professional education), and the silencing and marginalizing of people in postsecondary learning activities such as class discussion and problem-based learning.^[19]

Overall, the discussion below is organized into five sections. First we reflect on characteristics of the “mid-career professional”, linked to what a majority of MAL graduates indicated was their most important learning in the program: self-knowledge. Then we discuss what most respondents indicated to be their key learnings in the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) activity: understanding others and managing group process. Third we analyze the “magic of MA”, seeking to understand what aspects of the program reported in this study seem to produce extreme emotionality and sometimes personal transformation in learners. Fourth, we comment on three dimensions of the program that we felt were underrepresented in many respondents’ comments: problem analysis, critical reflection, and systems thinking. Finally, we suggest some implications for the MAL program planners suggested by this study.

Mid-career (mid-life) professionals: seeking self-knowledge

One of the strongest themes apparent among the findings of this study is the focus on self-knowledge indicated by a majority of respondents. Self-assessment, for most, was a highly significant dimension of their MAL experience, with varied long-term impacts on their personal and professional lives. Although approximately 20% of questionnaire and interview participants declared that other issues were more important than self-knowledge, the strong majority focusing on self deserves some comment.

Seeking self

As shown in part III above, approximately 25% of respondents indicated that the MAL program was personally transformative. While 20% referred to a dramatic career change that they attributed to their development in MA, others most often mentioned a change in work style or leadership style. For many, this change was related to a new valuing of group process and a new appreciation for the diversity of others. For others, the three prominent themes related to self-knowledge were discussed in part III. Respondents felt that the MAL program helped them:

(1) develop confidence in themselves as leader;

(2) become more attuned to others; and

(3) become more self-aware.

Many explained how self-reflection had become embedded in their practice since completing the MAL program, and told stories about understanding – sometimes for the first time - aspects of themselves that created particular patterns (both desirable or undesirable) in their lives.

Learning theory tells us that an individual’s readiness, intention, and capability to notice and engage particular learning opportunities affect their ability to learn within any experience^[20]. If this is so, we can speculate that these mid-career professionals are somewhat predisposed to focus on self-knowledge. Perhaps readiness and intention are linked to mid-life reflection about identity and purpose, which others have shown to be a strong theme amongst the North American ‘baby-boomer’ cohort in mid-life^[21]. Perhaps it reflects a deep yearning to discover and express an “authentic self”, a longing that supposedly springs from what some writers have described as the alienating, numbing, consumption-oriented and hypercompetitive work conditions of later modernity^[22].

Giving back

Another dimension of mid-life possibly affecting participants’ readiness to focus on self-knowledge, mentioned by some interviewees, might be a general sense of wanting to “give something back”. Erikson^[23] identified this as a stage of “generativity” where those in mid-life become aware of their mortality and begin to experience a need to contribute to society, to make their lives more worthwhile in a lasting sense. Darlene, who chose to change her career from being director of information systems for a large organization to becoming a college teacher (at a significantly lower salary), explained,

I was certainly at a point in my career where I was looking for answers, really searching for more meaning. . .I did the climb to success at a relatively young age . . .I was ready to start giving something back. I know that people like me in leadership positions impact people greatly.

Rhonda also realized her need to give back by teaching others:

My ability to help others learn was lacking. I had always been the learner, and enjoyed it, taking it in, loving it. But then I had to realize that you come to a point in your life where you need to turn the corner and also help others have that experience, with the things you’ve been lucky enough to be able to learn.

As researchers, we find it interesting to note a pattern among a percentage of MAL graduates to consider career transitions into organizational consulting (often by starting their own business), or by applying to join a MAL faculty team. This could be evidence of a general readiness to “give back” one’s leadership lessons. Perhaps this is stimulated by the MAL emphasis on “helping others learn” (one of the program competencies), or by a new consciousness of one’s own knowledge, and confidence that this knowledge is worthwhile, gained through the self-assessment and other dimensions of MA.

Concern about time

Another phenomenon among some of this study’s respondents was some tension about age, formal education, and “off-time” graduate work. As Neugarten^[24] has pointed out, adults born in the first five to six decades of the twentieth century tend to measure their own life patterns against those of their age-cohort. Since the choice to enter university in mid-life has only recently become common, some mid-career professionals struggle to rationalize their enrollment in a graduate program. Catherine explains,

People were saying I’m too old to go back. . . And now I’m just starting doctoral work and will retire in 3-4 years, then what am I going to do? I could effectively have another 30 years of life. Others have that conversation in their heads. There is this preconceived idea that formal education is what you do at certain ages.

Catherine’s reference to thinking about one’s senior years in terms of learning is another dimension of interest to higher education institutions. Those who study aging, learning and education^[25] have shown that lifelong learning is linked with healthy aging, and that increasingly adults considering retirement from one career are seeking graduate education towards developing a new career.

Demanding challenge of a particular kind

People in the late twentieth century classified as “mid-career” tend to be in mid-life, between about 35 and 55 years of age. Certainly this was true for this study. Many mid-life North Americans in the late 1990’s (i.e. ‘baby boomers’) belong to a particular cohort typified as discriminating, conscious of their own individual needs, often unwilling to accept authority, achievement-oriented and interested in self-actualization. Combined with years of leadership experience where people become used to continual challenge as a way of living, it seems hardly surprising that such people seek a graduate program that is well-tailored to their own perceived needs of a personal ‘stretch’, a novel experience, challenge and risk, and an opportunity for self-actualization. These people (MA) are perhaps different than those that would opt for a more traditional academic graduate program. A few interviewees talked about searching other programs and coming to MAL specifically to experience problem-based learning, or to avoid lecture-and-essay style education. As Catherine explained,

You can only write so many essays and so many exams and the challenge there wears off after awhile. But this learning in a very dynamic environment has certainly opened my eyes to what lifelong learning can be.

In addition, in any new program’s early first four years (from which all study participants were drawn), one might speculate finding more risk-seeking people than those opting for a well-established university program. As Gilbert explained, in his cohort . . .

. . . we had a large number just ready for that type of learning. There are people that go looking for that type of education and others that wait to hear about it. There are always inaugural pros and cons.

Overall, the focus on self-knowledge may reflect the predisposition of learners, mostly in mid-life, mostly members of a white, western, middle class culture that values introspection and the construction and esteem of the individualized ‘self’. It might reflect certain content of the MAL program which tends to support a psychological frame of learning^[26]. Or, as suggested earlier, it might reflect yearnings common in an age of fragmentation and anxiety, where life, learning and the meaning of work are increasingly subjugated to a global economic imperative.

Understanding others – group process

We were intrigued at the emphasis given by MAL graduates to their learning to understand and appreciate other people in the problem-based learning activities. (In a later section, Problem-analysis, the reason for our surprise will be explained). MAL participants in this study emphasized the following themes as most significant learnings through the PBL activity:

· Managing group process;

· Learning to hear and understand different points of view;

· Learning to value others’ strengths;

· Learning how to cooperate, and the synergy possible through cooperation;

· Learning (or re-learning) how to lead group process;

· Learning to understand and accept conflict in group process;

· Validating own interpersonal and problem-solving skills; and

· Learning how to think in terms of systems.

Much of this is what might be termed basic communication skills. Most of these skills are standard in high school language arts curricula, as well as in communication and team- building training sessions which are common in many organizations. Why then, would these skills be so valued in a graduate program by well-educated professionals? Why would mid-career professionals find this learning so novel when presumably they are compelled to use such skills every day?

From the stories of interviewee participants, we suggest four responses to these questions. First, the experience of intense working relationships formed with strangers apparently led, for many MAL participants, to a level of emotionality and conflict that had to be worked through. This forced many to confront and connect somehow to the Other in a way they may not necessarily need to in their everyday work.

Second, the HU residence and community may offer an unusually safe space to explore deep relationship dynamics that one might never broach in workplaces where political dynamics are sensitive and severe consequences can result from confronting a relational problem.

Third, some MAL learners may experience an unusual level of readiness to open self to others, in a search for interconnection that some writers have linked to a mid-life search for self, purpose, and deeper meaning in one’s life.

Finally, a related point is that the MAL emphasis on self-assessment may lead many learners to examine themselves in interaction with others, stimulating a new understanding and appreciation for others. Like others, Catherine’s MAL experience compelled her to recognize the power of genuine conversation and listening to others:

It was a real eye opener for me because I had gone in being very individualistic, very task focused...I began to see the other side, the process side, and develop some patience for process.

The magic of MA

Mel was not the only one to refer to the MAL program as “magic”. The reasons for this rather extravagant commendation are difficult to pinpoint, although the study findings suggest certain threads that appear to combine to create a “life-changing” or “incredible” experience for many mid-career professionals.

The MAL culture, which some describe as cultish, is evidently highly important to the overall experience. The minimal personal boundaries in residency, removal from one’s everyday routines and pressures, the sense of belonging to a large caring community, the emphasis on integrity and other cherished values – all contribute to a uniquely positive cultural experience.

Second, the mixing up of people from different work cultures and professional domains presented a challenge which for some was unpleasant, but for many was apparently “exciting”. The mix shakes learners from their accustomed cultural norms, discourses, values and expectations of their own workplace community of practice, norms in which their own identity is enmeshed. At MA, they are “thrown together” as Joyce put it. Rhonda explained that with people’s positional status gone, there is a certain equalization that can be unsettling:

You walk into a situation where you don’t know anybody - you’re starting from scratch. You don’t know the material, it’s a really clean slate, there’s no history, there’s nothing -- and you get a chance to see how you function.

Third, the emphasis on genuine dialogue in all aspects of the program - close listening and honoring the Other – was for some a novel and electric experience, fundamentally changing the way they looked at other people.

Fourth, the honest feedback from others (peers and faculty) about things they cared about most (how they presented their self) was, for some, a unique and powerful gift. As a few noted, such personal feedback is “a bit taboo” in the workplace. For some MAL offered, after years of often difficult decision-making and leadership, a first opportunity to “see how I came across to other people”.

Issues and knowledge that were surprisingly under-emphasized

This section is purely exploratory, and must be understood in terms of the study limitations. None of these items were the focus of study, nor were they explicitly validated with study participants: they appeared peripherally while data analysis proceeded focusing on other issues. We mention them here simply for interest. Further research would be required to confirm and develop these themes properly.

Problem-analysis

We expected to hear the study respondents talk more about learning to analyze problems, learning to scan and analyze environmental dynamics (such as globalization), learning to manage the ambiguity, contradictions and paradoxes embedded in leadership dilemmas, learning different ways of reading a problem situation, recognizing and dealing with ethical dilemmas in problem-solving, and perhaps learning more strategies for devising workable solutions amidst organizational constraints (labor unions, resource shortages, rapid change, etc.). These are the sorts of learnings often discussed in literature addressing problem-based learning and professional education.

On the questionnaires, only 33% of respondents chose problem-analysis as their most significant learning in the PBL activity. Only 13% chose decision-making skills, and only 1 person chose ‘framing the problem’ as their most significant learning. As addressed earlier, most questionnaire and interview respondents emphasized appreciating others and managing group process as their key learning from the problem-solving activities. We might expect mid-career professionals to be seeking or developing, in problem-focused graduate education, a wider range of problem-related skills: strategic or projective thinking amidst change, coordinating contradictory pressures, applying different frames to read ambiguous situations, considering the problem’s positionality in broader societal or economic trends, assessing cultural, legal, and ethical problem dimensions, identifying leverage points for action, and constructing alternative leadership responses to problems. If any of these skills were integrated into the PBL activity, graduates seemed either to be unaware of them, or to value group process skills more highly.

Critical thinking

There appeared to be a certain lack of criticality in the stories of valued learnings from some MAL graduates. This is interesting in light of the central role that critical social theory plays in many graduate adult education or social science programs across Canada. Power relations invoked through educational interventions, particularly in the workplace, are commonly scrutinized very critically, and issues of equity and difference are analysed with sophisticated frames (feminist, post-structuralism, postmodern, postcolonial, critical cultural, and others). Rhonda claimed,

We didn’t really address diversity in PBL, at a multi cultural level. Some individuals in the program feel alienated who really understand the sensitivities. We’re kind of like elephants in a china shop bruising people’s feelings - we thought we had a handle on diversity but no, we don’t really know how to draw out others or what the consequences of our communications are.

Although some MAL mid-career professionals were critical about program elements they wanted improved (such as faculty credibility, grading practices, and certain assignments they found unpleasant, artificial or irrelevant in light of ‘real world’ demands), some appeared to lack broader critical perspectives about the circulations of power, the functions of difference and discrimination, and the role of broader social and economic structures and trends impacting their own workplaces. A few respondents were quite critical of the program’s lack of robust criticality, but these seemed to be isolated; in fact, one learner voicing her resistance from a background in social justice and feminism claimed to have been alienated by both faculty and other learners.

One example of this was the uncritical use, by some interviewees, of popular management theory concepts (called “buzzwords” by one interviewee who was critical of HU’s “lack of rigor”) such as ‘learning organization’, ‘lifelong learning’ or ‘servant leadership’. Few seemed aware of the extensive scholarship, outside popular literature, showing how such concepts are weakly theorized, tend to reinforce organizational hierarchies and occlude deeper systemic problems. In addressing this issue, Dwayne suggested that MAL learners tend to remain safely within a humanistic orientation:

The problems were good, they were well-written and succinct and offered all the opportunity in the world. [but] most of the time the groups took the safe route or the touchy feely route . . . They wanted more harmless than radical solutions

‘Criticality’ is a contested area of curriculum in graduate education ^[27]. But a fast-growing Master of Arts program whose graduates claim their experiences to be “magical” and “life-changing”, and go on to exert apparent influence on workplace organizations, could perhaps consider incorporating more critical frameworks for problem analysis.

Systems thinking

A very small number of interview and questionnaire respondents referred explicitly to systems thinking. Among those who did, only a few like Leo gave concrete stories illustrating a profound shift in their thinking to consider various dimensions creating what appears to be a problem. This is interesting given that ‘systems thinking’ is one of five major categories of competencies for the whole MAL program. Dwayne felt that despite all the lectures and diagrams of systems thinking, few MAL learners that he knew really engaged the transformation to think systemically:

You can talk about systems thinking until you’re blue in the face - a lot of students survived on buzzwords, loved using them.[I say] throw them out, or work with them to really understand them.

It was ironic, for example, that while some individuals talked about the importance of systems thinking, they described the residence as chaos that faculty had “failed to manage or contain properly”. In other words, some did not seem to naturally examine their own experiences in terms of the systems theory they were supposedly learning in MAL – such as analysing various energies and dimensions pressuring the system of their community. In the problem-solving group conflicts and other challenges, some learners apparently became enmeshed in personal interactions and seemed unable to adopt a more big-picture “systems” perspective. This was clear when comparing their analyses of events to the analyses offered by those with extensive group experience, such as Connie, who was able to foresee the pressures and consequences, observe the points of acceleration, and choose points of effective leverage as they emerged.

In one respect, MAL learners’ emphasis on self-knowledge and the program’s use of psychologistic self-assessment tools, while not completely incompatible with ‘systems thinking’, do present a paradox to learners which the program could perhaps do more to help resolve.

Implications for the MAL program

The point of this research is not to provide a program evaluation. Therefore a list of recommendations to Harrington University for its MAL program would be inappropriate. However, within the study purpose of understanding the needs of mid-career professionals, and exploring their MAL experiences (in problem-based learning and self-assessment) in terms of long-term influence on their work practice, a few implications for the MAL program are suggested by this study’s findings.

Problem-based learning

Overall, this study demonstrates high learner satisfaction and long-term learning related to the PBL component of the MAL program. The PBL experience might be enhanced with systematic preparation of learners (describing clearly what they should expect in terms of the intensive groupwork, and assisting learners to self-assess their own readiness for the MA-PBL experience). Some learners apparently need more assistance adjusting from traditional higher education activities (reading, lectures, seminars, essay-writing) to the experiential problem-based learning groups. The questions about “rigor” raised by a few study participants may be addressed by a clear discussion of the unique approach and goals of the MAL curriculum, its definitions of “academic rigor” and its distinction from other graduate programs:

It’s a whole different approach to education . . . a totally different way of measuring success than the traditional academic program. I have to stand back and withhold judgment but certainly in the sense of academic rigor, it wasn’t there until the major project...many people hadn’t been in school for 20 years so they’re freaked about their writing skills. They had to make the grade in the end but there were times during the program when I thought, hmmmm, where is this going? ...there was a weak link between the competencies and the courses. It was bits and pieces.

HU might also consider the recommendations of some interviewees to incorporate more experiential PBL-like activities into the second residency. Further application and extension of learning through self-managed group processes would be welcome. Some learners also suggested creating explicit connections between action research and PBL, for example using action research approaches in PBL groups and possibly forming PBL-groups to analyse issues and implement changes related to the Major Project. As Rhonda suggested,

Tighten the link between PBL and action research . . .It would be helpful for students earlier in the program to make that connection between PBL, action research and the work they do...formalized a bit more...We would get more out of the problem-solving, and there would be more rigor in our problem-solving [if it were part of a larger framework]

Systems thinking might be integrated more seamlessly into various learning activities, including PBL, self-assessment, and other MAL program aspects. Respondents in this study suggest that greater emphasis might be placed on employing systems thinking rather than simply comprehending it.

Finally, HU might consider introducing more critical sociological and cultural frameworks to assist learners to enrich their problem analysis and solutions. A balance of perspectives is desirable, encouraging learners’ active and robust critique of dominant discourses and popular literature.

Self-assessment

For many MAL participants, self-assessment appears to be a very significant part of the program. This study suggests various ways to strengthen the self-assessment dimension to maximize its potential value for all participants. HU might consider honoring and encouraging other approaches to self-assessment besides written reflection. While some enjoy journaling, other interviewees mentioned reflective walking, focused dialogue, personal meetings with faculty, and the activity of assessing groups and peers as preferred modes of self-assessment. Several indicated that help from faculty and peers is valuable (what to look for in assessing self, developing more focused observation and analysis, finding different approaches to self-assessment). In particular, many learners feel they need help achieving distance from their own accustomed perspective on self, and find others’ insights very helpful. Program time dedicated to assessing self, sharing insights from self-assessment, and sharing the experience and challenges of self-assessment appears to be important. Finally, the idea and format of a learning agreement requires revision. However since HU is already undertaking this initiative further belaboring of this point seems unnecessary.

Peer assessment

Peer assessment was described as problematic by several in this study. However, only brief commentary will be provided here as another HU study has examined this area, and MAL faculty have already targeted peer assessment as an area requiring some improvement. Participants in this study generally indicated that peer assessment as “real honest feedback from others” is potentially highly useful to their learning. However, currently the peer assessment for some “has no teeth”. Participants indicated that somehow an approach must be developed that balances honest and constructive appraisal with positive interaction and mutual respect.

Application of leadership approaches

Several interviewees discussed certain difficulties in applying what they had learned in the MAL program (including collaborative group approaches, problem analysis, big picture thinking, facilitative leadership styles). This suggests that more explicit work could be done to assist learners to, as one interviewee put it, “face the wall of resistance and realism” when returning to their organizations. Two suggested that more work in the second year residency might focus on developing action strategies to apply the new skills developed through first year’s PBL activities in complex, political and unpredictable workplace contexts. Perhaps even more discussion could be incorporated in the second year towards recognizing and balancing the various tensions of implementing one’s new ideas into difficult situations, working with “non-MAies”.

Community is key

It is probably no surprise to Harrington University that a critical role in the MAL program’s success appears to be played by the intensive (five-week) largely-residential community of learners. This not only contributes to what learners report as a euphoric sense of bonding and belonging, but also appears to be key in learners’ personal transformation. It is largely through immersion in a self-reflective community striving for collective growth, that learners report achieving what they consider their most important long-term learning: self-knowledge and understanding other people. They learn by watching others struggle with challenges and new skills, by taking risks in leadership and working relationships in a trusted environment, and by “just being surrounded by others: you are watching them change and react to stuff as you also are contributing to their change”.

This insight flies in the face of much current writing advocating the merits of post-secondary education solely delivered through distance or distributed merits. There is clear significance in the embodied culture of the MAL learning community that is difficult to establish empirically, but that may be experienced much differently in a virtual network or a shorter residency. HU might consider this carefully in considering any changes to the current program delivery based on five-week interpersonal residency.

The intensive community also contributes to what for some learners are negative experiences of over-the-top emotionality, interpersonal conflicts, lack of privacy and respite from continual interaction. Such issues may be idiosyncratic and thus best left alone. Conversely, HU faculty might consider discussing such potentialities with the community, and encouraging strategies to work through community dynamics as productively and non-fractiously as possible.

Comments about faculty

A wide variation of judgments and comments about faculty were offered by respondents through the course of this study. Many of the comments were strong, as might be expected among learners who experienced such personal and often life-altering changes in the process of working with various instructors to complete the MAL program. It is difficult to know what mix of learner expectation and faculty response produced the negative reaction to some faculty members reported by some people. One interviewee suggested that certain learners were displacing onto faculty their own discomfort with the unfamiliar pressures of different program aspects.

This study did not focus on faculty, so no conclusion on this issue would be accurate. However, HU might consider making clear to learners the benefits of diversity encouraged among faculty, and ways for individuals to maximize this diversity for their own learning. Also, more clear and frequent discussion might address the role and specific responsibilities of different faculty respecting learners’ experience and growth, as distinct from those aspects of the learning experience that are the responsibility of individual learners and of the learning community as a whole. Finally, some learners who may be unused to the responsibilities shouldered by the learner in postsecondary education might be assisted with clear and frank discussion of the facilitators’ roles as guides and commentators, not necessarily designers and caretakers, of the learning experience.

Conclusion

On one level, this study implies what this group of mid-career professionals representing various fields appears to value most in terms of long term knowledge developed through graduate education: coming to understand and expand one’s self, to be more creative, adventurous, relational, and reflective; and, experiencing a deep learning of effective interpersonal communication and group process skills.

Most also appeared to value very much a mix of different professional disciplines, the large close-knit residential learning community, and the experiential nature of the problem-solving groups. The summer residence offered a distancing from work communities where personal and relational risk-taking had severe consequences; HU offered what most described as a “safe” if intense environment in which to “let loose”. For some, the experience of “coming to presence”, being listened to and appreciated by respected (and even intimidating) peers, was an enormous confidence-booster.

These two areas – self-knowledge and group process - focus on psychological interpretations of group behavior, and human relations approaches to solving problems. ‘Leadership’ was often discussed in neo-liberal terms stressing the choices and behaviors of individuals. Leadership skills were often described in human relations/humanistic terms of good communication and managing group process, as well as emotional dimensions of passion, commitment, the significance of affective elements in group dynamics, and individual ‘styles’. What was missing from some accounts of significant learning were indications of critical awareness of larger structures (political, economic, social, cultural) affecting what may be perceived as organizational problems. Stories told by participants indicated only a minority of learners framing problems in terms of language, power/knowledge issues, or equity. A few applied strategic thinking to leadership issues in terms of complexity/systems theory (discerning tensions, contradictions and co-emergences of broader systems) but several appeared to focus more on the personal.

On another level, the focus on knowledge of self and building meaningful relationships may indicate deep desires, perhaps emanating from something lacking in professionals’ everyday work and workplace communities. These desires may reflect a mid-life group experiencing a developmental stage seeking self-knowledge, self-expansion, and close relationships. Or they might simply point to a particular knowledge that mid-career professionals sense is most valued by their communities of practice in their workplaces.

Perhaps in these postmodern times of undecidability, fluidity and anixety, the opportunity to focus on personal learning rather than production, and reflecting with a group of peers is novel. Or perhaps most graduate adult education boils down to people searching for meaning, purpose and connectedness in their lives.

The questions that Harrington University needs to consider, like all institutions offering graduate education to mid-career professionals, are: Whose needs truly are being met, in a program which attempts to be ‘learner-centered’ and constantly evolving according to ‘learner-clients’ needs’? What agendas should determine the purposes of graduate programs for mid-career professionals? And, do the responses of learners reported here represent the sort of leadership development that the MAL program wishes to continue pursuing?

Appendix A – Questionnaire

see attached

Appendix B – Interview Schedule

The following questions were the basis of the telephone interviews. However, the conversations were open-ended, and did not necessarily use all of these questions, or use these questions in the sequence presented below.

All interviews began with a description of the nature and purpose of the study, and the intended uses and audiences for the findings. Ethical procedures were described, and consent obtained orally for the interview to be tape-recorded. The orientation and terminology of the study (such as ‘problem-based learning’ and ‘self-assessment’) were clarified at appropriate points in the interview.

1. Demographic information: occupation at time of beginning MAL program, current occupation, past education, reasons for entering a graduate program and choosing MA, contact information.

2. For you, what were the most important long-term learnings (concepts and skills) that you developed in the MAL program?

Additional probes:

a) What for you were the most useful/outstanding learnings you developed in problem-based learning activities?

b) What for you were the most useful/outstanding learnings developed in self-assessment activities?

3. In the problem-based learning portion of the MAL program, what elements/activities do you believe were most helpful for your own long-term learning?

Additional probes:

a) What were your most outstanding experiences in the problem-based learning activities?

b) How would you describe the process of your learning during and after the problem-based learning activities?

4. In the self-assessment areas of the MAL program, which elements/activities do you believe were most helpful to your own long-term learning?

Additional probes:

c) How did/do you approach journalling? How useful is this activity for your own learning?

d) How did/do you approach reflection? How useful is this activity for your own learning?

5. What are the important indicators of these long-term learnings in your own life and practice?

6. To what extent have you applied your MAL learnings in your own work?

Additional probes:

a) Which concepts/skills in particular have you applied, and how?

b) What have been the impacts on your organization of these learnings?

Appendix C – Participant Ethics Consent Form (interviews)

Problem-Based Learning and Self-Assessment in the MAL Program: A Study of Participant Experience in the Master of Arts Program in Leadership and Training at Harrington University

I would be interested in being contacted for a telephone interview lasting approximately 30 minutes, arranged at a time convenient to myself. I understand that the purpose of the interview is to explore further my learning experiences in the MAL program. Any information I provide will be kept strictly confidential. The interview will be transcribed and the data secured at the University of Alberta until the conclusion of the research, when all data will be destroyed. My comments will be reported under a pseudonym with all identifiers carefully removed or disguised. My signature here in no way obligates me to participant in this interview, and I may choose to withdraw from the interview at any time. Information recorded here is collected under the authority of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. The purpose of they information is to provide data for an interpretive study entitled “Problem-Based Learning and Self-Assessment in the MAL Program: A Study of Participant Experience in the Master of Arts Program in Leadership and Training at Harrington University”.

Signature_____________________________________________

Name (Print)___________________________________________

Phone number – day time ( )__________ evening ( )___________

E-mail:______________________

Best time to call___________________________________________

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

If you have any questions or concerns please contact:

Caroline Stuart

University of Alberta

(780) 424-9672 evening, (780) 451-1114 daytime

caroline@oanet.com

^[1] A pseudonym. Harrington University is a small fully accredited institution in western Canada offering undergraduate degrees in business, and master’s degrees in business administration, leadership, distributed learning, and environmental science, both onsite and online delivery. Harrington opened in 1996

^[2] (Brennan, J. & Little, B. (1996). A review of work-based learning in higher education. London: Quality Support Centre and OU Press; Symes, C. & McIntyre, J. (2000). Working knowledge: The new vocationalism and higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

^[3]The MAL program also incorporates many elements that are more common in other graduate degree programs. Distance-delivered courses are provided throughout the winter terms separating the summer residencies. Learners also propose, conduct, and write a report on a Major Project. At HU, this project must incorporate action research, and be situated within a sponsoring organization.

^[4]This is changing. In fall of 1999, HU began to offer internal research grants to adjunct faculty on a competitive basis: this paper results from a study funded by one such grant. In spring of 2000 HU hired a Research Director who is developing incentives for faculty research. However, the university does not staff its degree programs with traditional full-time faculty combining teaching and research loads.

^[5]However, the distance delivery dimension of th MAL program does not appear to significantly affect its recruitment from other provinces. Of the 166 graduates surveyed, 74% were British Columbia; only 10 were from Alberta, 3 from Saskatchewan, 11 from Ontario, 2 from Quebec, 4 from all of the Maritime provinces, and 4 from NWT and Yukon.

^[6]We believe one reason for the high response rate may have been the incentive we offered: a draw for four bookstore gift certificates.

^[7] All tables are presented and discussed fully in a graduate thesis report prepared by Caroline Stuart of the University of Alberta, and presented to Harrington University in spring 2001.

^[8] Analysis procedures followed Ely, M. (1991). Circles within circles: Doing qualitative research. London: Falmer Press.

^[9]Only 23% of questionnaire respondents were aged 29-39 at the start of their MAL program, 11% were 51-61, 7 respondents were 18-28, and 2 were over 62.

^[10] This percentage is somewhat misleading, as it is significantly higher than the percentage overall of learners admitted to MAL under the Prior Learning Assessment provision (which is approximately 18% of all admissions).

^[11] All names of MAL graduates used throughout this document are pseudonyms.

^[12] A few participants, on reading this report to validate interpretations, continued the discussion about the Major Project. One cautioned, “I think you MAY be misreading the situation. The program is very interdisciplinary. It also focuses a lot on profound change. Many major projects incorporate both these elements . . . it typically would take years to see real results, and very often the projects will not really “work” because of the dozens of things required for real change. So, even the 96 group may still be struggling with just what it is they learned from the major project experience.” Another respondent also expressed surprise at the lack of comment about the Major Project, noting that frequent conferring among his MAL peers occurring throughout the project period led to a great deal of learning and mutual “cheerleading”. A third, also surprised at the lack of mention of the Major Project, suggested that some – combining the MP with “a very demanding work schedule and a young active family”: - may have found the process “grueling and unfulfilling.”

^[13] In fact, first-year faculty invite learners to explore any feelings they may experience of what is termed an “imposter syndrome”, a sense of being inadequate academically and professionally compared to peers in the same program.

^[14] Including, but not restricted to, the Change Style Indicator and the Kolb Learning Style Indicator.

^[15] At the time of writing, the structure and purpose of the Learning Agreement is undergoing review and revision by faculty, to address certain concerns expressed by learners.

^[16] Although some interviewees reflected systemically on issues and structures related to their organizational environment and leadership activity, only one talked about structural issues such as power relations, systemic inequities, the system’s exclusions and distortions, or other elements of a critical orientation.

^[17] R. Meredith Belbin. (1997).Changing the way we work. Oxford ; Boston : Butterworth-Heinemann; R. Meredith Belbin. (1996). Management teams : why they succeed or fail. Oxford ; Boston : Butterworth-Heinemann.

^[18] For more detailed explanation and application of this frame, see Fenwick, T. (2000) Expanding conceptions of experiential learning: A review of five contemporary perspectives. Adult Education Quarterly, 50 (4), 243-272; Fenwick, T. (2000) Worker development: Towards new frames for inquiry and practice, In A. Wilson, & E. Hayes, (Eds.), Handbook 2000: The handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 294-311), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Fenwick, T. & Parsons, J. (1998) Boldly solving the world: A critical analysis of problem-based learning in professional education, Studies in the Education of Adults, 30 (1), 53-66; Fenwick, T. (1997) Questioning the learning organization concept, In S. M. Scott, B. Spencer, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Learning for Life: Readings in Canadian Adult Education, (pp. 140-152), Toronto, Ontario: Thompson.

^[19] For discussion of higher education using a critical frame, see bell hooks (1994) Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom, New York: Routledge; Ellsworth, E. (1992) Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy, In Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy , edited by C. Luke and J. Gore , pp. 90-119, New York: Routledge; Tisdell, E.J. (1995) Creating inclusive environments: Insights from multicultural education and feminist pedagogy, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for Employment, information Series No. 361. Columbus, Ohio.

^[20] Boud, D. & Walker, D. (1991). Experience and learning: Reflection at work. Geelong, Victoria : Deakin University Press.

^[21] Merriam, S. B. & Heuer, B. (1996). Meaning-making, adult learning and development: A model with implications for practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15 (4), 243-255.

^[22] For example, see Borgmann, A. (1992). Crossing the postmodern divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford University Press; West, L. (1996). Beyond fragments: adults, motivation, and higher education - A biographical analysis. London, UK: Taylor and Francis, 1996.

^[23] Erikson, E.H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York: Norton. Also refer to Neal, J. (2000). Work as service to the divine. American Behavioral Scientist, 43 (8), 1316-1333.

^[24] Neugarten, B. (1979). Time, age and the life cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 887-893.

^[25] Wolf, M.A. & Leahy, M.A. (Eds.) (1998). Adults in transition. Washington, D.C: American Association for Adult and Continuing Education.

^[26] The MAL program makes rather extensive use of psychological instruments such as the Jung-derived Myers-Briggs instrument to categorize humans according to innate personality dimensions. In addition, the program declares an emphasis on self-directed learning, a psychological concept of adult education, and a program philosophy of (reflective) constructivism – also derived from psychological notions of learning.

^[27] As Brookfield (1995) argues in The critically reflective educator (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), for some, criticality is about individualistic ‘critical reflection’ which is neo-liberal, self-focused and developmental in orientation. For others criticality is about social critique, mobilizing collective action.

Purpose

Methods

Findings

Table of Contents

Part I

Introduction

Part II

Study Methods

PART III

Findings: Valuing Group Process and the Changing Self

PART IV

Discussion of Findings: Implications for Higher Education

and Workplace Learning

Self-assessment

Peer assessment

Application of leadership approaches

Community is key

Comments about faculty