PDP update: policy and practice

Update on PDP policy and practice in law, based on a paper entitled ‘Reflections on personal development planning in law’ delivered at the 2005 Socio-Legal Studies Association annual conference by Tracey Varnava and Helen James of UKCLE.

Personal development planning (PDP can be considered in relation to a number of key debates in higher education. The development of autonomous, critical and reflective learners is a clear objective of the higher education process, and whether one regards this as positive purely in educational terms or in terms of economic need there is nevertheless broad agreement that such characteristics are emblematic of ‘graduate-ness’. The benchmark statement for law explicitly acknowledges the need for students to develop what it terms ‘general transferable intellectual skills’ – analysis, synthesis, critical judgement, evaluation, autonomy and the ability to learn. While many would argue that the development of such skills has always been part of the mission of higher education, there is a growing recognition of the need to make explicit the processes by which such skills are learned and to record them in ways which are useful both to the individual learner and also to potential employers. This need arises particularly in a context which includes widening participation (which produces more graduates all with very similar qualifications), a focus on linking the outcomes of a university education more closely to economic imperatives and the current concerns about measuring and recording student achievement.

Current policy on PDP

PDP as an item of higher education policy arose initially from the findings of the Dearing Report in 1997, which recognised the need to develop additional processes for evidencing student learning over and above the honours classification system. This view was influenced by evidence from a ‘significant minority’ that employers, in particular, needed more sophisticated information to be able to differentiate between the growing numbers of equally well qualified graduates.

Dearing recommended that higher education institutions develop a system of progress files, consisting of a transcript recording student achievement following a common format alongside a means by which students could monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development.

The debate about measuring and recording achievement has continued. In November 2004 the scoping group set up by Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals to look at this issue reported that “the existing honours degree classification system has outlived its usefulness and is no longer fit for purpose” (Universities UK 2004). The group specifically recommended that institutions should continue to implement PDP as part of moves to developing a new system, on which further recommendations are expected at the end of 2005.

It should be noted that in terms of implementing the policy, institutions retain a wide degree of discretion. For example:

• although institutions are required to develop a common format for the transcript (record) element of the progress file, it has always been deemed ‘educationally undesirable’ for institutions to adopt a common process for personal development planning
• by 2005-06 all students must have access to a progress file that includes the opportunity to engage in personal development planning at all stages of their programme of study
• there is no regulation of the policy to enforce compliance, although in 2000 the Progress File Implementation Group was established to nurture and promote the initiative, as well as to monitor implementation across the higher education system

PDP in practice

In outline PDP involves the learner in:

• planning – setting of targets and how they can be achieved
• action – engaging in the process necessary to reach the planned target/s
• recording – providing an evidence base for the learning and achievement gained in reaching the target
• review – making sense of the recorded evidence
• evaluation – passing critical judgement and reflecting on what should be done to develop and improve
• using knowledge gained – to plan future actions, change thinking, communicate learning and achievement to others

The policy statement issued in 2000 by the CVCP (Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals), SCoP (Standing Conference of Principals), CoSHEP (Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals), and the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education), states that PDP is “a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement to plan for their personal, educational and career development”.

Does it work?

A synthesis of available research addressing the question “what evidence is there that PDP improves student learning?” completed in August 2004 shows that most studies reported a positive effect of PDP on learning, both in terms of student attainment and also on approaches to learning. However, it should be noted that the studies analysed showed little coherence in terms used, research focus or availability of research. There is also a lack of balance, at least in the UK, between descriptive and experimental research testing the effects of the introduction of PDP, which makes it difficult to determine the factors that tend to increase the likelihood that PDP will have a positive effect on learning.

Despite this, the available evidence suggests that effective PDP will be characterised by:

• integration with mainstream academic pursuits
• links to the intended learning objectives and outcomes of programmes
• support and endorsement by lecturing staff, underpinned by support from the institution
• reflects local customs, practices and circumstances with regard to the format and operation of the scheme
• complements good practice inherent in existing activity and practice
• builds upon existing partnerships between learners and academics

In addition, a significant factor tending to increase the likelihood that PDP will be effective is the culture and ethos of teaching, manifested in the teaching and learning strategies and methods of the discipline. The greater the degree of congruence of the PDP scheme with the teaching and learning culture, the less likely students are to be resistant.

In summary

There are clearly many ways in which PDP and progress files can be implemented. A case study of the law school at Glamorgan demonstrates an experience that was in many ways unfortunate, constrained by other events such as revalidation and the introduction of a new computer administration system.

Perhaps the starting point for any successful programme has to be a consideration of what is to be achieved. Properly implemented PDP has the potential to provide the following benefits:

For students PDP should enable them to:

• reflect critically
• become more independent
• adopt a more proactive approach to their academic study, extra-curricular pursuits and career planning
• improve their awareness of the skills they are developing through study of their subject
• make links and gain a holistic overview of their studies within a modular environment
• capitalise on their learning in a variety of contexts

For academic tutors PDP should:

• add value to the learning/teaching experience
• help students to take greater responsibility for their own learning
• facilitate more effective monitoring of student progress
• enable tutors to provide more focused and more effective academic support and guidance
• supply a mechanism for recording the tutorial and pastoral support provided to students, for fostering career-related skills and for writing meaningful employment references
• enhance tutors’ capacity to demonstrate the quality of the support they are giving to students and provide a means of evidencing at the level of individual students that intended learning is being achieved

In addition, it can be expected that an effective system of PDP would:

• increase student retention
• improve student progression
• enhance students key skills
• make students more employable

References

Universities UK (2004) Measuring and recording student achievement London: Universities UK

Last Modified: 4 June 2010