The Capability Approach, Pedagogic Rights and Course Design: Developing Autonomy and Reflection through Student-Led, Individually Created Courses

ABSTRACT

University education can provide more than discipline knowledge development. It can also develop lifelong skills such as autonomy, critical reflection, and independent thought. With its concern for the individual and development of the self as well as society, the Capability Approach offers a useful framework for evaluating individual development beyond disciplines. This paper aims to employ the Capability Approach to explore how student-led learning might lead to individual and social development. As there is a focus on courses and curricula, it employs the complementary concept of Pedagogic Rights. It presents findings from a small-scale qualitative research project, which included the perspectives of individuals who had recently completed self-designed, individually-created courses. Findings show that student-led courses align with Capability Approach values, providing a space for individual development and expansion of capabilities.

KEYWORDS:

• Capability approach
• pedagogic rights
• student-led learning
• graduate attributes
• student-led learning
• Higher education

Introduction

The Capability Approach (CA) places importance on the opportunities and freedoms that individuals have to achieve the beings and doings they see as valuable. It is a normative framework focussing on human flourishing, rather than economic gain, as a measurement for individual well-being (Dreze and Sen 2002; Sen 1992). The comparatively recent application of the CA to education has, to date, focussed on how education can be used to promote social justice (for example see Boni and Walker 2013). There has been less of a focus upon how the CA can be applied to course design and resulting development of graduate attributes. This paper explores student-led learning and how it might align with CA values. More specifically, it aims to explore whether student-led courses can promote human flourishing by providing an opportunity for students to expand capabilities they see as valuable, whilst also exerting agency and freedom. This research focuses on a specific type of elective course in which students design and create their own learning experiences that help them develop a specific graduate attribute. I draw on central CA values to explore whether student-led, individually-created courses (SLICCs) provide an opportunity for students to achieve valuable beings and doings. If we are to engender students with the capabilities of agency, autonomy, and independent critical thought (Saito 2003; Walker 2006b), we should be encouraging a pedagogy which enables such capabilities to develop.

As the research explores course design and student-led learning, I draw on Bernstein’s (2000) concept of pedagogic rights. This heuristic refers to the three inter-connected educational rights of individual enhancement, social inclusion, and political participation, which prioritise new possibilities and confidence, engagement with society, and transformative action. Together, these rights allow students to have “a stake” in their educational institution (Bernstein 2000). Like the CA, pedagogic rights pays attention to inequality within education, promotes agency and the right to be autonomous but has a greater emphasis on curriculum (McLean, Abbas, and Ashwin 2013; Walker 2006a; Wilson-Strydom 2017). As such, this research also responds to the more limited literature that brings together these complementary approaches. By complementing the CA with a pedagogic rights approach, we can develop an education that does not constrain the student but gives them control over their learning (Wilson-Strydom 2017). Such control can allow students to develop capabilities such as agency and autonomy and help them achieve human flourishing.

I begin with a brief overview of the CA and pedagogic rights, showing how these approaches can co-exist to aid human flourishing. Drawing on a data set of institutional documents and interviews with staff and students, I show that student-led learning is an example of pedagogic practice that allows for a focus on the individual and is therefore a suitable pedagogy to encourage future oriented capabilities of autonomy, reflection and critical thought.

The Capability Approach and Pedagogy

There is a broader discussion of higher education encompassing the purpose of university and the pedagogy utilised. As well as disciplinary understanding, higher education should allow students to learn about themselves, affiliation, and how they can contribute to the common good and collective action (Nixon 2012). Degree programmes offer a space both to engage with societal needs and individual development of personal agency, social responsibility, reasoning and reflection (Thompson 2014; Walker 2006a). However, this requires institutional values that attend to both the individual as well as collective reasoning and action, and curricula and pedagogy that acknowledges the importance of freedom and agency and recognises that individuals should be able to exert choice and have control over their own life.

The CA recognises that education is intrinsically valuable and “future oriented” (Saito 2003, 27). Expansion of capabilities of autonomy, agency, confidence, responsibility, reflection and critical thought and knowledge from childhood can result in future freedoms (Brighouse 2002; Saito 2003; Sen 1992; Walker 2005; 2006a). It should be noted that while education offers the opportunity to expand horizons, it can also constrain individuals. Pedagogy and curricula choices alongside a top-down system of education with a focus on examinations can limit capabilities (Heckman and Corbin 2016; Saito 2003; Walker and Unterhalter 2007; Wood and Deprez 2012). Opportunities to function are best realised via education policies that encourage capabilities such as independent thought, reflection, and responsibility for one's own learning (Walker 2005). In other words, education should provide freedom to allow skills and capabilities to form.

If people are to live a life they value, opportunity and autonomy should be embedded within education policy and curricula and institutions should ensure that they are providing opportunities for students to focus on goals valued by each individual. Rather than focus on learning outcomes that are established before students arrive in the classroom, students should be afforded a voice in curricula with curriculum flexibility that can promote new interests and help students realise their academic strengths (Fongwa, Marshall, and Case 2018; Walker 2006b). This can be achieved through authentic autonomy, which helps promote capability expansion and allows students to choose what to learn, how to engage in this learning and how to demonstrate their learning (Wood and Deprez 2012). Such an approach positions students as agents in their own learning and enhances their freedom to choose a life that is valuable to them.

Authentic autonomy can be aided through development of critical thinking or practical reason, capabilities which require understanding alternative perspectives and analysis of beliefs based on individual thought (Nussbaum 2006). This requires reflection, understood here as (critical) self-examination whereby the learner's experiences and thoughts inform their current and future beliefs and practices (Ennis 2018). Embedding reflection into curricula has been shown to provide space for individuals to explore themselves, their values, voices, identities and ontological beliefs (Crosbie 2013). Curriculum and course changes can therefore offer a space for students to exert agency, engage in democratic deliberation, be reflexive, and encourage autonomy. From this we can infer that capability expansion and self-development requires recognition of the importance of agency within pedagogy and flexibility and freedom within curricula.

Pedagogic Rights, Framing, and Capabilities

Pedagogic rights provide suitable conditions for capability development. McLean, Abbas, and Ashwin (2013) and Wilson-Strydom (2017) outline how Bernstein's pedagogic rights of personal enhancement, social inclusion, and social and political participation can be mapped to capabilities of confidence, agency, choice, and opportunity. Wilson-Strydom notes, however, that the right to participation in the higher education context perhaps needs a more nuanced interpretation of political rights that encompasses the right to participate in the classroom, public debate, and in curricula decisions. Curricula designed around pedagogic rights can also develop graduate attributes, as shown by Jenkins et al. (2016), particularly when graduate attributes are a foundation of course design.

According to Bernstein (2003), curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation underpin educational knowledge codes. Curriculum represents what is thought to be valid knowledge, pedagogy is the transmission of this knowledge and evaluation its realisation. These educational knowledge codes are dependent upon how we frame knowledge. Using Bernstein’s (2003) definition, “frame refers to the degree of control teachers and pupils possess over the selection, organization, pacing and timing of the knowledge transmitted and received in the pedagogical relationship” (81). Framing is considered strong when the teacher has greater control of sequencing and pacing of knowledge acquisition and it is weak when the student has greater control (Bernstein 2000; 2003). Therefore, when there is weak framing, students have more agency and freedom albeit not absolute. However, McLean, Abbas, and Ashwin (2013) caution that a curriculum based entirely on weak framing may not be suitable depending upon the individual learner and where they are in their learning journey, hence they encourage use of “pedagogical judgement and empirical investigation” (35). With appropriate judgement and investigation, weak framing presents opportunity to move from a top-down curriculum that potentially limits capabilities towards one that affords choice and valued capability expansion.

Through their mapping of pedagogic rights to human development capabilities, McLean, Abbas, and Ashwin (2013) show that institutions can engender graduates who are able to plan their own lives through reason, critical evaluation and reflective choices. Furthermore, graduates will be able to better understand themselves and those around them, and participate in and contribute to society. Building on this, Wilson-Strydom (2017) focussed on CA concepts of well-being and agency and how these are applied in pedagogy. She asserts that to evaluate agency, we must evaluate pedagogy as well as educational outcomes, that is, whether pedagogy and curricula expand or constrain agency and well-being. Students can exert agency and build their confidence through their ability to structure and have a voice in their education. When students are able to make decisions about the curriculum, how to learn and how to pace or sequence this learning they can build education capabilities of knowledge, critical thinking, aspirations, affiliation, and respect.

Pedagogic Rights and Student-Led Learning

The pedagogic rights to enhancement and inclusion can be realised through autonomous learning practices such as student-led learning. Walker (2006a) points out that “if we agree to the pedagogic right of individual enhancement, we need to develop the associated capabilities, such as confidence in learning, that secure this right to each student” (42). Development of the associated capabilities can occur through weak framing and increased agency inherent in student-led learning where students take a more active role in designing their own courses and curriculum (Bovill 2017; 2019; Bovill, Cook-Sather, and Felten 2011; Matthews 2018). This active role also speaks to the pedagogic right to inclusion as the student works in partnership with the teacher-facilitator whilst also maintaining the right to be separate. Such an approach also moves away from students as consumers (Henri, Morrell, and Scott 2018) towards more personalised learning (Yuksel 2010). Students and teachers in partnership can develop shared values and attitudes or behaviours and students can fulfil goals that align with their values (Speirs, Riley, and McCabe 2017). As Davenport, Jaeger, and Lauritzen (1995) explain, “students have the freedom to make choices, to create personal meaning, to see curriculum as connected to something relevant, and to maintain control of their learning” (61). These benefits of more autonomous learning practices are very much in line with both pedagogic rights and a capability approach to education. Again, we are presented with a strong argument for the centrality of pedagogy and curriculum in human development. However, the freedom that Devenport outlines must be exercised within the complex context of the institution, in which curricula and pedagogy are influenced by multiple stakeholders such as students, teachers, industry, and education policy.

Graduate Attributes

Curricula within higher education tends to be tied to an institution's graduate attributes, which are the qualities a student possesses upon graduation. However, graduate attributes can place too much emphasis on employability and too little on social issues such as discrimination and equality. Bozalek (2013) proposes that the CA be used to enhance graduate attributes as both “focus on what students would be able to do and be at the end of their degrees” (72). She points out that employing the CA in the development of graduate attributes can help shift the focus from employability alone and onto wider social issues. This promotion of strong agency requires individuals to look beyond themselves and their own flourishing and engage with collective action and social good. To encourage such engagement, it follows that issues of social justice and global consciousness might need to be more evident within discipline curricula. A notable example of how this may be achieved can be seen in Landorf and Paul’s (2013) curriculum changes that focussed on global consciousness.

Bozalek (2013) further asserts that unlike the CA focus on the individual, graduate attributes tend to presume that all university students are starting from the same place – also a point of concern in pedagogic rights (Donnelly 2018). Therefore, achievement of graduate attributes may depend upon social positioning with some students having an advantage due to their socio-economic and educational backgrounds. Rather than focussing solely on employability, applying the CA to graduate attributes also allows a focus on such individual needs and human flourishing.

To summarise, an effective employment of the capability approach and pedagogic rights in education is through a focus on both the individual and wider social and political spheres. Rather than looking at universities as profit-making institutions where education is for employment we should recognise that universities can be sites for capability expansion, self-development, and societal development (Bernstein 2000; Boni and Walker 2013; McLean, Abbas, and Ashwin 2013; Nussbaum 2011; Walker 2005). This can be done through ensuring students have a voice in the dialogic process of curriculum and course development and through encouraging increased agency and critical reflection. To develop graduates who flourish as individuals and are cognisant of social good, social justice themes ought to be embedded within discipline programmes, graduate attributes, and institutional values.

Student-Led, Individually-Created Courses

We have seen that there is a convincing case for allowing learners to take more control of the curriculum and being given increased opportunities to choose what and how they learn. In doing this, students are able to develop autonomy, have increased opportunities to function, and the ability to live a life they value. Student-led learning can therefore be regarded as a positive tool for the development of capabilities and functionings and warrants further attention.

This investigation focusses on credit provision offered at The University of Edinburgh, called Student-Led, Individually-Created Courses (University of Edinburgh 2022). Successfully piloted in 2015, these are now elective courses through which students can gain 20 academic credits towards their undergraduate degrees. There are two types of SLICC, the first takes place during the summer break at the end of first and second year and is independent of students’ degree programmes. The second is embedded within the discipline programme and led by a programme tutor. The SLICCs featured in this research are the former self-selected courses, the rationale being that these offer greater freedom of topic choice. Summer SLICCs are largely independently-led and self-directed, with minimal supervision from an academic staff member who acts as a facilitator, reviewing the proposed course, providing formative feedback on the interim report submission and grading the final reflective report submission. An online resource pack provides guidance on all stages of the course and includes sample reports with tutor feedback, sample blog posts and reflective frameworks that can be employed. What is unique to this type of credit course is that the entire learning experience is initiated and created by the student, meaning the student negotiates the topic, the learning outcomes and the method in which they will present their coursework. SLICCs can be conducted, for example, at home or abroad, within employment, while volunteering, as personal development or personal research. In other words, courses can take place in any context that the student is engaged within.

The first step of the SLICC is a proposal outlining the course topic and defining five learning outcomes situated within institutional graduate attribute themes of analysis, application, skills, mindsets, and evaluation. Upon acceptance of their proposal, the student must complete their SLICC within their proposed timeframe, reflecting upon the experience throughout and recording reflections using an e-portfolio. A variety of resources can be used for reflection, such as photographs, drawings, video, audio or text and critical reflection and self-evaluation are central to the learning process. As the focus of the SLICC is on development, the student is assessed not on the achievement of the learning outcomes but on their evidenced development and progress. As learning outcome themes are tied in with graduate attributes, students undertaking SLICCs are developing their “learning and assessment literacy and ability to articulate that learning” (Speirs, Riley, and McCabe 2017, 53). These are skills that can then be employed throughout their remaining university life and beyond.

Methods

This inductive, small-scale qualitative study is positioned within a constructivist and interpretivist paradigm focussing on the views and experiences of the individual from an emic perspective (Grix 2004; Kvale 2007). Semi-structured interviews and public documents were utilised, both being a rich source of data (Bretschneider et al. 2017; Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011). Accuracy of information imparted during interviews has been assumed and it should be acknowledged that, being an interpretive study, my personal values and interests likely influenced question sets and themes that emerged. Regarding document data, I was cognisant that the text data obtained from the institution serves the particular purpose of encouraging students to engage with SLICCs and has been written with institutional values in mind (Grix 2004). Turning to interviews, although the number of participants was small, the data was rich and as this is an exploratory and context-specific study, I do not aim to make wide generalisations beyond the site of research (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011). Despite these acknowledged limitations, this research still provides a useful insight into the experience of self-directed learning and how it might align with CA values, and may be relevant to other similar courses. Furthermore, it may be pertinent to note that although I teach within the university research site, I have had no involvement with SLICCs prior to this research and could therefore be considered an impartial investigator.

Documents utilised in the content review (Table 1) were complemented by semi-structured interviews. Purposeful sampling through a targeted email to the generic SLICC information email account identified the first staff member participant. Recruitment following this was opportunistic as my first participant introduced me to another staff member and the offer to blanket email students on the SLICC database. After obtaining informed consent, individual semi-structured interviews were undertaken. The less structured interview guide allowed me to explore the specific experiences of each participant, probe topics and check for accurate understanding.

Table 1. Documents analysed.

Document name		Location
Student-led individually-created courses: about SLICCs	University of Edinburgh (2022)	SLICC website
SLICC resource pack	University of Edinburgh (n.d.)	PebblePad resource
SLICC learning outcomes and grade descriptors	2019 version	Participant-only/internal resource

I conducted seven interviews, two with staff members within my institution and five with students who had recently completed a SLICC. The two staff members assisted the creation and development of the SLICC framework, one (S1) acts as a summer SLICC facilitator and also utilises SLICCs on his programme module, and the other (S2) is involved in creation and promotion of graduate attributes within my institution. The five student participants were either in their second or third year of undergraduate study and were from a variety of Schools and subject backgrounds (Table 2).

Table 2. Student participant information.

Student	Year	School/programme	SSLC course topic
Victor	3rd	Informatics	How we learn in the workplace
Tess	2nd	Geography	Culture and language of a minority group
Paco	3rd	Neuroscience	Laboratory research on cancer cells
Jack	3rd	History	Reading seminal political economy texts
Salva	2nd	Linguistics & Psychology	Linguistics pilot research study in a protected community

Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously and interview transcripts were analysed while new interviews were taking place. I read SLICC documentation and interview transcripts several times and, line-by-line, began highlighting and labelling text by hand so that I was “closer to the data” (Creswell 2013, 264). Through iterative labelling and coding of text, broad themes related to the research objectives began to emerge and codes that were similar were grouped. Items and themes were identified by frequency of occurrence as well as non-occurrence. Themes from document data were cross-referenced with interview data and the literature. A first level analysis tabulating responses and themes was followed by second level analysis of shared responses and themes (Miles and Huberman 1994). This methodological triangulation increased the validity of data as points of commonality or discord between interviews with course creators, course users, course documentation and the literature were identified (Cohen and Manion 1994).

Discussion

Three broad themes emerged from the data related to course ownership, critical engagement through reflection, and individual personal development. These themes will be discussed in turn before closing thoughts on theory and practice are outlined.

Exerting Choice through Ownership

Literature on the capability approach to education promotes autonomy and agency, and document analysis reveals that SLICCs align with this as student autonomy is at the heart of the course experience. On the SLICC website and in the PebblePad resource pack, SLICCs are described as “self-initiated, independently-led, and self-directed”, an opportunity for students to “choose their own learning experience and therefore create their own courses that they plan, propose, carry out, reflect on and evaluate”. Another key word used on the website and in the resource pack course descriptions is “ownership”, both in learning and progress. These points were frequently referred to by both S1 and S2 in staff interviews. When asked how SLICCs can complement programme studies, S2 explained, “one is the simple act of giving more autonomy, more ownership and the ability to focus on an area that is of interest to you”. Student interviews show that these aspects of the course were appreciated:

Paco: I think the interesting thing was that you reflected on your own kind of goals, which you set yourself, and not on, you know, someone else's questions.

Victor: It forces you to take initiative, which is also good. Freedom is definitely an essential part of a SLICC. I think without it, it just wouldn't be the same at all. You would probably be writing a dissertation project that was provided to you. It's kind of the difference between choosing a project that was proposed by somebody else and proposing your own.

Tess: I can choose the topic whatever I want … so it's very flexible, you can explore a little bit. That's like a very personal research, just do whatever you want, and that's the best part.

We can see from these comments that SLICCs are an example of a learning framework that expands rather than restricts opportunities to function. Furthermore, they are an example of curriculum practice that allows students to develop capabilities of independent thought and agency (Walker 2005). This resonates strongly with Wood and Deprez’s (2012) assertion that students should have “opportunities for authentic autonomy and choice in terms of how and what they learn and in terms of how they demonstrate their learning” (479). SLICCs allow students to exercise autonomy and agency through the proposal and design of their course and the development of learning outcomes. This is in complete contrast to traditional curricula, which has learning outcomes fixed before students are registered on the course.

Curriculum flexibility allowed SLICC participants an additional freedom to focus on and identify unique interests and strengths (Fongwa, Marshall, and Case 2018). As S2 explained, SLICCs are designed to allow the “intellectual freedom to explore a topic of interest”, something he identified as being particularly important for students who found their courses to be more structured and restricting than anticipated. Victor's SLICC allowed him to explore his interest in the learning process and his experience encouraged him to take on a peer-teaching opportunity within his School. Tess had an interest in international volunteer work and after her SLICC she selected an additional module on Social Culture Geography. Salva noted that she found practical work more interesting than study and her SLICC allowed her to apply practically the textbook-based learning she had encountered. It seems that the flexible curriculum and subsequent identification of strengths and interests may have assisted students in achieving the freedom to be and do what they value and could have a positive impact on future freedoms (Boni and Walker 2013; Saito 2003; Sen 1992; Walker and Unterhalter 2007).

Considering SLICCs alongside Bernstein's pedagogic rights, it is clear that SLICCs are an example of weak framing. By placing ownership and responsibility of learning on students, the SLICC framework is providing an opportunity to develop capabilities and functionings that are of value to the individual. Students are free to exert the capabilities of choice, reason, reflection, and responsibility of learning (Walker 2005). While Salva and Tess relished the weak framing, it should be noted that this extended freedom initially presented challenges for some students. Jack found that his SLICC was overly-ambitious and he quickly realised that he would not be able to achieve his original learning outcomes. When reflecting upon the level of freedom that the SLICC provides, Victor explained, “it was different, at the time I hated it”. He initially struggled to work on a course where there were “no right or wrong answers”. Upon further reflection he acknowledged, “now I think it's useful, I definitely learned something”. These student perspectives agree with McLean et al.'s (2013) assertion that weak framing may not be suitable for all students, and confirm the importance of a toolkit that supports learners undertaking an individually-led course. It could also be suggested that weak framing resulted in Jack and Victor missing out on valued functionings as they were constrained by their SLICC choices and identified learning outcomes.

Although students spoke of the freedom inherent in SLICCs, it should be acknowledged that there are constraints to this freedom. The choice of topic is constrained by the options that have been open to students and the academic facilitator must approve the topic proposal before the project commences. The learning outcomes defined by the student are determined by the institution's graduate attributes, and the academic facilitator provides guidance based on the interim reflective report. The social context of the institution therefore influences capability expansion.

Critical Engagement through Reflection

Critical thinking and reflection are considered to be particularly important for young adults in education (Brighouse 2002). Walker (2006b) believes that these skills or capabilities should be embedded within education policy as they can enhance opportunities to function. The consideration of critical thinking and reflection are evident in SLICC documentation. In the overview information in the PebblePad resource pack, students are told, “You will evaluate and critically reflect upon your approach, learning, and development throughout your SLICC”. Critical engagement is essential at all stages of the SLICC, from course proposal and establishing of learning outcomes to the blog posts recording the learning and development that takes place over the course.

From interview data, reflection was the skill perceived to be most developed by students throughout their courses. Salva acknowledged that while she felt she had good reflective skills prior to her SLICC, reflecting on the course was very beneficial. She stated that “the reflection used in this project was very new to me and very, very constructive”. Tess described the benefits of revisiting reflections a few days after writing her blog post once she was more distant from events. Further to this, she noted that it made her volunteering work more meaningful than previous experiences as she was recording and critically engaging with the experience. She explained,

It's a record, I have to do the reflections every week so that helps me to see everything in a very different perspective because I think critical thinking is very important for academic purposes or even your life in the future, so I think this is very good.

When considering the reflective blog posts, Jack commented, “some of what I had to write ended up being quite platitudinous and just words but some of it was quite useful in terms of getting me to think about my own learning and how I can improve it”. Paco echoed the above positive sentiments although he was more ambiguous regarding their value. Initially, he also felt he was “writing the same things over and over”, that recording reflections was too time-consuming and he could have gained the same benefits without writing a blog or report. It is possible that an alternative output or topic could have resulted in a more valued exploration of the self and capability development. However, Paco later stated that it was useful “to see how your expectations which you had of your learning prior to the SLICC are different now and how you have imagined something differently”.

When asked why reflection might be such a focus on SLICCs, Victor's reply pointed to the future benefits of such a course:

My intuition would be that because that's not taught in other courses – not as much. So, choose some goals and then keep checking what's your progress on them so maybe it's an idea about how to make the most out of an experience. I think even if I don't do a SLICC now, when working throughout the summer or on some large project I will set smaller goals for myself and keep a diary … It helps to keep focussed on the future.

Walker (2006a) instructed that institutions should “provide the enabling spaces and conditions for development and learning in the way that individuals cannot do alone” (p.37). It can be argued that the SLICC framework encouraging continuous reflection provides such an enabling space for developing learning. Victor recognised that the SLICC was about evidencing self-development rather than knowledge for exams and the reflective cycle allowed him to consider his own experiences as well as the life experiences of his colleagues at his summer internship. He also began to recognise the working style that best suited him and allowed him to be most productive, something he believes will benefit him in his university life and career. Victor's insights are also a reminder of the relationship between the individual, the collective, education policy, and post education. Students are constantly navigating personal interests and affiliations, and requirements to evidence knowledge via assessment, within a curriculum that has been influenced by education policy, institutional values, or market forces.

Being linked to institutional graduate attributes, the SLICC learning outcomes and course design have a focus on developing professional skills as well as personal and academic. They are thus not entirely removed from the institutional instrumental focus on employment. As indicated in the SLICC overview on PebblePad, “the framework helps students develop the types of personal and professional attributes which will sustain independent learning throughout their life … as well as being essential to them in their future career path”. For one of the SLICC learning outcomes, students must choose one of four graduate attribute skill areas to reflect upon and develop: research and enquiry, personal and intellectual autonomy, communication or personal effectiveness. By developing one of these skill areas, students should be able to utilise them throughout the remainder of their university studies and beyond. In the learning outcomes and grade descriptor document, students are encouraged to “be aware of where your weaknesses lie and expand on how you will improve these and develop new skills”. As S2 pointed out, “graduate attributes are intentionally multi-focussed. You can take the same attribute and deploy it in different contexts”. With this in mind, the graduate attribute focussed learning outcomes are not only instrumentally valuable but also intrinsically valuable as they could be reshaped and deployed in other social and political spheres.

Interview data shows that students were able to develop skills that would benefit them in their futures. Both Victor and Salva were able to take part in pilot research projects, offering practical experience of their textbook-based learning. While Victor pointed out that the lab experience would have happened regardless of the SLICC, he did find that the SLICC encouraged him to think about the effectiveness of his lab communication and how he could communicate “in a more precise and specific way”. As he hopes to engage in scientific research in his career, this is likely beneficial for his future. Furthermore, students planned to include the SLICC experience in their CVs and Victor and Jacob had mentioned their SLICCs in subsequent job applications. Students also referred to other skills that would be of benefit to them in their futures, examples include time-management, setting realistic goals, essay and report writing in English, curating a reading list, critical thinking, and communication. These insights suggest that SLICCs can be useful for future study, careers, and social and political participation.

Education in the CA is described by Saito (2003) as being future oriented and lifelong, a point supported by Walker (2006b) who states that “learning is a process of becoming as well as being” (177). This idea resonates strongly with SLICCs, where importance is placed on the process of individual development. To obtain high grades in traditional course assessment, students are expected to evidence discipline knowledge to show achievement of learning outcomes. In contrast, SLICC learning outcomes focus much more on the learning experience and they do not require achievement of the learning outcome. As S1 explained, they instead require evidence of the process of developing learning outcomes. S2 further acknowledged, “what the students are providing evidence of is them actively working to develop that attribute rather than of the attribute itself”. For the learning outcomes on SLICCs, the focus is on becoming over being.

Personal Development

The concern that graduate attributes do not consider individual social positioning can be addressed by SLICCs. Bozalek (2013) notes that the capability approach focus on individual needs would “require varying resources in order for the students to achieve graduate attributes or valuable beings and doings at the end of their degree” (75). From student interviews, we can see that SLICCs can provide an opportunity for individuals to develop graduate attributes and skills out with the standard programme curriculum. For example, Salva chose to set a learning outcome on developing communication skills during her SLICC to allow her to work on self-development. She explained,

I have autism and while communication is very open and transparent I get quite terrified when I have to speak to my boss when I don't know what it's about. Being aware of the way I’m delivering information is also something I need to become more aware of and that's why I used the communication thing to work on.

Whilst Salva could develop communication skills on her degree programme and potentially within her wider social context, the SLICC offered an additional structured opportunity to focus on this as a personal goal thus addressing the individual needs of her social positioning.

Added to this, the individual and inclusive nature of SLICCs means that they can be applied in any circumstance, a point stressed by both staff members. When developing the SLICC framework, it was important that it could allow students to capture their development in a variety of situations. Rather than being limited to prestigious internships for the privileged few, SLICCs offer an opportunity for student development to be institutionally recognised for credit whatever the context. S1 explained that a student working in a supermarket to finance their education could use the SLICC framework to investigate distribution of produce. S2 used the example of a student with carer responsibilities who could reflect upon how their social situation has contributed to their individual learning and development. He described this as “democratising access to credit”, an institutional recognition of the learning opportunities that take place outside university and awarding credit to recognise this.

The CA is concerned with a weak agency focus on the individual and a strong agency focus on and consideration of society (Boni and Walker 2013) and education should promote both individual human flourishing and increased awareness of societal development (Nussbaum 2011; Walker 2006a). Data has established that while SLICCs certainly assist in individual development, their influence on social good is less pronounced. In line with Bozalek’s (2013) assertion that social good is insufficiently recognised within most institutional graduate attributes, SLICC documentation appears to show a greater focus on weak agency and development of individual skills and attributes. It is only in the learning outcome related to graduate attribute mindsets that strong agency is referenced. As outlined in the learning outcomes and grade descriptor document, students are expected to choose one of three mindsets to explore: enquiry and lifelong learning, aspiration and personal development, or outlook and engagement. The institution's outlook and engagement mindset in particular intends to encourage students to consider and engage with the world around them thus promoting global citizenship and an informed international perspective (University of Edinburgh 2021).

Of the students I interviewed, just two created SLICCs that enabled them to engage more fully with strong agency and the outlook and engagement mindset. During her course, Tess reflected upon cross-cultural communication, urban city design, geopolitics and educational policy and has since selected additional programme modules that engage with these themes. Salva considered individual rights, the right to education and the need for education to be delivered in “culturally sensitive ways”. This has led her to discuss these issues with peers and she is working on a project to teach a protected community about health and well-being and consent. Moreover, both Tess and Salva stated that the reflective nature of SLICCs encouraged them to consider issues from different perspectives. In contrast, Victor, Paco and Jack appeared to focus much more on self-development and mindsets that would benefit their future studies and careers. From data, it is unclear whether previous educational experience and curriculum influenced Tess and Salva to focus on wider societal concerns during their courses. Data does suggest, however, that course topic influences strong agency.

Concluding Thoughts

The aim of this research was to draw upon the capability approach and pedagogic rights to explore whether student-led, individually-created courses can expand capabilities and promote human flourishing. According to the CA, a valuable life is one where individuals have the freedom to exercise choice and pursue valued capabilities (Boni and Walker 2013; Robeyns 2005; Sen 1992; Walker 2006a). Within the constraints of the university setting, this means identifying space within programme curricula to provide students with the opportunity to exert autonomy over what and how they learn (Saito 2003; Wood and Deprez 2012). It can be said from this research that SLICCs do provide such opportunities for autonomy and freedom. Firstly, SLICCs move away from the restrictive curriculum where Walker (2006b) noted that learning outcomes are set before students arrive in class. Instead, they offer authentic autonomy as the student can negotiate the topic, the learning outcomes and the method of recording learning. Individual learning outcomes and ownership of the course means students can focus on developing capabilities they deem valuable. Therefore, SLICCs can be seen as a positive example of CA weak agency (Boni and Walker 2013) and pedagogic approach weak framing (Bernstein 2000; Wilson-Strydom 2017).

Related to freedom, the CA places value on opportunity to achieve beings and doings (Robeyns 2005; Sen 1992). From available documentation and staff interviews, we can see that SLICCs are self-selected and can be undertaken by any student. It can be said that it is not important whether all students choose to undertake an individually-led course. As Sen (2009) explains, “the focus of the Capability Approach is thus not just on what a person actually ends up doing, but also what she is in fact able to do, whether or not she chooses to make use of that opportunity” (235). With this in mind, the act of providing the option of a SLICC to all undergraduates is sufficient when evaluating the course alongside the CA values of opportunity and freedom.

In the review of CA and pedagogic rights literature, we saw that pedagogy and curriculum can expand the valued capabilities of autonomy, agency, critical thinking, and reflection. It was stated that such capabilities can be developed when we move away from an education system focussing on economic worth and employment towards a system that is viewed as future oriented (Saito 2003; Walker and Unterhalter 2007). As mentioned above, autonomy and agency is seen in ownership of the course and the SLICC focus on critical reflection is evidenced within the experiential e-portfolio. The setting of personalised learning outcomes aligned to graduate attributes allows students to develop future oriented personal goals such as communication skills and professional skills.

However, despite the opportunities of autonomy, freedom and ownership of capability expansion there are several contextual factors that influence individuals undertaking SLICCs. Autonomy and freedom are constrained by the influences of various stakeholders and the co-existence of individual responsibilities alongside collective. While a student may undertake self-directed learning, choices are shaped by external considerations such as ethical individualism, which emphasises the collective role of individuals alongside others (Robeyns 2005). Topic choices are further shaped by institutional values including those outlined in graduate attribute frameworks and cumulative previous educational experiences, which are influenced by the wider socio-political sphere. As such, educational freedom is negotiated between complex interactions between students, teachers, the institution, policy makers, and the wider society. These contextual factors can also lead to SLICCs overlooking freedoms or functionings. As Saito (2003) notes, “there are so many opportunities that we are not even aware of in our daily lives” (27). Course topics chosen by students in this research were linked to their degree learning. This places increased significance on institutional graduate attributes, which underpin programme learning outcomes and influence which attributes are deemed “valuable”.

A further theme evident in CA and pedagogic rights literature is that of social justice and contribution to society. From this research, the extent to which SLICCs align with and promote these values remains unclear. SLICCs do not require students to focus on wider social justice issues such as human rights and equality, meaning that Boni and Walker’s (2013) notion of weak agency features more prominently than strong. Indeed, by stipulating a focus on the University of Edinburgh's outlook and engagement mindset, which encourages global citizenship, we would be removing agency from students. As a result, individuals who incorporate strong agency into their SLICCs are likely already interested in issues of social justice and social good. It can therefore be said that weak framing, which gives students the opportunity to self-select their SLICC topic, can result in a diminished focus on social justice. One method of overcoming this is to embed social justice within discipline curricula. As my institution is undertaking an institutional curriculum review, this is an ideal opportunity to explore social justice within graduate attributes and how strong agency could be embedded into programmes across the institution. As students in this study chose topics related to their degree programmes, embedding CA strong agency could lead to an increase in students engaging with social justice when undertaking SLICCs. Acknowledging the challenge of change at such a level, amendments could be made at SLICC course level. For example, the course toolkit could be revised to forefront social justice by including guiding questions that encourage students to consider the wider societal impact of their proposed experience.

Overall, we can see that SLICCs align with both capability approach and pedagogic rights values and, through placing the individual at the centre, can enhance capabilities and human flourishing. Moreover, in agreement with previous literature, this research shows that pedagogic rights can helpfully complement the CA when focussing on pedagogy and curricula within education. It is acknowledged that further exploration is required as this small-scale study has yet to confirm the extent to which these student-led courses may be used as a vehicle for social justice and collective action, and the full extent to which students’ social contexts influence course topics. In future research on student-led learning it would beneficial to ask how courses such as SLICCs can be developed and used to engage learners with important social justice issues and whether a wider institutional curriculum focus on social justice could encourage increased interest in this field.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rowan Murray

Rowan Murray is the Head of English Language for Medicine, Veterinary Medicine, Science and Engineering at the Centre for Open Learning in the University of Edinburgh. She is also a current PhD in Education and Social Justice candidate with Lancaster University. Her research interests include educational transitions, decolonisation, critical pedagogy, and English for Academic Purposes.