Transcript Progress files at the University of Portsmouth

Developing & Implementing
Institutional Policy and Practice
on Personal Development
Planning
University of Portsmouth
Mission and messages
Mission “to be a centre of excellence
and innovation in education, research,
quality of student experience and the
preparation of students for their future”
 “The Portsmouth Curriculum..aims to
prepare you for working life as well as
academic success” Vice Chancellor’s
web site welcome

University of Portsmouth:
Institutional context for PDP
“We will develop opportunities to enable
students to profile their skills on entry
and to develop and record their
progress as they complete their studies”
Strategic Plan 1999-2004
 No history of any
recommended/mandatory Institutionwide PDP approach

Project work at Portsmouth
(UTLDF)
1998-2000,UTLDF Course based
profiling project – materials developed
by Psychology department and used in
across faculty pilots
 1996 An Introduction to Profiling. A
briefing paper for University staff

Progress Files task group
October 2000 - March 2001
 Reported to APC (Academic Policy
Committee) April 2001

Terms of reference for the task
group
To recommend minimum arrangements
for the delivery of an effective progress
files/profiling system
 To review provision of learner support
and to identify an action plan to remedy
deficits

Task group membership

FHQA (Humanities,
Science)
 PAD (Technology)
 Head of curriculum
development
 Head of careers service
 Head of CS
 Academic affairs officer
 Key skills
representative, PBS






Assistant academic
registrar
Project manager ISO
On entry assessment
and profiling project
leaders
Disability co-ordinator
Head of PDU
Key skills co-ordinator
Task group activities

Learning about QAA
perspective on
transcripts and PDP;
benchmarking links
 Discussions with
HEIs (Liverpool,
Nottingham, Exeter)
 Visiting websites,
reading documents
(Leeds)

Discussions with
course leaders –
could PDP practice
transfer and what
was current
minimum practice?
 Links to other
Policies?
 PDP at Portsmouth
– what was realistic
and achievable?
Transcripts:Task group
recommendations
Portsmouth should adopt the
recommended data set
 Registry will continue to implement a
plan to ensure that the transcript can be
used for the academic year 2002/2003

What are the purposes for
PDP at Portsmouth?

To improve student performance through a
concrete reflective review process and action
planning for change
 To enrich quality in the delivery of courses by
providing an additional layer of student
support and feedback and provide data for
quality review and monitoring.
 To attract students to attend Portsmouth
courses by offering a Unique Selling Point for
the development of student skills
Task group: Recommendations
for PDP at Portsmouth
Infrastructure - relevant student
experiences need to be integrated to
ensure that learning is maximised
 Students will be encouraged to maintain
a file
 Credit for PDP work, years 2 and 3
 Staff development and co-ordination
essential

APC

Accepted report and asked for survey of
current practice to occur before Autumn
2001
PDP Infrastructure: Year 1 Semester 1





SWOT analysis
Time management
tutorial notes
Action planning
tutorial notes
Feedback on course
work, with response
Essay planning
tutorial notes

Notes from midsemester review
tutorial
 Feedback sheet
from course work,
with response
 Notes from exam
preparation tutorial
 Feedback sheet
from course work,
with response
So what are we doing?
Building on what we have - a brown
field site
 Finding out/learning about current
practice
 Focusing on the process not the
recording (other HEIs are working here)
 Starting (slowly) to raise PDP
awareness

Current activities
July 2001 audit – course leaders
 October 2001 – telephone survey
 Report on PDP survey to October APC
 Funding for on-entry assessment
project
 Smaller assessment of IT skills on-entry
project
 Staff development/diagnostic work

On-entry assessment project
Phase 1 – foundation for PDP
development (Phase 2 – further
investigation of PDP practice, Phase 3 –
implementation plan, funding will need
to be sought)
 Phase 1 – criteria for effective practice;
external and internal surveys; guidance
and development for staff; PDP links
throughout (2001/2002)

What have we learnt
(so far) about implementing PDP?
It’s very time consuming to find out about
current practice
 PDP development is not high on the agenda
of academic staff (What is PDP?)
 Work needs to be coordinated and funded
 There will be significant staff development
needs, initially to work towards common
terminology and develop common visions

What we need to do:
2001/2002
Phase 1 project work will need to be
effectively shared with colleagues and
links to PDP developed
 Learn about effective staff development
routes
 Identify staff development needs
 Gain funding this year for Phase 2 (and
Phase 3?)
