Learning to Be Done: Reconceptualising Student "Choice" for University Strategy
The higher education landscape is described as being transformed by several converging forces (Crow 2018; Fuller 2023; Palfreyman and Temple 2017). Digital platforms are democratising access to knowledge, alternative credentials are gaining legitimacy, and the half-life of professional skills appears to continue to shrink (Alexander et al., 2019; Crow and Dabars 2020). Traditional universities are told they must compete with new educational models ranging from private universities, online provision and even coding bootcamps, while simultaneously addressing concerns, often from the government and media, about cost, access, and relevance (McGettigan 2013). These challenges are compounded by demographic shifts, funding pressures, and growing scepticism about the real value of the investment in traditional degree programmes (Kromydas, 2017).
Current strategic frameworks in higher education have proven insufficient for navigating this complex environment (Shattock 2003, 2006). One reason is that traditional planning approaches often focus on incremental improvements to existing models rather than fundamental curriculum innovation (Lockwood and Davies 1985; Selznick, 2020). Resource-based or competitive-positioning frameworks, while valuable, tend to emphasise university or departmental priorities over a deeper understanding of student needs and motivations (Newfield 2011).
This gap therefore calls for new theoretical approaches to university strategy that can better account for the unique characteristics of higher education while providing useful insights for scholars, professional services staff and institutional leadership. Indeed, we need theories that can address the idea of a university whilst being aware of the operational challenges and connect these to the existential questions for the university's wider role in society (see, for example, Armytage 1955; Clark 1995; Clark 2006; Davie 1961; Gasset 2017; Menand et al 2017; Newman 1996; Shils 1997; Veblen 2015).
This article offers a critique of UK Higher Education's growing adoption of "value proposition" frameworks in strategic planning (see Phillips 2024). The value proposition concept, originating in marketing theory (Anderson et al. 2006), traditionally articulates the benefits customers receive in exchange for their investment. However, its application to higher education can be seen as a particularly problematic manifestation of neoliberal governmentality in education. As Davies and Petersen note, "this focus on end-products may put [universities] at risk of losing the capacity to fulfil (or even to feel) the desire to carry out significant, creative or critical intellectual work" (Davies and Petersen 2005: 78). Indeed, "Coady (2000a: 10) sees today's university managers as having lost sight of the importance of, and even being hostile to, the 'expansion of understanding'. Their blinkered vision 'would have astonished the likes of Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes': 'Fixated on bottom lines ... the myopics seemed to have missed altogether ... the element of expansion of understanding, of being among people for whom learning, ideas, clarity, criticism and exploration of significant, difficult thinking really matter'" (Davies and Petersen 2005: 78). UK universities increasingly deploy value propositions to define and market degree programmes, often reducing complex educational experiences to quantifiable outcomes and career benefits weighed against tuition fees (Brown & Carasso, 2013). While the marketisation of higher education is a global phenomenon (Marginson, 2013), the UK context has seen an especially aggressive emphasis on metrics, league tables, and attempts to quantify educational value (McGettigan, 2013). This reflects what Collini (2017) describes as the devastation of British universities through market-driven reforms. The discourse of value propositions in higher education exemplifies what Molesworth et al. (2010) identify as the shift from understanding students as learners to positioning them as consumers, with concerning implications for pedagogical relationships and educational outcomes. As Davies and Petersen explain, "it is not only university managers who seem to have lost sight of the purpose of universities as critical incubators of intellectual life. Neoliberalism is rarely openly refused in the daily life of universities. Indeed, it is barely even discussed as a problem. Individuals and institutions take up neoliberal discourse as if it were both inevitable and necessary." As they explain further, "neoliberal discourse disguises itself in a language of virtue. It imposes itself as a virtuous necessity guaranteeing both individual and institutional survival" (Davies and Petersen 2005: 78). The development of an alternative approach, offered here, seeks to productively engage with the current reality of student choice in contemporary higher education while resisting what Furedi (2011) terms the philistinism of purely market-based approaches. By expanding our understanding beyond transactional value propositions, I aim to deepen discussions around curriculum review and departmental planning.
In this article I want to explore how Clayton Christensen's Jobs to Be Done (JTBD) theory could offer a promising foundation for developing such an approach (Christensen et al., 2016a, cf King and Baatartogtokh 2015). JTBD theorises that customers “hire” products and services to help them make progress in particular circumstances. This progress-focused approach goes beyond traditional feature and cost-benefit analysis to examine the functional, social, and emotional dimensions of why individuals make particular choices.[1]
The theory's application to education in this article is tentative and suggestive, but raises interesting possibilities for analysis of curriculum review or new programmes in an academic department. The idea is that learning itself can be understood through a metaphor of a “job” such that, as a complex “job,” students “hire” various educational institutions to undertake them. Indeed, the idea of a "'job' is shorthand for what an individual really seeks to accomplish in a given circumstance" (Christensen et al., 2016b, emphasis added). This can be translated into a university context to help us understand not just what educational services students choose, but why they make these choices and connects them to what progress they seek to make in their lives. The aim here isn’t to turn education into a cost-benefit calculation, but rather, in the spirit of Christensen’s theory, to extend the idea of a service beyond a purely instrumental economic decision to one that includes social, and emotional experiences in an analysis of student decision-making.
I am therefore interested in whether JTBD theory holds potential for theoretical extension in the educational context as what I call Learning to Be Done (LTBD) theory.[2] While JTBD was originally developed for customer product innovation in the private sphere, its core insights about progress-seeking behaviour and choice across different options can be useful in a university context, so through LTBD I want to look at how it might be adapted to analyse the unique characteristics of choosing an academic institution to attend. By extending JTBD theory, I aim to suggest new ways to think about curriculum design, research strategy, and institutional identity. However, I would like to caution that this is an exploratory idea that is using a metaphor of a “job”. Indeed, rather than claiming that education is a “consumer product,” I want to make clear that education is a fulfilling personal process of cognitive, moral and capability development which increases a student’s knowledge through engagement and challenge from their degree programme. They are not just purchasing a certificate, or certification, but a much more capacious university experience that can be difficult to fully capture in any model of student decision-making or student experience (see, for example, Newman 1996; Shils 1997; Veblen 2015).
Indeed, significant problems arise when applying market-based theories like JTBD to education. The fundamental concern is that such theories risk reducing education to a commodity transaction, potentially undermining its core purpose as a transformative intellectual and social good (Davies and Petersen 2005; Nixon 2012). Critics might argue that framing students as consumers who "hire" education services fundamentally misunderstands the nature of learning as a co-created, dialogic process rather than a product to be purchased and consumed (Neary and Winn 2009). There are also valid concerns that market-based approaches could exacerbate existing inequalities in higher education by privileging those students who can effectively articulate their "jobs to be done" and navigate complex institutional systems. There is certainly a danger that an emphasis on student choice and "hiring" may oversimplify the complex social, cultural, and economic factors that constrain educational decision-making, particularly for marginalised groups.
The theory's focus on individual progress might also miss education's broader social purposes and public good functions, including its role in fostering critical citizenship, advancing knowledge, and promoting social justice. Critics might also point out that viewing education through a market lens could inadvertently encourage institutions to prioritise measurable outcomes over longer-term developmental goals that are harder to quantify but arguably more valuable (see Collini 2012). Additionally, there's a risk that such frameworks could reinforce existing neoliberal approaches to higher education that have been criticised for undermining academic values and institutional autonomy (Newfield 2011). While LTBD attempts to address some of these concerns by incorporating social and emotional dimensions alongside functional ones, the underlying market metaphor may still carry problematic assumptions about the nature and purpose of higher education. These criticisms require careful consideration and point to the need for a nuanced application of LTBD theory that preserves the core values of higher education. The challenge lies in harnessing the analytical insights of the framework whilst avoiding the reductive aspects of market-based approaches.
Perhaps the most significant theoretical tension in adapting JTBD to higher education lies in reconciling individual and collective needs. A challenge emerges from JTBD theory's emphasis on the individual, while higher education serves a wider social purposes. Universities are not merely vehicles for personal progress but institutions that generate public goods through knowledge creation, cultural preservation, and societal development. This creates a theoretical tension that although students might "hire" universities for individual advancement, the institution's purpose extends far beyond serving individual needs. This tension manifests in various ways. Research activities may not directly serve immediate student needs but create long-term societal benefits. Teaching often aims to develop critical citizenship alongside employability skills. Cultural and intellectual activities might not align with individual student "jobs" but fulfil crucial social functions. Resolving this tension, therefore, requires expanding LTBD theory to explicitly incorporate collective alongside individual progress, reconceptualising educational "jobs" as simultaneously personal and public in nature.
For instance, a research-intensive university might face tension between allocating resources to cutting-edge research that advances knowledge versus investing in enhanced student support services. While the former serves broader societal purposes, the latter might better address individual student needs. LTBD theory aims therefore help, in this example, by providing guidance to navigate these tensions by considering how research activities might be structured to serve both collective and individual progress together.
To address these theoretical tensions whilst preserving LTBD's analytical value, several key principles and modifications will need to be kept in mind. First, it is important to understand that LTBD developed in this article is as an analytical tool for understanding student needs rather than a comprehensive model of education. The aim is to complement rather than replace traditional educational values and pedagogical theories. The framework should therefore be embedded within a broader educational philosophy that explicitly prioritises public good, social justice, and intellectual development. As a result, when using the LTBD framework, universities should ensure that the "jobs" metaphor doesn't oversimplify complex educational choices by also addressing structural barriers, cultural factors, and power dynamics that influence student decision-making.[3] This could include systematic analysis and equity audits to ensure that LTBD implementation doesn't inadvertently disadvantage certain student groups.
Indeed, the framework aims to emphasise collective as well as individual progress, by taking account of outcomes such as societal contribution and public goods. To counter the risk of privileging easily measurable outcomes, universities should therefore develop evaluation mechanisms that capture long-term developmental impacts and less tangible benefits of education. Additionally, student voice should be included to ensure that LTBD remains grounded in genuine student experiences rather than market assumptions. Finally, universities should maintain clear boundaries between areas where LTBD insights are helpful (such as understanding student needs and improving support systems) and areas where market logic should not penetrate (such as academic standards and research integrity). The hope is that this approach means that universities are able to benefit from LTBD's insights while protecting core educational values.
With these caveats in mind, this article explores LTBD theory as an extension of JTBD principles to the higher education context. By reconceptualising learning as a multi-faceted “job to be done”, I suggest that LTBD provides a potentially fruitful framework for helping develop university strategy and guiding institutional innovation in an era of unprecedented change driven by digital transformation, changing student demand, and a complex higher education landscape.
Before examining how JTBD theory can be adapted to higher education, it is important to understand its core principles and how they might be translated into an educational context. The following section explores this theoretical foundation and begins to outline how it might be reconceptualised.
1. From Jobs to Learning: Theoretical Framework
Jobs to Be Done (JTBD) theory developed by Clayton Christensen reconceptualises how organisations understand customer needs and motivations (Christensen et al., 2016a, 2016b). Rather than focusing on product features or demographic segments, JTBD examines the progress people seek to make in their lives through the “hiring” of particular solutions. Consequently, the theory identifies three critical dimensions of jobs: functional, social, and emotional. For Christensen, functional dimensions represent the practical tasks customers need to accomplish, social dimensions encompass how people want to be perceived by others when using a solution, and emotional dimensions capture how customers want to feel about themselves and their choices. He argues that these dimensions interact dynamically, with varying importance depending on context.
While JTBD theory originated in business analysis, I am interested in exploring how it might offer valuable perspectives for understanding how students choose a degree course at university. However, in the translation to a Learning to Be Done (LTBD) framework it is important to preserve education's unique form as a transformative process rather than a simple transaction.
Three key theoretical moves enable this translation. First, I argue that the concept of "hiring" must be reconceptualised within education's distinctive practices as a transformative process rather than a transactional exchange. This means understanding "hiring" as selecting a developmental journey, "engaging," rather than merely purchasing a service. Second, it is important that the progress dimension central to JTBD theory must be expanded beyond an individual's advancement to include education's role in social development and knowledge creation. Finally, the framework's three dimensions – functional, social, and emotional – need to be understood through a specifically educational lens: the functional dimension should incorporate pedagogical and epistemological considerations, the social dimension must bear in mind the specificity of academic communities and knowledge networks, and the emotional dimension needs to address intellectual development and the formation of an academic identity. The aim is to preserve and expand JTBD's analytical power while ensuring its remains relevant in educational contexts.
These theoretical considerations also require careful attention to language and metaphor to ensure they appropriately capture the educational experience. As mentioned above, a crucial theoretical refinement involves reconceptualising the notion of "hiring" within educational contexts. Rather than the market-based meaning of "hiring", we should understand this as students "engaging with" or "participating in" educational experiences. This shift in definition better reflects the co-created nature of learning, where students are active participants in knowledge creation rather than passive consumers of educational services. It also acknowledges that education is not simply purchased, but rather experienced through engagement, personal transformation, and intellectual development. With these conceptual guardrails in mind, we can better take into account how context shapes student choice.
Indeed, Christensen argues that context and circumstances play a crucial role in a JTBD analysis. The same person may “hire” different solutions for seemingly identical jobs based on their situation, available alternatives, and competing priorities (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Understanding these contextual factors is essential for identifying “true” competition and developing effective solutions. The idea is that JTBD focuses on how customers struggle for progress rather than traditional measures like customer satisfaction (Christensen et al 2016a: viiii, xiv). Success, therefore, is evaluated in terms of how effectively a solution helps customers achieve their desired progress, considering both positive outcomes to be achieved and negative outcomes to be avoided – "why customers make the choices that they do" (Christensen et al 2016a: xi). As they explain,
Executives are inundated with data about their products. They know market share to the nth degree, how products are selling in different markets, profit margin across hundreds of different items, and so on. But all this data is focused around customers and the product itself – not how well the product is solving customers' jobs. Even customer satisfaction metrics, which reveal whether a customer is happy with a product or not, don't give any clues as to how to do the job better. Yet its how most companies track and measure success (Christensen et al 2016a: 13).
I would suggest that this is also increasingly the case in universities which have built complex data collection and analysis capabilities that mirror those of the private sector. These are expected to provide a sense of student satisfaction, and focus on the differences between different departments, courses and modules. Yet, they too struggle to provide a clear understanding of how to improve student progress in their teaching and learning. The aim is to move beyond a student's articulation that "I need to get an education" and transform it into an understanding of the circumstances in which they need an education, and the "other sets of needs that might be critical to [them] at that moment" and which can vary wildly (Christensen et al 2016a: 30). The reason students choose a degree course (or "hire" a degree course in this formulation) is that it is a solution to a bundle of needs that include more than just the functional or practical ("I am lacking in knowledge and skills and need to learn something"), but also social and emotional ("I need to develop as a young-person, intellectually and emotionally, and do something for three years that will be interesting and engaging"). As Christensen et al (2016a) note, with an educational decision students are not necessarily focussing on purely the functional dimensions of their education, they are also "engaging with" a university for the "coming-of-age experience."
So when trying to articulate a response to a student in particular circumstances, the key is to see what the students' struggle or desire for progress are. One practical way of doing this is by capturing the story of students in their moment of struggle: the priorities and tradeoffs that students are willing to make. Additionally, it can be helpful to try to identify what Christensen et al (2016) call the "non-consumption" that is taking place – what is being missed in the student decision, especially those things not explicitly articulated – especially as universities tend to focus on only the functional "jobs" in their prospectus and course content. Universities usually only consider how they can take "market-share" away from competitors, but not where they can find unseen opportunities. Indeed, "they may not see it at all as existing data isn't going to tell them where to find it" (Christensen et al 2016a: 76). Most universities therefore focus disproportionately on the functional dimensions of their students "jobs." It is crucial, however, to also pay close attention to uncovering the emotional and social dimensions (Christensen et al 2016a: 91). Indeed, students often "cannot articulate what they want, and even when they do, their actions can tell a different story" (Christensen et al 2016a: 96).
This is where student anxieties come into play: anxiety about the cost, anxiety about making new friends, anxiety about fitting in, anxiety about learning and the teaching environment, indeed anxiety about the unknown can be overwhelming. This can block a particular selection of a university programme, so a key concern must be to make the process not just easier and supportive for the student, but also to include critical elements to help overcome the forces that might impede the change that moving to a particular university might entail (Christensen et al 2016a: 103). This can be understood, for example, through storyboarding the experience of a student considering applying to the university, and using this knowledge to help make the process easier and more compelling (Christensen et al 2016a: 105).
Processes are often hard to see, but they matter profoundly. As MIT’s Edgar Schein has discussed, processes are a critical part of an organisation’s unspoken culture. They tell people inside the company, “This is what matters most to us.” Focusing processes on the job to be done provides clear guidance to everyone on the team. It’s a simple but powerful way of making sure a company doesn’t unintentionally abandon the insights that brought it success in the first place (Christensen et al 2016b).
The fundamental problem is... the masses of customer data companies create is structured to show correlations: This customer looks like that one, or 68% of customers say they prefer version A to version B. While it’s exciting to find patterns in the numbers, they don’t mean that one thing actually caused another. And though it’s no surprise that correlation isn’t causality, we suspect that most managers have grown comfortable basing decisions on correlations (Christensen et al 2016b).
As they argue, "people don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole. It's a profound insight – first popularised by legendary Harvard marketing professor Ted Levitt decades ago. Customers don't want products, they want solutions to their problems" (Christensen et al 2016a: 178). indeed,
This is not a new phenomenon. As Ted Levitt pointed out in the pages of Harvard Business Review decades ago, the railroad industry did not decline because the need for passenger and freight transportation declined. That need actually grew, but cars, trucks, airplanes, and even telephones stepped in to handle that job nicely. The railroads were in trouble, Levitt wrote back in 1960, "because they assumed themselves to be in the railroad business rather than in the transportation business. In other words, the railroads fell into the trap of letting the product define the market they were in, rather than the job customers were hiring them to do. They organised and tracked and measured themselves as if they were in the business of selling drills, not quarter-inch holes (Christensen et al 2016a: 182).
Equally, universities are not in the degree programme business, or the module teaching business, rather they are in the learning experience sector. When applying JTBD theory to higher education, it helps us to foreground that learning is a complex, multi-dimensional “job” that extends beyond simple knowledge acquisition. This allows us to begin to identify a number of “factors” that need to be incorporated into the framework. For example, (1) cognitive and skill development factors which includes the practical aspects of learning: acquiring knowledge, developing capabilities, and mastering new competencies (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004). This factor includes both disciplinary expertise and transferable skills; (2) social and professional advancement factors reflect how learning can serve as a vehicle for career progression and social mobility. Students can be understood to also “engage with” education to improve their knowledge and understanding, enhance their employability, build friendship networks, and finally to gain credentials that signal competence to employers and peers; (3) personal transformation and identity formation factors recognises that learning fundamentally shapes how individuals view themselves and their place in the world. Education is “engaged with” not just for external outcomes but also for personal growth, self-discovery, and the development of their agency; (4) Finally, knowledge creation and contribution factors aims to acknowledge that learning in higher education involves not just consuming existing knowledge but also generating new insights and contributing to broader fields of inquiry (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2017). This becomes particularly relevant for research-intensive institutions and advanced study.
 |
| Figure 1: Learning to Be Done Visual Overview |
The practical application of this to a Learning to Be Done approach necessarily requires consideration of the institutional context and diversity within the higher education sector. Different types of institutions have different student demographics and maintain distinct missions, suggesting that any implementation of LTBD would need to be carefully linked to these differing contexts. However, I do not have the space to develop this aspect in detail but I can briefly summarise: LTBD theory would necessarily vary in application to different types of higher education institutions, reflecting also their different resources and faculty. For example, research-intensive universities might emphasise the functional dimension through advanced research skills and theoretical depth, whilst also leveraging their research reputation to enhance academic networks and research communities (the social dimension). In contrast, teaching-focused universities might prioritise the emotional dimension through closer student support and more structured learning environments, whilst emphasising employability and professional networks in the social dimension. Post-92 universities often excel at supporting non-traditional students, suggesting their LTBD implementation might focus more heavily on confidence-building (emotional dimension) and practical skills development (functional dimension). Similarly, specialist institutions like art schools or technology institutes might weight certain dimensions differently, technology institutes, for example, might emphasise the emotional dimension through creative expression and identity formation, while art schools might focus more on technical competency in the functional dimension and industry connections in the social dimension.[4] Distance learning providers face additional challenges in fostering the social dimension, requiring innovative approaches to building community and professional networks through digital platforms.[5] This all means that LTBD would need to be adapted to align with each institution's particular strengths, constraints, and strategic objectives whilst remaining responsive to its specific students and their needs.
Having established both the potential and limitations of applying the Learning to Be Done framework to higher education, we can now turn to a systematic examination of how this framework might be operationalised. The following analysis breaks down the complex nature of learning into three distinct but interconnected dimensions. The LTBD framework I develop here, typifies these into three ideal type dimensions through which students and institutions engage with higher education: (1) functional dimension, (2) social dimension, and the (3) emotional dimension. Each dimension represents a distinct aspect of the educational experience, but they must be connected to each other to form an overall understanding of why and how students “engage with” educational services.[6] This multi-dimensional approach helps demonstrate that learning needs extend far beyond mere knowledge acquisition, including personal development, professional growth, and identity formation. I will briefly outline each in turn (see figure 1, above).
The second element that is important is the student's skill development, including technical and transferable skills. By technical skills I want to point to those skills related to disciplinary practice, including applying methods, using specialised tools, and the professional techniques in the field. By transferable skills, I am gesturing toward the cross disciplinary skills which include critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication abilities, and also increasingly to computational thinking. Crucially, these skill sets need to be developed in parallel by the student, with technical skill acquisition providing the rich contexts for developing transferable skills, whilst transferable skills widen the application of technical expertise. Research practices build upon these foundational skills, including not only methods and analysis, but also the creation and dissemination of new knowledge. The development of these capabilities represent the key outcome from the functional "job" students seek in higher education.
The functional dimension is undertaken through a developmental progression, moving from foundational knowledge and basic skills through integration and synthesis to eventual expertise and the ability to undertake independent research. Of course, this progression is not necessarily linear as it can involve continuous interaction and reinforcement between the different phases. A student might, for example, find their theoretical understanding deepened through practical application, or alternatively their technical skills enhanced through research activity.
Curricular assessment of these functional elements therefore requires a broad approach. So traditional examinations or essays might be used to measure knowledge acquisition, but to demonstrate skill development and competency or expertise, more practical tasks and portfolio evidence better capture this. At higher levels of education, research papers, professional esteem, or external research funding offer ways of assessing research capacity.
For programme design or curriculum review an understanding of this functional dimension has significant implications. For example, there is a need to support the progressive development from foundational to advanced levels, whilst enabling integration across different types of knowledge and skill so programmes and pathways should be structured to enable this. This might include opportunities for the student to apply knowledge that they have acquired in varied settings to support and evidence their learning, with the programme gradually increasing student autonomy to foster independent thinking and creativity from their first to their final year of study. This means that degree programmes should clearly articulate this to prospective students and show pathways for progression which helps to explain to the student that they will develop and gain requisite knowledge and skills through the programme.
While functional competencies form the foundation of an education offer, they are acquired and applied within rich social contexts that shape their development and expression. Beyond the acquisition of knowledge and skills, it is crucial to show to the prospective student that their education will be connected to a broad social system through which they will develop relationships, build personal and professional identities, and position themselves within personal, academic and professional communities.
These often begin in formal educational settings leading to career advancement through credentials. This takes place though lectures, seminars, research groups, but can develop into professional relationships that extend beyond the degree itself. Such networks provide not only academic support but continued intellectual connection which can create career opportunities, but also opportunities for returning to study later in life to study a Masters or PhD. It is therefore important that this process is connected to the students struggle to progress and universities provide guidance on how social networks emerge through relationships with faculty, researchers, and fellow students which creates social recognition.
Explaining the value of peer learning to a prospective student is often overlooked when articulating the social dimension. Through formal group work, informal study groups, and collaborative projects, students learn not only from their lecturers and professors but also from each other. This peer interaction develops collaborative skills but also helps to create lasting friendships and professional contacts. By providing stories that the student can follow and examples of previous students journey's this can be communicated more effectively. The advent of digital platforms has expanded the possibilities for not just developing peer learning opportunities but also communicating them, for example by creating short-form video, interactive media and other digital media. The opportunity to build digital networks and team-working skills, and the potential for international co-working and project work are often highly valued by students who may not be aware that this is available in a university. Indeed, students should be walked-through the process of potential work placements or professional events, offering students a glimpse of future careers and what they can attain by attendance at the university.
When undertaking curriculum design, understanding the social dimension is therefore crucial. Not only should the opportunities for networking be highlighted, but also the social and professional skills they will be able to build and existing networks they can join. The social dimension thus requires a university to highlight how learning occurs within and through relationships, networks, and professional development and how they are intimately connected to a student's personal development and growth. This brings us to the emotional dimension of LTBD, which examines how education shapes not just what students know and who they know, but who they become.
One of the key elements of this are ideas of personal growth, through confidence-building and the development of personal agency. As students master new knowledge and capabilities, they typically experience growing confidence in their abilities. This confidence can begin in specific academic contexts, such as successfully completing an assignment or contributing to a discussion, but gradually extends into broader professional and personal spheres. The development of agency, meanwhile, reflects students' growing sense of their ability to shape their own learning and, by extension, their identity formation. Demonstrating to students how this sense of agency is fostered requires an articulation of the opportunities for autonomy in learning and the opportunity to take on challenges together with the development of their resilience to the difficulties of challenging work or assessments. Indeed, self-discovery can create a greater enthusiasm for a programme by students if it provides a clear example of the way in which their struggle for progress will be addressed.
Students see this concretely through professional identity formation not just from acquiring relevant (functional) knowledge and skills but also through seeing themselves as a member of a wider professional community, internalising its values and practices, and developing their own stance within it. Academic identity is particularly important for those pursuing research or academic careers, and involves understanding themselves as a thinker, writer, creator or innovator, rather than merely a consumer of knowledge. These identities often develop in parallel, sometimes in tension, as students navigate their place within both academic and professional spheres and again are crucial to articulate and understand as part of the progress of the student.
Indeed, self-discovery represents a profound aspect of this emotional dimension. Indeed, demonstrating how the student will be exposed to new ideas, challenges, and perspectives on a programme can help them discover previously unknown interests, and aspirations they might have. This process often involves being challenged over their long-held assumptions, developing new passions, or developing unexpected talents to create a sense of achievement. Such discoveries frequently occur at university and sometimes lead to shifts in career plans or life goals, again demonstrating how their potential self-development should be communicated and made manifest.
2. Pathways towards Learning-to-be-Done
1.1 “Provide me with an intellectually stimulating education from experts in their fields”: The opportunity to learn from and be mentored by leading academics and researchers is a key attractor to a university. Students should feel a university will stretch them intellectually and expose them to cutting-edge ideas.1.2 “Help me to discover my interests and set me on the path to a fulfilling career”: students may be drawn to a university if they believe it will help them uncover their true interests and provide the education, experiences, and connections to launch them into a meaningful career they are excited about.
2.1. “Enable me to make lifelong friends and build a professional network”: The social aspect of university is hugely important. A university is attractive if it is seen as a place to meet a diverse group of students, form close social groups, and make connections that last long after graduation.2.2. “Make me feel proud and confident that I am attending a prestigious, highly regarded institution”: The social component of university choice is powerful. If a university is seen as prestigious and desirable, students are often drawn to the status and esteem they would feel attending such an institution. A university should therefore tap into students' desire to feel proud and confident about their chosen place of study.
3.1. “Allow me to enjoy an enriching, fun and quintessential university experience”: The overall university experience: academic, social and extracurricular, is a major draw for students. They may choose a university if they believe it will provide the experiences they imagine when dreaming about university.3.2. “Help me to transition into adulthood and independence in a supportive university environment”: Students are often looking to a university to provide the experiences, resources and structure to help them successfully navigate the transition from adolescence to adulthood. This includes developing life-skills, digital literacies, and support with forming their identity, and helping them gain more autonomy.
Comments
Post a Comment