Integrating personal development and career planning

active learning in higher education Integrating personal development and career planning Copyright © SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA an...
1 downloads 1 Views 170KB Size
active learning in higher education

Integrating personal development and career planning

Copyright © SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) Vol 7(1): 73–86 DOI: 10.1177/1469787406063216 ARTICLE

The outcomes for first year undergraduate learning K AT H Y M O N K S , E D E L C O N WAY & M U I R E A N N N I D H U I G N E A I N Dublin City University Business School, Ireland

A B S T R AC T This article describes the way in which colleagues from the Business faculty, the Careers Service and the Library at Dublin City University collaborated to design and deliver an integrated approach to personal development planning (PDP) with the aim of motivating first year undergraduate students to take greater responsibility for their own learning, development and career planning. The article describes the approach adopted in the introduction of the PDP module and the measures used to evaluate its outcomes. There are indications from the research that undertaking PDP benefits students in several ways. In particular, it appears to impact on student retention by clarifying career goals and increasing motivation towards the chosen degree programme. K E Y WO R D S : career development, career planning, personal

development planning, self-regulated lear ning, student retention, underg raduate lear ning

PDP process There are a great variety of definitions of PDP and, more particularly, a great many ways in which it is undertaken within the higher education sector. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the UK defines PDP as: A structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning and performance and/or achievement and to plan for their personal, educational and career development. The primary objective for PDP is to improve the capacity of individuals to understand what and how they are learning and to review, plan and take responsibility for their own learning, helping students: Become more effective, independent and confident self-directed learners; Understand how they are learning and relate their learning to a wider context; Improve their general skills for study and career management;

73

AC T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

7(1)

Articulate personal goals and evaluate progress towards their achievement; And encourage a positive attitude to learning throughout life.

It is apparent from this definition that PDP is a very broad concept with a wide range of potential outcomes. A recent review of the PDP literature (Gough et al., 2003) suggests that when expressed as a set of actions and processes, PDP contains elements of planning, doing, recording, reviewing and evaluating. Given this range of processes, PDP is perhaps better understood as a generic term rather than a specific approach, and Jackson (2001) suggests that other approaches that may cover the PDP process include elements such as action planning, profiling, records of achievement and reflection. There are indications that PDP is likely to prove most successful when it is underpinned by a model of learning that serves to provide both an integrating device and a specific direction for the range of activities that may be subsumed under the PDP process. Theories that have proved influential in guiding the PDP process include those of Kolb (1984) and his concept of learning cycle and Zimmerman and his notion of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1989; Zimmerman et al., 1992). The differing perceptions of the nature of PDP have resulted in quite varied approaches to what it entails. For example, Jackson and Ward (2004) have identified five possible curriculum responses to PDP. Given this diversity of potential approaches, it is not surprising that the PDP process has been handled quite differently by institutions within the higher education sector, and a variety of models have now emerged (Learning and Teaching Support Network, 2001). Yet, while many institutions may now be embarking on this process, there is relatively little information available on how successful these initiatives have been. Several reasons for this lack of evaluation can be proffered. First, there may be a lack of clarity around the model of learning that underpins the introduction of PDP (Jackson and Ward, 2004). Second, the difficulties in funding that are endemic within the higher education sector make it difficult to introduce new initiatives that are likely to demand extra resources and place additional burdens on staff. In such cases, institutions may prefer to add the PDP process to existing structures and systems rather than to create new approaches. Third, introducing PDP as a discrete process may result in the replication of activities that are already ongoing. Thus, many aspects of the PDP process are covered – although not necessarily explicitly – in modules that are offered on many vocational degree programmes. In addition, the careers service will already be providing careers advice and information both individually and to groups of students. Finally, the lack of information about the outcomes of PDP may be due in part to the very different forms that it may take. A review of the effectiveness of PDP in improving student learning (Gough et al., 74

M O N K S E T A L . : I N T E G R AT I N G P E R S O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T

2003) confirmed that PDP ‘supports the improvement of students’ academic learning and achievement’ but indicated that an ‘absence of other studies that address other claims, particularly those relating to broader selfdevelopment and improved employability outcomes, means that these claims cannot be substantiated at this stage’ (p. 6). One of the benefits attributed to the PDP process is increased employability with the identification of explicit transferable skills. However, institutions vary considerably in the extent to which career development is included in the PDP process. In addition, there is little evidence available on the benefits that may accrue when such an element is included as part of PDP. Other issues that emerge in relation to the integration of career planning into the PDP process include when and where this might be included into the undergraduate curriculum. Should this element of PDP be reserved or targeted specifically for students in the more advanced years of their programmes of study or is it something that should be embedded into a programme of study from the first year? This article provides insights into some of the issues surrounding the introduction and evaluation of PDP by describing the design, delivery and outcomes of a collaboration between the Business School, the Careers Service and the Library at Dublin City University to introduce PDP to first year undergraduate students.

Introducing PDP to first year undergraduates During the academic year 2003/4, a module on PDP was introduced into the first year of an undergraduate programme in business studies within Dublin City University. This module is also offered as an option to first year nursing students and second year accounting and finance students, and in total 189 students took the module: 140 first year business students, 13 second year accounting and finance students, and 36 first year nursing students. The module was included in the second semester of the first year, by which time most students had experienced four months of university education. The course was designed in collaboration with the Careers Service within the university and in conjunction with the library, and was based on the textbook Skills for Success (Cottrell, 2003), which is designed to provide a PDP programme for students. The aims of the module were to: empower students to begin the process of planning their personal and career development; develop students’ abilities to think reflectively about themselves and the situations in which they find themselves; 75

AC T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

7(1)

provide insights into the competencies required to work effectively as a member of a team; enable students to understand the range of information resources within the university that will assist them during both their time at university and as lifelong learners; provide an opportunity to explore some of the work options and opportunities that will be available to graduates in the future. Underpinning the development of the module was the concept of selfregulated learning suggested by Zimmerman (1989). This model was chosen as one which could usefully guide a PDP process within the whole of an undergraduate curriculum. The objective was to encourage students to learn more about themselves through the process of reflection and by identifying and experiencing the skills needed for teamworking. There were several class sessions delivered by the Careers Service, which began the process of enabling students to learn more about themselves and their skills and abilities. Students were introduced by the Careers Service to an online careers package which reinforced the reflective elements within the module. Apart from the longer-term perspective of career planning, this immediate focus on work and careers was particularly important as there is a work experience element built into the degree programmes. Finally, the library skills sessions introduced students to the first level of information literacy skills. This involved a ‘treasure hunt’ within the library that ensured students became familiar with the various resources physically available to them, as well as an introduction to the print and electronic information sources.

Assessment of the module One of the difficulties with the PDP process is the extent to which it can be assessed given that many of the elements that students must complete are of a personal nature and where the learning is in the process of completing the assignment rather than in the final product. In order to at least partially overcome this problem, some of the elements within the module were assessed simply by pass/fail. Students were required to complete a portfolio that comprised four sections: exercises undertaken in the textbook Skills for Success; a reflective journal; the exercises undertaken in the library as part of the information skills exercises; and the first part of the online career package. For each of these elements they were awarded marks simply for completion of the exercises, and this comprised 30% of their overall grade for the module. In addition, they completed a group project that was graded in the usual way and which was worth 70% of the marks. 76

M O N K S E T A L . : I N T E G R AT I N G P E R S O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T

A prize for the best group project was awarded by the National Centre for Partnership and Performance, and this provided an additional incentive to produce a good project as well as linking it to the range of valuable resources provided by the Centre.

Evaluation of PDP: the research design From funding that was received from the University Teaching and Learning Committee to support the PDP process, it was possible to evaluate the impact of the PDP module from a number of perspectives, and three questionnaires were designed.

PDP questionnaire The PDP questionnaire aimed to capture students’ perceptions of their skillset at both the beginning and the end of the module. This questionnaire included the following: a measure of the need for PDP (Cottrell, 2003); a measure of pre-training self-efficacy and pre-training motivation (Tracey et al., 2001); conscientiousness (McCrae and Costa, 1986); and people skills (Cottrell, 2003). The responses for each of these variables ranged from ‘strongly agree’ (+2) to ‘strongly disagree’ (–2). Demographic data on gender, age and degree programme were also collected. The measure of the need for PDP (Cottrell, 2003) included 25 items covering issues such as motivation towards the degree programme, career goals, reflection, teamworking and problem solving. This questionnaire was administered to students studying on first year undergraduate business and nursing degree programmes. We chose two very similar groups in order to assess whether completion of the PDP module impacted on changes in perceptions of skills and abilities over the time span of the module. Ninety students taking the PDP module completed the questionnaire at the beginning of the module (Time 1) and 89 completed this 12 weeks later (Time 2). Of the students not taking the module, 202 completed the questionnaire at Time 1 and 160 at Time 2. Time was allotted during classes for completion of the questionnaire, but completion was voluntary and dependent on class attendance. About half the students registered for the first year nursing and business programmes participated in the study. Careers questionnaire Half-way through the first semester, a questionnaire was administered by the Careers Service to those students taking the PDP module. This asked students to assess on a five-point scale their current skills level and to compare these with the skills they expected to possess at graduation and 77

AC T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

Table 1

7(1)

Transferable skills

Communication skills

Personal development skills

Interpersonal skills

Work management skills

IT and numeracy skills

Presentation skills Written skills Oral presentation skills Fluency in a second language

Career management Managing one’s own learning Managing multiple tasks Time management

Teamwork Leadership Negotiation Customer service Networking

Problem-solving Planning Project management Decision-making Information management Critical thinking Research skills

Basic IT skills Numeracy

those they thought would be required by employers. Table 1 shows the skills that students were asked to assess clustered under the five broad headings of communications, personal development, interpersonal, work management and numeracy. These have been identified in several reports as the crucial transferable skills required by graduates entering employment (Association of Graduate Recruiters, 1995; Curry et al., 2003; Forfas, 2003).

Evaluation questionnaire At the end of the semester, students taking the module were asked to evaluate whether changes had taken place over the course of the module in their knowledge, skills and abilities. Responses were based on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (to a great extent).

Results PDP questionnaire Figure 1 compares the mean scores of the two groups at Time 1 in relation to questions about people skills, self-efficacy, motivation, conscientiousness and the 25 items comprising the PDP measure. Figure 2 compares these mean scores again at Time 2. The means and standard deviations for each of the variables at Times 1 and 2 for both groups are presented in Table 2. To test for significant differences, multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) for a repeated measures design was used. This procedure allowed us to determine whether scores for the dependent variables varied between both groups, whether they changed over time, and whether any such changes could be attributed to taking the PDP module. The analysis revealed a significant main effect between those taking the PDP module and 78

M O N K S E T A L . : I N T E G R AT I N G P E R S O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T

2 1 0 PDP students

-1

Non-PDP students

-2 s y ion ess kill cac vat iousn i le s f-effi t p o t l Mo Pe Se ien nsc o C

Figure 1

P PD

Comparisons between PDP and non-PDP students at Time 1

2 1 0 PDP students

-1

Non-PDP students

-2 s y n ss kill tio cac ne le s f-effi otiva ious p o t l M Pe Se ien nsc Co

Figure 2

P PD

Comparisons between PDP and non-PDP students at Time 2

those not taking the module, F = 4.176, p < .05. A t-test examining the mean scores for both groups at the two time intervals indicated that this difference related to the PDP measure; students taking the module were more likely to perceive that they needed to engage in personal development planning activities, both at the start (t = –3.164, p < .01) and at the end of the module (t = –2.068, p < .05). The within-subjects analysis showed a significant multivariate effect for time, F = 3.531, p < .01. However, the interaction effect between time and whether or not students took the module was not significant. The univariate tests indicated that the perceived need for PDP decreased over time for both groups, F = 9.061, p < .01. No significant differences for the people skills, self-efficacy, training motivation and conscientiousness variables were found. 79

AC T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

7(1)

Table 2 Means and standard deviations for PDP students and non-PDP students at Times 1 and 2 Measure

PDP group (N = 43) Mean SD

Non-PDP group (N = 76) Mean SD

Do I need PDP? Time 1 Time 2

0.38 0.56

0.48 0.50

0.57 0.65

0.33 0.41

How good are my people skills? Time 1 Time 2

0.61 0.65

0.45 0.51

0.71 0.79

0.37 0.39

Self-efficacy Time 1 Time 2

0.61 0.61

0.67 0.54

0.69 0.66

0.48 0.49

Training motivation Time 1 Time 2

0.78 0.47

0.72 0.57

0.76 0.71

0.45 0.49

Conscientiousness Time 1 Time 2

0.63 0.50

0.56 0.47

0.57 0.58

0.55 0.47

There are several interesting features to these scores. First, the students not taking the module in general rated themselves much higher at Time 1 on various aspects of the PDP process than those taking the module. As all are first years, it is difficult to explain the differences between the two sets of students. However, those taking the PDP module would have been exposed to a couple of weeks of classes before the questionnaire was administered and may therefore have become more aware of what was involved in the PDP process. Second, the significant difference in the scores at Times 1 and 2 regarding PDP suggests that, for students undertaking the module, awareness of the nature of the PDP process had increased over the 12 weeks in which they engaged in the process. While such an increase had also occurred among those not taking the module, this was not as great. The responses to some of the individual items indicate the types of changes that had taken place. Table 3 compares PDP and non-PDP students who agreed or strongly agreed with a range of statements on various aspects of the PDP process both at the beginning (Time 1) and at the end of the module (Time 2). A series of non-parametric tests were carried out to establish whether there were significant differences in scores for the PDP items between the 80

M O N K S E T A L . : I N T E G R AT I N G P E R S O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T

Table 3 Comparisons between PDP and non-PDP students on various aspects of PDP Statement

PDP students Time 1 (% agree)

PDP students Time 2 (% agree)

Non-PDP students Time 1 (% agree)

Non-PDP students Time 2 (% agree)

I am very clear about what my goals are for the next seven years I am very clear about how my degree fits into my life plans I am confident that I have planned sufficiently to enable me to achieve my goals I am very clear about the importance of reflective activity to professional life I have a clear understanding of how to evaluate my own performance I am aware of the best roles for me to fill for teamwork I am confident about making competencebased applications for jobs I know where my own ‘developmental edge’ lies I am confident that I can develop an effective strategy to meet most circumstances I am confident that I can set well-formed targets

49

62

43

36

62

70

81

70

52

49

46

58

49

62

58

66

47

66

61

58

57

69

73

76

54

59

63

63

30

42

38

44

61

71

66

73

57

68

64

71

two groups. The students in the PDP group were much clearer about how their degree fitted with their life plans at Time 2 (mean rank = 101.21) than at Time 1 (mean rank = 78.92), compared to those in the non-PDP group (Z = –3.129, p < .01). In addition, the PDP students were much more aware of the best roles that they could fill in teamwork at Time 2 (mean rank = 96.79) than at Time 1 (mean rank = 81.30), compared to those in the non-PDP group (Z = –2.239, p < .05). The students undertaking the PDP module were also significantly more confident about making competency based job applications at Time 2 (mean rank = 96.56) than at Time 1 (mean rank = 82.44), compared to those in the non-PDP group (Z = –1.986, p < .05). The improvements noted among students taking the PDP module in the clarity of their life goals and their understanding of how their degree fits into their life plans may be particularly important for first year undergraduates in relation to their decision to remain with their chosen degree programme. It is interesting to note that, although students not taking the 81

AC T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

7(1)

module in general initially rated themselves much higher on most dimensions of the questionnaire than their PDP counterparts, they appeared to be far less confident about their future direction some three months later. In contrast, those taking the PDP module seemed to be more secure in their career plans and more realistic about their skill levels. This clarification of goals may be an important factor in student retention and indicates the potential value to students of engaging in the PDP process.

Careers survey Figure 3 shows the results for the skill clusters of communications, personal development, interpersonal, work management and IT/numeracy. The pattern for all the responses is similar, with students generally rating the skills required by employers as over 4.5 on a 5-point scale, while their current rating of their own skills varied between 2.9 for personal development skills to 3.4 for IT/numeracy. The personal development skill-set was rated lowest and includes skills such as managing one’s own learning and time management – skills that are particularly crucial for success at third level (Cottrell, 2003). There were substantial gaps between students’ perceptions of their current skills and both those they expected to have on graduation and those required by employers. The existence of such gaps raises questions about how these might be filled within an undergraduate curriculum. It is interesting to note that when asked to provide a perception of their skills in this way, students rated themselves much lower than they did when simply asked to rate their skill levels as part of the PDP questionnaire. Students appeared to be able to provide a much more realistic view of their skills when forced to make a comparison between their existing and anticipated skill levels and the requirements of employers.

Communications Personal development Interpersonal Work management IT and numeracy 0 Employer expectation

Figure 3

82

Transferable skills

2 Anticipated graduate level

4 Current skill level

M O N K S E T A L . : I N T E G R AT I N G P E R S O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T

Evaluation survey The extent to which skills had improved over the course of the module is shown in Figure 4. This indicates that in general students perceived that their skills had improved in several areas, although there were differences in the extent of the improvement. Perhaps most interesting was that the highest rate of improvement was in students’ motivation towards their degree programme. Given the difficulties that are sometimes experienced with student retention, this improvement is particularly welcome. The particular emphasis of this PDP module on the areas of teamworking and career planning emerges in the levels of improvement perceived in these areas. However, areas such as time management and learning do not appear to have improved to the same extent. These would seem to be particularly important skills for first year undergraduates, and this raises questions as to how these areas might be tackled in future delivery of the PDP module.

Discussion In evaluating the overall findings from the three surveys, we utilize the three elements of self-efficacy, self-awareness and resourcefulness that are at the core of a model of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1989).

Self-efficacy There were no significant differences between the PDP and non-PDP students in their scores on the self-efficacy measures (Tracey et al., 2001) Self-confidence Setting goals Knowledge of careers Motivation to degree Project management

Not at all To some extent A good deal

Time management Learning Career planning Understanding others Understanding self Reflection Teamworking 0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 4 Evaluation of changes in skill-set (%)

83

AC T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

7(1)

that were utilized in the study. However, there were indications from responses to individual items on the PDP questionnaire that the PDP students were more confident by the end of the module about their future direction, while a decline in such confidence was reported among the nonPDP students. While caution must be exercised in reading too much into responses to individual items within a measure, this loss of direction is worrying as it may impact on retention. The fact that students completing the module indicated that their motivation had improved towards their degree programme suggests that the confidence they were displaying in relation to their long-term career was translated into a more active engagement in their chosen degree programme.

Self-awareness There was a good deal of evidence that students taking the PDP module increased their self-awareness. The career survey half-way through the module indicated that students were making a more realistic assessment of their skills than they were at the beginning of the module. In addition, the portfolios and learning journals that are required as part of the assessment indicated that the PDP students were actively engaging in a reflective process, and they themselves reported an increase in reflective capacity. The students also reported an increase in their ability to evaluate their own performance. This was evidenced in the reviews they completed of their experience of teamworking over the course of the module. Resourcefulness Those taking the PDP module were required to undertake a group project that involved some secondary research. The results of this element were generally disappointing and indicated an over-reliance on the Internet and a failure to utilize the range of resources available within the library even though they had undertaken library training. This suggests that more attention needs to be paid to the ‘learning-to-learn’ skills for first year undergraduates, and students themselves noted that their improvement in this area was less than in other areas.

Conclusions While the initial outcomes of the introduction of PDP are positive, we recognize that the PDP process requires a different approach to learning on the part of both students and lecturers. As Clifford (1999: 117) points out, lecturers are required to take on new relationships with students and new attitudes to teaching as ‘the concept of the lecturer as a knowledge expert is replaced by the concept of the lecturer as a resource person and facilitator’. 84

M O N K S E T A L . : I N T E G R AT I N G P E R S O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T

Students will need to engage more in collaborative learning and exhibit a willingness to share knowledge and resources, and they may not necessarily welcome this shift in their pattern of learning. The introduction of tools such as reflective journals that assist in the PDP process require thought as to how they should be used most effectively and whether or not they can be graded (O’Rourke, 1998). The collaboration of academic departments with units such as the Careers Service and the Library requires a breaking down of the divisions between academic and non-academic labour within a university setting. Overall, the introduction of PDP requires a rethinking of traditional boundaries if it is to have most chance of success. Finally, the impact that PDP may have on student retention by improving motivation towards the degree programme is one that requires further investigation as we are unsure why this has emerged. One possible explanation is that our approach to PDP is one that emphasizes career planning, and we have collaborated closely with the Careers Service in both the design and the delivery of this module. Thus we are encouraging first year undergraduates to consider seriously the skills and abilities that they will need on graduation – a process that is frequently left to the final year. Our tentative conclusion is that the embedding of career planning into the PDP process is clarifying students’ future direction and thus making them more secure in their chosen degree programme. However, we need to undertake more research to assess whether or not this is in fact the case.

References (1995) Skills for Graduates in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. C L I F F O R D , V. A . (1999) ‘The Development of Autonomous Learners in a University Setting’, Higher Education Research and Development, 18(1): 115–128. C O T T R E L L , S . (2003) Skills for Success. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. C U R RY, P. , S H E R RY, R . & T U N N E Y, O . (2003) ‘What Transferable Skills do Employers Look for in Third-Level Graduates?’ www.skillsproject.tcd.ie/reports.htm [accessed 6 October 2005]. F O R F A S . (2003) Fourth Report of the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs. Dublin: Forfas. G O U G H , D . A . , K I RWA N , D . , S U T C L I F F E , S . , S I M P S O N , D . & H O U G H T O N , N . (2003) A Systematic Map and Synthesis Review of the Effectiveness of Personal Development Planning for Improving Student Learning. London: EPPI-Centre Social Sciences Research Unit. J AC K S O N , N . (2001) ‘Personal Development Planning: What Does it Mean?’. LTSN Generic Centre Working Paper 1, June. J AC K S O N , N . & WA R D , R . (2004) ‘A Fresh Perspective on Progress Files – A Way of Representing Complex Learning and Achievement in Higher Education’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 29(4): 423–449. KO L B , D . (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Science of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. L E A R N I N G A N D T E AC H I N G S U P P O RT N E T WO R K (2001) Personal Development Planning. Institutional Case Studies. Learning and Teaching Support Network. A S S O C I AT I O N O F G R A D U AT E R E C RU I T E R S

85

AC T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N

7(1)

MCCRAE, R. R.

& C O S TA , P. T. (1986) ‘Personality, Coping and Coping Effectiveness in an Adult Sample’, Journal of Personality 54: 385–405. O ’ RO U R K E , R . (1998) ‘The Learning Journal: From Chaos to Coherence’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 23(4): 403–413. Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E AG E N C Y (2000) ‘Guidelines for HE progress files’. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/progfilehe/contents.htm [accessed 16 February 2005]. T R AC E Y, J . B . , H I N K I N , T. R . , TA N N E N B AU M , S . & M AT H I E U, J . E . (2001) ‘The Influence of Individual Characteristics and the Work Environment on Varying Levels of Training Outcomes’, Human Resource Development Quarterly 15: 5–24. Z I M M E R M A N , B . J . (1989) ‘A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning’, Journal of Educational Psychology 81(3): 329–339. Z I M M E R M A N , B . J . , B A N D U R A , A . & M A RT I N E Z - P O N S , M . (1992) ‘Self-Motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Goal Setting’, American Educational Research Journal 29: 663–676.

Biographical notes P RO F E S S O R K AT H Y M O N K S is a lecturer in HRM and Director of the Centre for Research in Management Learning and Development at Dublin City University. Address: Centre for Research in Management Learning and Development, Dublin City University Business School, Dublin 9, Ireland. [email: [email protected]] D R E D E L C O N WAY is a lecturer in HRM at Dublin City University Business School and a researcher in the Centre for Research in Management Learning and Development. Address: Centre for Research in Management Learning and Development, Dublin City University Business School, Dublin 9, Ireland. [email: [email protected]] M U I R E A N N N I D H U I G N E A I N is Head of the Careers Service at Dublin City University. Address: Careers Service, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland. [email: [email protected]]

86

Suggest Documents