• Launching the creative practices for wellbeing framework: an international Q&A

      Wall, Tony; Sidsaph, Henry; University of Chester
      This article is an edited transcript from the launch event of the Creative Practices for Wellbeing Framework in 2020 (Wall and Axtell, 2020). The guidance is now free to download in 20 languages through these web links here, including in English, Welsh, Chinese, and Russian).
    • Learning through work-based learning

      Major, David; University of Chester (Routledge, 2005-03-17)
      This book chapter discusses the understanding that work-based learners have of the learning process, commenting on empirical research findings from Alverno College (US) and University College Chester (UK)
    • Learning to be an international work-based learner

      Wall, Tony; Tran, Ly Thi; University of Chester ; Deakin University Australia (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015-05-01)
      This book chapter discusses key success factors for work-based learning students across cultures. the importance of learning another way to think, write and act to be a successful work-based learning student in a multi-cultural context, how to build a personal learning network and wider environment, ways to continually improve your academic performance through self-reflection and self-leadership, and methods for planning and managing cultural factors when designing and implementing work-based learning projects.
    • Lifelong learning: Concepts, benefits and barriers

      Panitsides, Eugenia A.; Talbot, Jon; Hellenic Open University, University of Chester (NOVA Publishers, 2016-04-21)
      The book reviews contemporary developments in lifelong learning in the context of globalisation
    • Make Your Learning Count: Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

      Perrin, David; Helyer, Ruth; University of Chester; Teesside University (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015-05-01)
      In this chapter readers will learn: ► What the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) is; ► How to use the Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) process to make a claim for academic credit; ► How to include any certificated and experiential learning in an APL claim; ► How to scope out strengths and expertise as ‘Areas of Learning’ you can claim for; ► How to make and submit an APL claim with appropriate supporting evidence.
    • Making employer and university partnerships work: Accredited employer-led learning

      Dhillon, Bop; Edmonds, Therese; Felce, Alison; Minton, Ann; Wall, Tony; EBTA Service ; E H Booth & Co Ltd ; University of Wolverhampton ; University of Derby ; University of Chester (Libri Publishing, 2011-11-01)
    • Making your learning count: How APL can enhance your profile

      Evans, Adrian; Perrin, David; Helyer, Ruth; Hooker, Elaine; Teeside University : University of Chester : Teeside University : Teeside University (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010-07-16)
      This book chapter discusses what APL (accreditation of prior learning) is, how it works, and how to make a claim for APL.
    • Managing Degree Apprenticeships through a Work-Based Learning Framework – Opportunities and Challenges

      Rowe, Lisa; University of Chester
      The Higher Education Institute (HEI) employer interface has attracted much attention in recent years, particularly in light of current dissatisfaction with graduate work-readiness. Concurrently, pressure upon new entrants to the workplace is accelerating through an unprecedented pace of change in technology, requiring currency of employability skills and resilience for individuals to adapt, thrive and perform effectively in an increasingly unpredictable global environment. In 2014 a new form of apprenticeship was proposed in England to simultaneously address these skills shortages whilst offering a genuine alternative to undergraduate degree programmes. Hailed as “the greatest opportunity ever seen for anyone concerned with skills and employment” (Jeffrey 2016, p.1) early HEI adopters have already successfully collaborated with employers to launch business management degree apprenticeships with initial cohorts nearing completion of their first year. The chapter proposed here is therefore highly significant for two reasons. The first is to inform HEI practice and pedagogic development, particularly in terms of work-based learning degree apprenticeship design and delivery within the new political apprenticeship reforms, which are attracting renewed interest across the globe. This is one of the first evaluations to be published upon this type of programme, affording a unique opportunity to explore how pedagogic approaches to building graduate employability can be improved. Secondly it considers the effectiveness of the emerging generation of work-based business degree apprentices in terms of performance, retention and engagement as a result of well-developed employability skills. This degree apprenticeship challenges academically led, full time provision with a 20% off the job learning model. An explicit employer led focus cumulates in a separate synoptic end point assessment, altering the fundamentally traditional approach to embedding employability skills into something far more tacit in nature, through negotiated projects, reflective learning and employer mentoring. In order to examine the effectiveness of this new pedagogic approach, the chapter focuses upon the design and development of a business management degree apprenticeship. It explores current literature concerning work-based learning pedagogy and reflective practice, the role of the employer as a mentor and the development of employability skills. It incorporates an exploratory case study based upon one of the earliest cohorts in England, collectively identifying a complex range of themes and issues for each stakeholder in designing and developing degree apprenticeships. The chapter concludes with recommendations for HEIs who wish to take advantage of this new and fast changing political agenda through their own development of similar, highly innovative and lucrative initiatives.
    • Mental toughness

      Strycharczyk, Doug; Clough, Peter; Wall, Tony; Perry, John; AQR Limited; University of Huddersfield; University of Chester; Mary Immaculate College (Springer, 2019-10-26)
      Since the turn of the 21st Century, Mental Toughness has been defined in a variety of ways (e.g. Clough, Earle & Sewell, 2002; Coulter, Mallett & Gucciardi, 2010; Fourie & Potgieter, 2001; Golby & Sheard, 2006; Gucciardi, Gordon & Dimmock, 2008; Jones, Hanton & Connaughton, 2007). Although they differ in many respects, the conceptualisation share a number of similarities. For example, self-belief is at the core of most definitions, motivation is central to most as is persistence in achieving and the ability to deal with setbacks. As such, Mental Toughness is an umbrella term that entails positive psychological resources, which are crucial across a wide range of achievement contexts and in the domain of mental health. Clough and Strycharczyk (2015: 33) suggest that: Mental Toughness is a narrow plastic personality trait which explains in large part how individuals respond differently to the same or similar stressors, pressures, opportunities and challenges… irrespective of prevailing circumstances.
    • Mental Toughness Development

      Wall, Tony; Strycharczyk, Doug; Clough, Peter; University of Chester; University of Huddersfield (Springer, 2019-11-29)
      Though there are different conceptions of mental toughness, there are a number of important commonalities, including: self-belief, attentional control, resilience, a success mindset, optimistic thinking, emotional awareness and regulation, ability to deal with perceived challenge, and contextual awareness and understanding (Crust and Clough 2011). As such, mental toughness has been conceptualised as a personality trait which describes the mindset that is engaged by people across extreme events as well as everyday events (Clough and Strycharczyk 2015; Stokes et al, 2018). It is closely related to qualities such as character, resilience, and grit, but whereas most personality models and measures assess the behavioural aspects of personality (how we act), mental toughness differs in that it assesses something more fundamental, that is, ‘how we think’, or why we act (and respond emotionally) to events (Clough and Strycharczyk, 2015).
    • On becoming in pedagogical performance artist

      Wall, Tony; University of Chester (Research in Management Learning and Education (RMLE), 2018-07-31)
      Contemporary forms of management education continue to reproduce the mechanistic, bureaucratic structures which shape and position all involved in the management learning context. This includes hidden (and not so hidden) co-ordinates of how we should relate to each other, the planet, and its co-inhabitants. Such co-ordinates continue to be imbued with dis-passion and de-tachment, with dramatic and traumatic consequences in relation to sustainable development: the need for radical leaps in holistic, affective engagement is therefore urgent. As Paul Shrivastava’s work on ‘pedagogies of passion’ has illustrated, the arts are central to this movement. But as we move towards such spaces, some crucial questions remain: Who is the artist? What does it mean for a management educator to become an artist? What does it mean for the metaphorical classroom to become the canvas or the stage? Might becoming a (management) pedagogical performance artist become a path to existential crises? This QIC aspires to explore these prompts to raise new questions, concerns and ideas.
    • Open Educational Resources for Higher Education: A global revolution

      Talbot, Jon (University of Chester, 2012-09-14)
      The paper summarises the development of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and lists the main providers along with an analysis of their potential value for re-purposing
    • Organisational resilience of business schools: exploring the possibilities of adaptation

      Cregan, Karen; Wall, Tony; Evans, Vicky; Marshall, Julie; Hindley, Ann; University of Chester (Research in Management Learning and Education, 2019-07-31)
      Organisational resilience of business schools: exploring the possibilities of adaptation The organisational landscape of business schools in some countries is in a state of fragility, plagued by an ongoing relevance critique, increasing competition from non-traditional private providers, demographics which intensify the competition for typical undergraduate students, increasing pressure for greater economic and environmental responsibility, a need to respond to technological advances, and a different political posture to the financial support of universities (Stokes et al 2018). As such, within this morphing landscape, the organisational resilience of business schools has perhaps become more pertinent in modern times than in recent history. Indeed, the UK is said to be experiencing an unprecedented market shake out of business schools with at least three facing imminent closure. Within this practice setting, organisational resilience has been conceptualised as (1) the capacity of an organisation to 'bounce back' (to survive) after an adverse or traumatic event, (2) the capacity of an organisation to adapt to circumstances and events before they are experienced as adverse, as traumatic or as a crisis, and (3) the aggregated capacities of people to absorb crises and operationally adapt to new situations (Koronis and Ponis, 2018; Evans, Cregan, & Wall, 2019 forthcoming). With this in mind, the first part of this QIC therefore explores how we might re-organise university-based business schools in ways which develop the adaptive capacities which are seemingly pertinent to contemporary circumstances. At the same time, organisational re-configurations are likely to, whether intended or unintended, shape the pedagogic practices of business schools (Akrivou & Bradbury-Huang, 2015) as well as have the potential for wider consequential tensions in a neo-liberal marketplace which emphasises individualism (Wall and Jarvis 2015). For example, a business school that develops strong employer involvement in curricula design, delivery and assessment may have a wider network of positive ties to sustain itself during difficult times, but adopting team based assessment practices (which can inculcate the wider social impact awareness of students) can create student experience challenges. So the second part of this QIC is to explore how the changes which are created for organisational resilience might shape pedagogic practices, and in turn, the possible consequences of organising in such ways. References Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Educating integrated catalysts: Transforming business schools toward ethics and sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 222-240. Evans, V., Cregan, K., & Wall, T. (2019 forthcoming) Organizational resilience, in Leal Filho, W. (ed) Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals – Good Health & Wellbeing, Springer, Cham Koronis, E., & Ponis, S. (2018). Better than before: the resilient organization in crisis mode. Journal of Business Strategy, 39(1), 32-42. Stokes, P., Smith, S., Wall, T., Moore, N., Rowland, C., Ward, T., & Cronshaw, S. (2018). Resilience and the (micro-)dynamics of organizational ambidexterity: Implications for strategic HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, , 1-36. doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1474939 Wall, T. & Jarvis, M. (2015). Business schools as educational provocateurs of productivity via interrelated landscapes of practice. Leadership & Policy Series. The Chartered Association of Business Schools, London.
    • Organizational Initiatives for Spiritual Wellbeing in the Workplace

      Foster, Scott; Wall, Tony; Liverpool John Moores University; University of Chester (Springer, 2019-10-01)
      Spirituality can be understood in a pluralistic way, with varying conceptualisations through history and in different cultural contexts, and have included conceptions which place it synonymously with the practice of religious rituals as well as practices which enable people to experience a higher life purpose separate from a religious belief. However, within the context of work, its discussion has come to focus on re-orienting or re-balancing the experience of organisational life in developed countries in The West towards a more sustained and meaningful life in a context of workforce diversity and a greater sense of connectedness to others (Wall et al 2019). Against this backdrop, in the last decade, there has been a steady rise in interest regarding spiritual wellbeing and an increase inthe correlation between the expression of one’s spirituality and cases that are regarded as discrimination (Krahnke and Hoffman, 2002; Loo, 2017). Spiritualty has quickly become topical within the workplace and within business literature, partly due to the increase in technology such as the internet and social media (Long and Mills, 2010; Krishnakumer and Neck, 2002; Pawar, 2016; Bhatia and Arora, 2017). Whilst organisations are attempting to understand the complexity of spirituality, there are warnings in the literature that workplace spirituality is a prominent reality in the current business environment and it should not be dismissed (Deshpande, 2012; Alas and Mousa, 2016; Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2014). Therefore, workplace spirituality can be defined as a “contextualised phenomenon that examines questions of how spirituality relates to one’s work organisation and can be conceptualised as a lived experience and expression of ones spirituality in the context or work and workplace”. (Sheep, 2006:358)
    • Organizational Resilience and Sustainable Development

      Evans, Vicky; Cregan, Karen; Wall, Tony; University of Chester (Springer, 2019-03-08)
      Organisational resilience has been conceptualised in a variety of ways. Koronis and Ponis (2018) have articulated this as three distinct concepts: (1) the capacity of an organisation to 'bounce back' (to survive) after an adverse or traumatic event, (2) the capacity of an organisation to adapt to circumstances and events before they are experienced as adverse, as traumatic or a crisis, and (3) the aggregated capacities of people to absorb crises and operationally adapt to new situations. As yet, there is no consistently used terminology or conceptual foundations. Nevertheless, four key drivers of organisational resilience are highlighted in the literature – preparedness, responsiveness, adaptability and learning – which can be used as a starting point to identify associated interventions which may develop those drivers (Koronis and Ponis, 2018). Maturity models of organisational resilience suggest how these drivers develop progressively, interacting and reinforcing one another to the fullest extent in organisations which manage resilience holistically, achieving an “anti-fragile” stage of maturity where an organisation improves, prospers, and/or thrives in conditions of volatility, change or disruption in the wider environment (e.g. Leflar and Siegal, 2013; Ruiz and Martin et al, 2018).
    • Pedagogies for resilience in business schools: Exploring strategies and tactics

      Rowe, Lisa; Wall, Tony; Cregan, Karen; Evans, Vicky; Hindley, Ann; University of Chester (Research in Management Learning and Education (RMLE), 2019-07)
      The capacity to bounce back after challenge or disruption and positive adapt to new circumstances has recently become more pronounced because of market volatilities, technological advances at work, as well as the ubiquitous and relentless use of social media (UNESCO 2017; Stokes et al 2018). Indeed, such changes have highlighted the strategic importance – and concern for the lack of – the resilience capacities of business school graduates at all levels (Robertson et al 2015; King et al 2015). Within this context, evidence indicates how the capacities for managerial resilience can be developed through various pedagogical aspects including strategies and tactics for promoting personal flexibility, purposefulness, self-confidence, and social networks (Cooper et al 2013). However, such capacities are curbed and contained by wider forces such as the broader organisational structure and culture of the business school itself and of the graduate employer, both of which limit potential flexibility (Akrivou & Bradbury-Huang, 2015; Robertson et al, 2015; Cregan et al 2019). To add further complexity, recent research has also highlighted the contextualised nature of resilience, whereby its meaning and manifestation vary across occupational settings (Kossek & Perrigino, 2016). Within this context, therefore, a critical challenge for contemporary business school education is to develop pedagogical interventions which might generate resources for resilience which are not only relevant to be able to express and mobilise resilience in a diverse range of occupational settings, but which are also sensitive to wider influences which shape resilience (e.g. employer organisational structures). Such a challenge needs to reflect the deeply pragmatic question of how to develop or integrate a pedagogical response in a context whereby (1) that response is culturally located in a business school organisational structure and culture which might limit capacity development, and (2) the curricula may already be heavily prescribed due to accreditation requirements or is already multi-layered from other agendas such as employability, responsibility, or sustainability (Wall et al, 2017; Cregan et al, 2019). Therefore this QIC aims to explore the strategies and tactics of how to inculcate the resilience capacities of business school learners where the expression of that capacity itself may manifest differently across occupational settings and which is organisationally bound in its development. References Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Educating integrated catalysts: Transforming business schools toward ethics and sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 222-240. Cooper, C. L., Flint-Taylor, J., and Pearn, M. (2013). Building resilience for success: A resource for managers and organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cregan, K., Rowe, L., & Wall, T. (2019 forthcoming) Resilience education and training, in Leal Filho, W. (ed) Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals – Good Health & Wellbeing. Springer, Cham. King, D. D., Newman, A., & Luthans, F. (2015). Not if, but when we need resilience in the workplace: Workplace resilience. Journal of Organizational Behavior, n/a. Kossek, E. E., and Perrigino, M. B. (2016). Resilience: A review using a grounded integrated occupational approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 729-797. Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., and Curran, T. (2015). Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(3), 533–562. Stokes, P., Smith, S., Wall, T., Moore, N., Rowland, C., Ward, T., & Cronshaw, S. (2018). Resilience and the (micro-)dynamics of organizational ambidexterity: Implications for strategic HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-36. UNESCO (2017). Six ways to ensure higher education leaves no one behind, Policy Paper 30. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002478/247862E.pdf (Accessed 20th Nov, 2018). Wall, T., Russell, J., Moore, N. (2017) Positive emotion in workplace impact: the case of a work-based learning project utilising appreciative inquiry. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 9 (2): 129-146.
    • Personal tutoring and academic advising: Improving student success

      Thomas, Liz; Nutt, Charlie; Wall, Tony; Edge Hill University : Kansas State University : University of Chester (2009-12)
    • Playful ambiguity for adaptive capacity

      Wall, Tony; Evans, Vicky; Hindley, Ann; University of Chester
      The need for managers to develop adaptive capacities is now widely documented; it not only enables the potential for organisations to flex in relation to environmental shocks, but it can be a protective factor for stress for the manager and employees more broadly (Ogden et al, 2006; Tökkäri, 2015; Kinder et al, 2019). There are various experiential, simulation, problem based, and live-realtime educational strategies that might promote aspects of adaptive capacity (Hurst et al, 2018; Bosomworth & Gaillard 2019 – in press). For some of these, ambiguity can play a role in navigating or negotiating the task; for example, not knowing how competitors may respond to a strategic move in a simulation task, or not knowing whether or how new group members will deliver their respective tasks for a group task (Wall et al, 2019). Such ambiguities are not necessarily valued or appreciated by students given the potential impact on their individual academic achievement (Wall and Perrin, 2015). Indeed, the "serious play" concept itself is "a practice characterised by the paradox of intentionality" (Statler et al, 2011: 236). This QIC pushes the intellectual and practical ambition of how far and in what ways ambiguity can feature as an intentional instructional design principle in developing adaptive capacities. For example, whereas many educational approaches may introduce ambiguity in the process of delivering a task (the pedagogic scaffold), many approaches do not introduce it around what the task actually is. Here, 'the task as scaffold' might be replaced by 'serious play as scaffold' whereas a particular mindset or attitudinal frame provides the behavioural coordinates for engagement in educational activity (Spraggon and Bodolica, 2018). This QIC therefore aims to explore playful ambiguity for adaptive capacity, and specifically asks: How can we create the conditions to foster and maintain the paradox of serious play (such as subjectively ‘safe’ spaces), especially set against contexts where learners can be instrumental in their learning? The QIC ultimately aims to pull together examples as well as developing new ideas to be tested in practice. References Bosomworth, K. & Gaillard, E. (2019 – in press) Engaging with uncertainty and ambiguity through participatory ‘Adaptive Pathways’ approaches: scoping the literature. Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3095. Hurst D., Azevedo A., & Hawranik P. (2018) Building Adaptive Capacity in Online Graduate Management Education. In: Khare A. & Hurst D. (eds) On the Line. Springer, Cham Kinder, T., Stenvall, J., & Memon, A. (2019). Play at work, learning and innovation. Public Management Review, 21(3), 376-399. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1487578 Ogden, P., Minton, K. & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body. New York: W.W.Norton & Company. Spraggon, M., & Bodolica, V. (2018). A practice-based framework for understanding (informal) play as practice phenomena in organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(6), 846-869. doi:10.1017/jmo.2018.30 Statler, M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2011). Serious play as a practice of paradox. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 236-256. Tökkäri, V. (2015). Organizational play: Within and beyond managing. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 10(2), 86-104. doi:10.1108/QROM-11-2013-1181. Wall, T. & Perrin, D. (2015) Žižek: A Žižekian Gaze at Education, London, Springer. Wall, T., Clough, D., Österlind, E., & Hindley, A. (2019) Conjuring a ‘Spirit’ for Sustainability: A Review of the Socio-Materialist Effects of Provocative Pedagogies. In: Leal Filho W., Consorte McCrea A. (eds) Sustainability and the Humanities. Springer, Cham.
    • The plurality of academic activism: heterogeneous expression for opening up alternative futures

      Wall, Tony; Robinson, Sarah; Elliott, Carole; Blasco, Maribel; Kjærrgaard, Annemette; Callahan, Jamie; Padan, Tali; Bergmann, Rasmus; University of Chester; University of Glasgow; Roehampton University; Copenhagen Business School; Northumbria University; University College Copenhagen (Open University, 2019-06)
      Being and becoming an academic in the neoliberal business school has become a complex and hyper-political space fraught with competing performative agendas (Wall and Perrin, 2015; Bristow et al, 2017; Cunliffe, 2018), with a precarious landscape “[b]ringing in its wake the worrying manifestations of racism, xenophobia and anti-intellectualism” (Bristow and Robinson, 2018: 636). When set against a backdrop of global challenges, for instance social inequalities and climate change, such circumstances reignite critique and criticism around the role and responsibility of business schools and their academics (Shrivastava, 2010; Wall et al 2019). Here, some academics have responded by attempting to confront, challenge, resist, and pre/re-configure (Rhodes et al, 2018) in ways which intentionally move towards alternative futures which re-position people-profit-planet and the dominant sub-categories embedded within (Wall et al, 2019). Such responses not only move beyond writing a supposedly disruptive ‘journal article’ (Wall, 2016; Parker and Parker, 2017), but are heterogeneous and can include acts which politely ‘light a candle’ to spark action in others, and even take public social action to ‘burn The State’. Indeed, the acts themselves can be open and emotionally rich site for expression and exploration towards an alternative future. The heterogeneity of academic activism in the business school can be traced in the extant literature and can include (1) academics designing pedagogical structures inspired by pro-social action from the 1960s and 1970s such as service learning (Griffin et al 2015; Wall et al 2019), (2) academic re-visioning of business school organisational structures which prompt integrated forms of personality development oriented towards ethics and sustainability (Akrivou and Bradbury-Huang, 2015), (3) academics openly critiquing and challenging the practices of business schools and universities (Callahan, 2018; Parker, 2018), (4) academics engaging in social action in public spaces (Reinecke, 2018); and (5) academics taking moments to express resistance throughout their career but at the everyday level (Bristow et al, 2017; Wall, 2016). At the same time, the heterogeneity of the expression of academic activism in business schools has not yet been documented, mapped, or conceptualised. Therefore, this paper/session offers a tentative conceptualisation/characterisation in relation to (1) the target of change for the acts of academic activism (e.g. micro, meso, macro), and (2) the focus of that change (e.g. inequality of women leaders in higher education), (3) the individual-collective nature of those acts, and (3) the open/closed/ambiguous intentionality of those acts. It is intended that this initial conceptualisation will not only act as an initial device to prompt further exploration and theorisation of the heterogeneity of academic activism in business schools, but a device to prompt our own reflection into the forms of expression an academic may want to explore (as an academic activist). With a spirit of academic activism, this participatory session invites and welcomes a wide range of participants to both enrich and destabilise our attempt to capture the heterogeneity of academic activism in business schools.
    • Poignant Pedagogies for Discovery – or of Compliance? The Case of Negotiated, Work-Based Learning in Higher Education

      Wall, Tony; University of Chester (Deakin University, 2014-08-21)
      Work-based or work-integrated learning manifest in a colourful array of forms; from classroom-based where the teacher sets the learning outcomes and activities (perhaps in groups) – through to a fully negotiated, work- based experience where the learner works with the teacher to negotiate their own personal learning outcomes, activity and assessment (a personalised experience). Educationally, such curricula can provide a rich and authentic pedagogic space in which to grow personally and professionally, where the learner has the opportunity (and ability) to explore from their own cultural perspective. But this place of discovery can also become a place of compliance; where learners mechanically do what is required of them, without creative engagement, curiosity or connection to their cultural perspective. This talk draws on qualitative and action research undertaken over the last 6 years in the context of negotiated, experiential curricula to examine some pedagogical practices. The question is asked: are we crafting poignant pedagogies for discovery – or of compliance?