Transcript Developing and Implementing Institutional Policy on PDP

Developing and Implementing
Institutional Policy on PDP
“J”
University of Plymouth
A bottom-up approach to PDP’s,
offering a choice to Departments : an
evaluation.
Dr Dave Croot, University of
Plymouth
Aims of this session(1)
• Overall : Facilitate discussion about the
pro’s and con’s of a bottom up approach.
• Initially
– describe & review the institutional context at
Plymouth,
– describe the evolution of PDP in different
discipline contexts
– describe our involvement in National Projects
– describe where we are now (Nov.2001)
Aims (2)
• Review recent changes in the context
• Evaluate PDP development in the context of
the recent cultural developments at
Plymouth, and provide a SWOT analysis.
• Open up to discussion in context of other
institutional frameworks.
Institutional context
• 1992 Institution, with diverse range of
programmes across 6 Faculties.
• Split campus (4 main sites, spread over 50
miles from Plymouth to Exmouth)
• Additionally serves as focus/hub for
regional partnership of 22 partner colleges
across Cornwall, Devon & Somerset.
(Geographical spread is over 200x100
miles!).
• Growth in student numbers in last 10 years
has been substantial, with ever widening
participation, and broadening portfolio of
programmes.
• Significant changes have been : growth of
Foundation/Access programmes;
continuation of national and local
recruitment bases, (depending on
programme); changes in student
expectations; lack of change in staff
expectations; increased pressures on staff.
Institutional responses to
change(1)
• 1990’s witnessed widespread debate on
coping with increased numbers,decreasing
unit of resource, and need to develop more
autonomous/independent learners for needs
of employers.
• The outcome was the University-wide
framework called the “Student Centred
Learning Initiative” (SCLI). Pedagogical
underpinning was Kolb learning cycle, of
reflection, action planning, implementation.
Institutional responses to
change(2)
• Concurrent with the development of SCLI
came the articulation of the need to develop
Key Graduate Attributes and Skills, in
addition to discipline-based ones.
• The KGAS agenda was intimately bound
with the SCLI one and implemented to
varying degrees across the institution
(although policed through skills mapping).
Institutional responses to
change(3)
• Increased diversity of educational
background, widening participation, and
increased numbers led to poorer Stage 1
performance (as measured by traditional
methods), and in some cases retention rates
were suffering.
• Issue recognised in 1990’s and a Policy
document on “Transition to HE” is now
being implemented (2001/2), in a variety of
ways, in an attempt provide a more
seamless transition.
Response to change : review
• Need for widespread change is often
recognised by individuals (in Departments
and Educational Development).
• Communication routes for articulating these
messages upwards are poorly developed
(except in the case of EDS).
• Development of policy, driven by bottomup needs is very slow.
• Articulation/action based on policy is
patchy.
Discipline-based PDP’s
• A range of discipline based PDP systems
have evolved as consequence of different
drivers.
• Engineering, Health, Education PDP’s
developed in response to demand from
accrediting professional bodies.
• Geography, Marine Sciences, Geology
profiling systems arose from recognition of
pedagogical need, rather than external
drivers.
• To an extent, the strength and direction of
the drivers determine the outcomes (the
nature of the PDP system that evolves, and
the extent to which it can respond to
change).
• Lets look at four contrasting schemes which
have grown “from the bottom up”:
– Geography and Marine Sciences
– Engineering and Education
Profiling in Geography
• Geography programmes are very healthy
(large numbers, top TQA grade),
Department shifted priority to RAE grade
when TQA achieved.
• Staff priorities = safeguarding research
time, and reducing undergraduate contact
time.
• Profiling therefore developed “against the
flow”.
• Details of Geography Profiling in packs.
– Geographical Sciences
• Geographical Sciences has one of the most fully developed
approaches. It is built on a personal tutor scheme and
embedded in the curriculum through tutorials and a transferable
skills module. It is entirely paper based with a student pack
provided.It is built into the tutorial system and supported by the
involvement of a large proportion of the geography staff in week
by week tutorials with five to eight students. Each student also
has his or her own individual 15 minute tutorial each semester.
It starts with an Entry Statement stimulated by a ‘Hello Form’
and covers aspects such as interests, career intentions etc.
This is followed by a skills profile then by an action plan in which
they have to identify actions on skills; knowledge; personal
experience and work experience. In the second semester,
tutorials focus on progress with the action plan. There is a
similar pattern in the second and third years but with a shifting
focus related to levels descriptors.
Profiling in Marine Sciences
• As in geography, there are no external
drivers in the form of accrediting or
professional bodies. Staff were therefore
free to develop a programme suited to their
particular needs.
– Marine Sciences
•
PDPs are integral to two 10 credit first year BSc. modules ‘Core Skills for Marine Studies’. Approximately
30% of the marks are for the PDP elements. The modules run across the two semesters, aiming to:
•
‘Increase awareness of the need for high quality core skills; enable students to be able to assess their own
areas of strengths and weakness; to provide support in the development of skills in studying/personal
management and the use of standard IT applications and statistical techniques’.
•
Students produce a PDP that records their development and offers a process to support them through their
programme of study.
•
The process in semester 1 involves them in; reflection on entry (in which they have to identify the processes
that show you can in fact change things); identification of their learning styles; a SWOT; action planning and
employment skills. Semester 2 includes skills development mapping; a 3500 word reflective report on each
of 16 skills and completing a mapping grid – an example of one of these reports is included.
•
The role of reflection is crucial, the module leader comments:
•
‘As soon as they are reflecting on what they can do and what they can’t do – they are doing it. When they
realise they can change themselves - they realise that they have to change themselves …’.
•
Delivery is mainly by the module tutor with other staff contributing some sessions. Some of the marking is
done by graduate teaching assistants. A surprising finding is that tutors marking students reports and
essays actually enjoy it. This surprises them too. It appears that it makes a welcome change from the kind
of marking work they normally do and that it provides an insight into students as people and opportunity to
help with and observe their progression. These factors are crucial to the job satisfaction of tutors and are
elements that the increase of student numbers (240 on this course) has eroded. Tutors find that students
put in more effort than they expected. It is most productive with the good and average students.
Profiling in Engineering
• Civil Engineering suffered downturn in
applications in 1990’s, and retention rates
were also becoming a problem (nationally).
• Industry requires a CPD log throughout
undergraduate programme, but
undergraduates have traditionally been
reluctant to engage.
• Profiling seemed to offer possibility of
addressing both agendas.
– Civil Engineering
•
It has now been running for three years. Initially it was introduced as a part of a response to high failure
rates and the drain on staff spent doing extra tutoring and chasing weaker students. In the first year of
delivery was paper based and was hated by the students – there was 'too much paper', and students
couldn’t see the point as no marks were awarded for completion. They also disliked the SWOT exercise particularly having to identify their weaknesses!
•
In the second year the process was still not linked to assessment but was organised through ELEN, the
computer based software platform. This is proving more popular especially where feedback is generated
from the software. It appears easier for students to accept advice from a computer than from a tutor!
•
The next steps are to extend computer feedback to incorporate action plans and targets.
•
The current situation is that it is now fully computer based and a recognised part of a module for which
marks are allocated. The relevance and value of the process is reinforced by the industry, which has a
requirement of a CPD log. Staff keep copies of the ‘public parts’ of the student’s PDP to help them write
references.
However students still regard it as a chore and the module leader feels it needs to be more fun. He also
notes:
‘It has been observed in this school that students are more focused on their past than on their personal
professional development and are more likely to accept a reflective PDP. It is hoped to use this as a basis
for future action planning’.
•
•
•
Interestingly the word from previous graduates is that it helps them get jobs and to ‘steal a march’ over
other applicants. They put a value of an extra £2,000 on the annual salary as attributable to this factor.
The fact that they have had to articulate their strengths, work on their weaknesses, reflect on and action
plan their development has given them both insight into what they offer an employer and the language with
which to articulate it. This informal feedback from peers is having a much more motivating affect than tutors
can generate.
•
A copy of the introductory PowerPoint presentation given to initiate new students to the process is provided.
Profiling in Education
• BEd. Primary students keep their Profile as part of their Education Studies work,
which also incorporates KGAS. It contains summaries of their progress; needs;
action plans plus feedback from tutors and mentor, and constitutes part of a
portfolio they are required to produce at the end of Year Three. They are given
examples of SEEC Level 3 descriptors as guidance for approach and coverage.
Their write up is presented professionally as a part of their Information and
Communication Technology work and can be taken along to job interviews. They
can incorporate existing skills – although they have to find a way to ‘prove it’ and
reflect on it – as well as new skills.
•
In the best cases, student’s profiling work has led to changes in the Institution. There are no
marks allocated to it, they take responsibility for it and do it as they recognise the benefits
and that it is in the interests of their own development. They take responsibility for
producing and maintaining a portfolio to show evidence and a statement against each of the
KGAS outcomes. It is dealt with practically and forms the basis of their work on
communications; work based learning; IT and group work.
•
They are provided with a good quality folder to collect this work in and they are supported by
occasional personal tutoring in ‘Profiling Conferences’ with Professional Tutor and with
Supervising Tutors.
Attributes of existing “bottom-up” schemes














 Entry level/‘hello’/existing skills, interests/aspirations
Introductory session &/or pack to support students
SWOT of existing skills plus reflection
Development in skills of reflection
Links to skills requirements of the programme
Goal identification/Action Planning
Workshops &/or taught skills & or online learning skills and support
Careers workshops
Learning logs or diaries
Progress update and reflection on action plan
Feedback
Skills mapping
CV building/Personal statement development
Consolidation/reflection from over the year or module
Critical evaluation of development
Institutional projects
• In addition to local (discipline-based)
developments, the two key institutional
agendas of SCIL and KGAS spawned some
wider projects:
• SCLI funded project on the transcript
element.
• JEWELS work experience module which is
available across the institution.
• Apart from these two projects there has, as
yet, been no University wide action on
PDP’s.
External involvement
• Plymouth is committed to several national
projects which inform the development of
profiling.
• FDTL funded project led by Brookes &
TVU on the implementation of IT-based
profiling.
• CRA
• UCAS “Advancement” web-based
information and tracking system.
• Working party on web-based information
transfer from UCAS to HEI’s.
Evaluation
• I hope that I have described the
development of profiling at local and
institutional levels and given some
indication of the current state of play.
• I would now like to involve you in
evaluating the situation at Plymouth,
particularly in the light of your own
institutions, and you own role.
• Additional info needed?
• SWOT analysis, in groups of 2-3.
Evaluation of individual
institutional contexts (1)
• Audit. What exists in your place now? How
do you find out? Who are the key players?
• What are student expectations at your
institution? How many have a RoA? Do
they expect to carry this through in HE?
• What are staff perceptions of PDP’s? Do
these perceptions provide barriers to further
embedding?
• Is “organic growth” a useful/helpful model
in your context?
Evaluation (2)
• Would your approach be to :
• embed in existing curriculum
• Replace existing things that don’t work too
well
• Add another layer.
• What drives the response to these
alternatives?
• Individual disciplines will have different
responses.
• How do you handle these?
Points from group1
• Issues of variation in subject cultures
overlain by individuals
• RoA’s some institutions are of an age when
RoA’s were not around
• Received wisdom that those with an RoA
have had a negative experience.
• New Progress File pre-HE should address
this, (coupled with pre-HE staff
development).
• Scotland experience is still very mixed
experience.
Points from group 2
• Diverse background
• Organic growth must be accompanied by
institutional policy.
• Imposition breeds resistance!
• Programme specs: transparency is needed.
Rarely tested against student experience.
• Weakness: Organisations take modules as
“king”. Cultural shift needed to go back to
programme level : holistic approach.
Points from group 3
• Need for bottom up, but needs
encouragement /support infastructure.
• Needs to be coupled with a framework to
ensure equitable treatment.
• Do we assess process or outcome?
• Must be contextualised.
Points from group 4
•
•
•
•
Endorse others.
Staff must buy into process.
Subject cultures.
What is purpose of profiling? To provide
reflective practioners? Record low level
skills?
Points from group 5
•
•
•
•
Going on already in many subjects
Institutional audit needed.
Assignment criteria needed.
External driver to improvement of learning
experience.
• Senior management must be engaged really!
• Must not be seen to be extra work for staff.
• A means to an end not an end in itself.
Points from group 6
• Persuading staff and students to engage in
PDP’s
• Trialling shows that whilst process is
important focus initially, as son as people
realises that an outcome is achieved, then
the outcome becomes the focus instead of
the process.
• How do handbooks articulate messages is
“personal” may equate to “problems”.
• Personal development? What is HE
experience about? What do staff expect of
Points from group 7
• Motivations for involvement in PDP
process. Stage one students are more
focussed on successfully navigating the first
year.
• When do you bring in employability as a
motivational force to engage in PDP’s.
My Evaluation
• Discipline based profiling is embedded in
disciplines as response to a range of drivers. The
discipline base itself is a strength, BUT experience
shows that it is difficult to disseminate practice to
other institutions, even in same discipline.
• Discipline-based PDP’s have been developed as
far as they can be, even with the “buddy” system
which encourages other cognate disciplines to
adopt.
• Staff development sessions on profiling have been
successful, but only attract those already
committed to the concept.
My evaluation (2)
• “Early adopters” have already done so. (? 20%)
• Others will a) “wait to be convinced”, and /or b) wait until
an “off-the shelf” IT based system is available for
adoption.
• Bottom up pressure for institutional roll out/adoption has
limited effect unless communication systems are well
developed, and political climate is favourable.
• Lack of “top-down” drive limits adoption and
dissemination.
• National agendas and bodies like CRA, FDTL,
JISC/JCIEL can be pivotal at institutional level in
providing pressure from “top down”.
Next steps
• Convince senior managers that profiling is an
inevitable, and beneficial development, (on which
we will be judged!).
• Develop strategy and action plan for institutionwide roll out of profiling, comprising two stages :
transcript, PDP.
• Involve partner colleges, and national bodies like
CRA, QAA who can provide additional pressure .
• Make adoption for others VERY easy!
• Move to providing an off the shelf, comprehensive
IT-based system, utilising newly developed IT
learning and communication platforms (Outlook
& Exchange)