'Case Studies of PDP in Practise

A Series of Case Studies highlighting examples of
PDP practice
Contents:
Page
2. Case Study 1
Dr Jayne Stevens, Principal Lecturer in Performing Arts, De Montfort University
5. Case Study 2
Dr Alan Maddocks, Loughborough University, Civil and Building Engineering degree
programmes
7. Case Study 3
Dr Rosie Stacy, Senior Lecturer in Medical Sociology, Department of Primary Health
Care, Medical School, Newcastle University
8. Case Study 4
Dr Sue Prince, University of Exeter, Law
10. Case Study 5

Val Humphreys University of Central England, Law
11. Case Study 6

Elizabeth Rouse London College of Fashion, Art and Design
13. Case Study 7

Della Fazey, University of Wales Bangor, Sport Science
15. Case Study 8

Dr Angela Smallwood, University of Nottingham, English
19. Case Study 9

Andrew Holmes, University of Hull, Centre for Lifelong Learning
LTSN Generic Centre 1

A Series of Case Studies highlighting examples of PDP practice
Case Study 1
Framework for describing PDP practice
Author: Jayne Stevens

Institution: De Montfort University
Subject/programme context: Dance & Performing Arts
Key words that capture your approach: Learning from experience
Email address: jstevens@dmu.ac.uk
Description of practice/process
I am a Principal Lecturer in Performing Arts and, since 1992, Subject Leader for Dance at De
Montfort University. I am a Teacher Fellow of De Montfort University and a National Teaching
Fellowship Award holder. I direct an FDTL Phase 3 project which is investigating the use of
reflective practice in Dance and Drama education.
At De Montfort University Dance is a subject in its own right and part of programmes in
Performing Arts on three university campuses and at two associate colleges. It is taught from
HND through BA and MA level to research degrees. I provide academic leadership and
operational management for the subject. My role includes developing the curriculum and
promoting innovation in teaching, learning and assessment within the subject. I teach on a
broad range of undergraduate and postgraduate modules in Dance, Theatre and Performing
Arts.
At De Montfort dance aims to equip graduates with practical, creative, critical and interpersonal
skills to enable them to approach a broad range of careers both within and beyond the
Performing Arts. Many of those who do work within performance might be described as ‘portfolio
workers’ putting together a variety of projects and employments and having responsibility for
designing their own career development. Dance therefore encourages flexible, interdisciplinary
and creative approaches to enable graduates to change direction in response to changing
demands and opportunities. Practitioners need to be able to learn from their experience and
apply the outcomes of that learning to future activity. My own aim, therefore, is that students
learn how to learn; that they should be informed, adaptable and capable of independent, critical
thought and action. I also want students to be taught and guided by those who are open to new
ideas and who clearly demonstrate that they themselves are continuing to learn and investigate.
I do not use the term Personal Development Planning as such but much of what I try to do as a
teacher and supporter of learning is akin to PDP.
Students will learn more effectively and be able to take control of their own learning if they are
made aware of the processes involved and enabled to manage these processes for themselves.
Learners need support and guidance in doing so and opportunities to practice reflection and
further experimentation. They do not necessarily find the transition to more reflective and
process based learning obvious or easy.
Two examples might serve as useful illustrations.
Published research suggests that many students new to dance in higher education come from
backgrounds in which the products of their dance experiences took precedence over the
process of creative development. I noticed that many students saw creative work as an
essentially private, mysterious activity. They felt abashed at showing work before it was fully
formed and they expected that they ought to be able to ‘get it right’ first time. As a way of
tackling this I tried inviting professional artists to be interviewed in front of students about how
they made their last piece of work. I discovered that students were often taken aback at the
traumas, mistakes and reworks which, given the right circumstances, professional
choreographers do admit to. This had a very positive effect on student choreographers. They
were encouraged and reassured. They also began to identify processes, which they were not
aware of. This was also useful in establishing an environment in which these processes could
be opened up to non-judgmental observation and discussion.
Traditionally the acquisition of technical dance skills has required that learners be dependent,
relatively passive recipients of largely repetitious teaching. Within higher education
environments a more student centred, interactive approach, designed to enable student dancers
to take greater ownership of their learning is being developed. With colleagues I have revised a
series of modules in contemporary dance practice in order to engage the student dancer in
more active, independent and collaborative learning and to introduce methods of critical and
reflective thinking. As part of these essentially practical modules students are asked to prepare
short papers and to engage in small group discussions. These consider for example, technical
characteristics and principles and the individual’s own strengths and weaknesses. This is not
how dance class is traditionally taught. Students say they have found this valuable because it
has focussed their observations and sharpened their thinking. It has helped them articulate and
understand their own practice. It has been interesting to see how, as individual students gain
experience of this kind of learning, they become less dependent on staff feedback as a source
of information and more able to reach their own insights based on their own experience. We
also began to involve students more in assessment procedures as a way of helping them to
understand and achieve learning outcomes. Second year contemporary dance practice students
formally assessed their own performance alongside the staff’s assessment. Together we viewed
the video record of the student’s performance and used the student and the staff assessment of
this performance as a basis for exchange and discussion. In preparing for this performance
students were asked to rehearse in pairs so that each could give the other feedback and so gain
experience of reaching an assessment of performance. In ways such as these students are
learning how to acquire skills not via repetitive, habitual practice led by a teacher but by
investigating the basis of their own technique, by reaching their own understanding of
underlying principles and by beginning to set their own targets.
What skills and capabilities are you setting out to develop?
Described above
How has it worked for you?
Students generally respond positively. Graduates supply evidence of the ways in which they
continue to apply reflective learning to different situations. A recent graduate asked by the
university’s marketing department about why he chose the course and what he gained from it
wrote ‘the course enabled me to examine myself as ‘a being that moves’, maintaining my
individuality as a mover, having something unique to offer a prospective employer because of
not fitting into any particular mould. More importantly, the self examination on the course at De
Montfort provided me with a tool for personal development that I continue to apply today. This is
particularly important for me when I am not working as a dancer, which inevitably does happen.
It enables me to continue to investigate how I use myself and challenge the ideas I have of
myself as a physical moving being. De Montfort did not develop me into a particular type of
dancer but one with scope to accomplish many different styles. I believe this is demonstrated by
the diversity of jobs I have had since graduation, from the very ‘pure’ styles to physical theatre,
martial arts and the more commercial work. I do wonder though if this is more about my attitude
as an individual - one that the course enabled me to develop.’
Generic principles
A key principle which underpins effective improvement of performance is the recognition that
reflection of itself, though necessary, is insufficient. Learners need to be able to act on insight
and this requires help in developing conscious awareness and direction of ourselves. In my own
learning and in that of the specialist dance course at De Montfort this is made possible by the
application of the Alexander Technique.
Costs and benefits
These processes take a considerable amount of time and ongoing attention to set up and
implement. They do involve students directly in independent learning and in decision making
and both of these require more support and individual feedback than I think is frequently
acknowledged.

Case Study 2
Author: Alan Maddocks

Institution: Loughborough University
Subject/programme context: Civil and Building Engineering degree programmes
Key words that capture your approach: (RAPID) Progress File / Web-based / Skill
development process / Professional Institution focus
Email address: A.P.Maddocks@lboro.ac.uk
Students on Construction Management degree programmes are inducted in the use of a Web-
based progress file (RAPID Progress File (http://rapid.lboro.ac.uk/) designed to record
achievements and develop skills compatible with the Professional Development Programme
(PDP) of the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB). The CIOB’s PDP is a competence-based
programme and the use of RAPID is intended to mirror the processes required for such a
programme.
Students are inducted in the use of the RAPID Progress File towards the end of the second
semester of the first year, immediately prior to their first six-month work placement. RAPID then
provides a focus to enable students to plan, record and report upon their activities whilst on
work placement.
RAPID was developed as part of the DfEE funded ‘Recording Achievement in Construction’
project (1998-2000). As such the numbers of students who have been inducted in its use (at
Loughborough) is relatively small (60), though it has been extensively piloted in a number of HE
Institutions. Work is currently on-going (through the FDTL funded ‘RAPID 2000’ project) to
develop customised versions of RAPID for other construction disciplines such as Civil
Engineering, Architectural Technology, Town Planning etc. These versions will be implemented
on all undergraduate degree programmes in the Civil and Building Engineering department at
Loughborough and in a minimum of 10 other HE Institutions.
The distinctive approach of RAPID is that the tool has been developed with a clear vocational
focus through defining skills that are compatible with the competence requirements for
membership of the Professional Institutions that accredit the degree programmes that students
are engaged in. As such the approach emphasises life-long learning through the Continuing
Professional Development (CPD) model.
RAPID has three distinct areas of skills: Key Skills (as defined by QCA), Personal &
Professional Skills (as defined by various CPD programmes), and Technical Skills that reflect
the discipline specific skills of the respective Professional Institutions upon which the relevant
version is based. Each version of RAPID will have a comprehensive range of skills that will
exceed those likely to be specified in academic module/programme specifications. Students
self-assess their level of competence in each skill. As such tutors do not assess the skill levels
themselves but do credit (on a particular academic module) students use of the Progress File.

Students have responded very favourably to RAPID, partly because it is Web-based (and
therefore a fairly novel means of recording achievement), and partly because it provides a
framework for their personal and professional development through University and into the
world of work (leading onto membership of the Professional institution that accredits their
respective degree programmes). Staff have been more circumspect but are beginning to
recognise its potential to enhance the learning experiences of their students.
The main facilitator has been the support of the Professional Institutions. This has enabled us to
more effectively promote RAPID to staff and students alike.
Generic principles
• Relevance (e.g. to professional development)

• Emphasis on developing process skills (e.g. action planning skills)
• Simple and straightforward framework / template to audit and develop skills
Costs and benefits
As RAPID has been developed (and continues to be developed) as a result of external funding it
is easy to place a monetary cost on this. The ‘benefits’ (at this stage) are much more difficult to
quantify. However, if RAPID achieves its potential to become a benchmark model for PDP
activity both within HE and the construction industry, then the benefits will far outweigh the
costs.

Case Study 3
Framework for describing PDP Practice
Author: Dr Rosie Stacy, Senior Lecturer in Medical Sociology

Institution: Department of Primary Health Care, Medical School, Newcastle University
Subject/programme context: Medicine in Society course (years 1and 2 of MBBS medical
degree)
Key words that capture your approach: Reflective learning, community-based medical
education
Email address: rosie.stacy@ncl.ac.uk
Description of practice/process :
Context/practice: Medicine in Society course, first year 6 month Family Study project, and a
second year similar Patient Study project. Students write ‘reflections’ section as part of their
assessed report. Seminar tutors facilitate discussion of ‘what is reflection?’, students also
receive handouts (definition) and worksheets with examples from previous reports, and
questions which encourage reflective thinking.
Purpose: to go some way to producing doctors who have self-awareness and who have the
capacity of self-audit, in line with the GMC report Tomorrow’s Doctors.
Initiative: mainly limited to this component of phase 1 (years 1 and 2) but it is integrated with
other activities, particularly through the ethics teaching, in later years of the curriculum.
Subject: Medicine in Society is an integrated course comprising primary health care/general

practice, medical sociology, health psychology, public health and the life cycle (infant
development through to ageing, death and dying from biological and social perspectives). MiS
links closely to another strand of the curriculum, Personal and Professional Development. This
work on reflective awareness crosses the two strands but is facilitated within the MiS seminar
groups.
Time: It has been done for 6 years
Student numbers: 220/year, 440 across the 2 years of Medicine in Society
Voluntary or compulsory: It is compulsory and assessed. The report within which the
reflective section is placed comprises half the continuous assessment in year 1, (slightly less in
year 2) and the reflections section is one of 6 categories on the marking grid.
Support materials: handout, worksheet
Inst. context: policy for this across whole 5 year curriculum under discussion
What skills and capabilities are you setting out to develop? Some evidence that students
have learnt (or at least know what they should have learnt!) through qualitative analysis of their
assessed work, notably in relation to awareness of their own prejudices.
How has it worked for you? It has been evaluated (theme analysis of the qualitative data of
the reflections sections of Family and Patient Study reports, coded and quantified against
Bloom’s taxonomy. Evidence of increased range and level of reflection with increased
educational input to students.
Case Study 4
Author: Sue Prince

Institution: University of Exeter
Subject/programme context: Law
Key words that capture your approach: Responsibility, accountability, employability
Email address: S.J.Prince@exeter.ac.uk
PESCA is an electronic profiling system created and developed over a number of years at the
University of Exeter. ‘PESCA’ is an acronym for the five key areas of development that sit within
the profile. These are: Personal, Employment, Social, Career and Academic.
It is a tool to encourage students to record their achievements, skills and goals, to provide
evidence of their development and to assist them to analyse and evaluate their own strengths
and weaknesses in each of the specified areas. Although records are created within each of the
personal, employment, social, career and academic categories, because PESCA is a database
system it can easily create different ways of reporting the information it holds. Therefore
students can generate their own curriculum vitaes, reports for their personal tutor, action plans
and career plans which can be shown to other individuals or agencies such as careers advisors.
PESCA was trailed in the School of Law at the University of Exeter for an academic year 99/00.
The aim was to encourage its use by students as a tool for their own personal development and
also as an element of their degree relating to their feedback to their personal tutor.
PESCA enabled students to keep a record of the skills they were developing in each of their first
year subjects, namely Criminal Law, Contract Law, etc With regard to their personal
development, PESCA clearly relates to the need for autonomy outlined in the law benchmarks
(QAA, 2000). The capacity to develop independent learning skills was also clear within the aim
related to the law degree. At the end of each term they could generate a report, which was
emailed to the Personal Tutor, detailing their progress; their own individual strengths and
weaknesses, which the personal tutor could then compare to feedback from subject tutors to
draw a clear picture of where a student needed direction and guidance. Students could then
discuss their PESCA termly profile during meetings with their tutor.
PESCA was given to over 200 first year law students at the beginning of the September term.
Students were asked to enter basic information about themselves, their school, qualifications,
hobbies, work experience and their degree programme onto their PESCA disc.
The academic section of PESCA required students to consider their own skills development in
relation to the learning outcomes for each module. They could therefore see what the module
tutor was expecting and relate this to their own personal development. A summary of the
development of these strengths and weaknesses was then generated on a termly basis by the
student for discussion with their personal tutor.
In order for PESCA to become a compulsory element of the degree programme in Law but not
to be formally assessed it was decided to place it in the personal tutor system. Students are
asked to consider more generally their progress in terms of strengths and weaknesses on a
termly basis. This report is emailed to the Personal Tutor in advance of the termly meeting each
Personal Tutor is required to have with their tutees.
By the time of the termly meeting the Personal Tutor should have been able to consider two
documents which will help to inform his/her’s discussion with the student. These documents are
the evaluation report which is from the perspective of the student and the internal report based
on workshop / tutorial performance. The Personal Tutor is therefore able to have a constructive
discussion based on a comparison of both perspectives.
During the academic year students were asked for feedback on their use of PESCA. The end of
year questionnaire found that 91% of students had used PESCA at some point during the year.
Whilst approximately 30-40% had used it to record their skills, information for their curriculum
vitae and their personal strengths and weaknesses by far the greatest usage had been of those
aspects which related to the termly evaluation which was required by their tutor. Almost 90% of
students questioned had used the package to help with this requirement. The termly evaluation
was the only aspect of the package which was seen to be ‘compulsory’. Therefore it seems that
the majority of first year students were driven by assessment when using PESCA.
Students were divided on the usefulness of PESCA – those that had difficulties tended to be put
off by the IT before being put off by the requirement to reflect - over half of students using
PESCA experienced technical difficulties.
We received some very positive student feedback which went directly to the main aims of the
PESCA package: "I am updating PESCA on a weekly basis. I find it useful with regards keeping
a check on my progress ... It is surprising how fast time is going here. If I were not to keep a
weekly record I am sure I would not be able to remember all that happens. It is certainly helpful
to set personal goals and then work towards them"
The immediate aim is to overcome the technical problems and the frustrations associated with
them so that students are not put off as soon as they encounter PESCA. Work has also been
continuing on the development of the tool, in the light of student feedback, so that the reflection
required is clear and students can see their own progress and development. Time has also
been spent on determining how PESCA can be most appropriately supported and more
importantly valued by academic staff.
Generic principles
The idea that thinking reflectively requires you to think about the significance of the things that
you do at many levels – social and educational – John Dewey.
Costs and benefits
There are huge costs associated with setting up the system and ensuring that it works
effectively – it involves a change of culture. We have been developing this system at Exeter for
at least the last three years and are still continuing with developmental issues at every level.
Clear benefit is that it provides a structure to things that might be happening anyway or maybe
are not happening but need to.

Case Study 5
Author: Val Humphreys

Institution: University of Central England
Subject/programme/learning context: LL B
Key words that capture your approach
Email address: valerie.humphreys@uce.ac.uk
In 2000/01, we have piloted the use of Student Progress Files by our Year 1 students (ft and pt
– approx. 220 in total). These have taken the form of a learning log, and underpin our Personal
Tutorial Processes. Students meet regularly with their tutor, individually and as a group and
record achievement, based on the Law benchmarks, in their file. The File is designed to
encourage reflection on the learning process, and planning for personal and career
development. The activity is compulsory, and the File is intended to remain with the student
throughout her/his time with us.
Using the process is a learning activity in itself, and we feel demonstrates in particular, skills of
communication (oral and written), reflection and self-awareness, and time-management. It forms
15% of the assessment of a 24 credit module.
Students have been very positive and have broadly supported and enjoyed the process.
Reaction from staff has been mixed, but most believe it to be a useful adjunct to our other
support systems. There is a general feeling that assessment of the process is essential for it to
be taken seriously!
The main barrier has been the additional workload on already over-burdened academic staff
Costs and benefits
There is a high resource cost in terms of staff time – both in developing and monitoring the
process, and in staffing it. However, there is a widespread feeling that the benefits outweigh
these costs, in terms of student support and, hopefully, retention.

Case Study 6
Author: E. Rouse
Institution: The London College of Fashion
Subject/programme context: Undergraduate framework in art and design, communications
Key words that capture your approach: Integrated, Visible and explicit, Participatory
learning
Email address: e.rouse@lcf.linst.ac.uk
Our approach is currently undergoing further development, We are in the process of revalidating
our undergraduate courses within a common credit framework. As part of that initiative we are
introducing a common approach to PPD (Personal and professional development) PPD
encompasses PDP, career management and key skills.
It builds on an initiative the Learning to Learn unit first introduced in 1995 into two courses for
which I was responsible. This was delivered as a one term package and provided a participatory
learning experiences in which students focused on the following areas: approaches to learning,
peer and self assessment, communication, working in teams and visual language. Student
feedback and evidence form assessment showed that students developed a greater awareness
of effective learning and teaching, developed strong peer relationships and team working skills,
were able to identify their strengths and weakness and develop a mature approach to their own
students ship. Originally this was delivered as separate area of the curriculum to small groups of
10-12, but resource pressure eventually pushed group sizes up to 20. It was not explicitly
assessed. It was supported by a staff development program but its success was dependent on
the commitment of the team and was adversely affected by staff changes.
When we developed a part time course this programme was expanded into 3 units - one at each
stage - Induction to learning, Developing learning skills, and Personal /career development Unit.
This has combined some element of the learning to learn approach but added a focus on
careers and was delivered by non-course team members. It has been successful in preparing
students for assignment but has been hard to timetable effectively. As the first session of an
evening programme, it has suffered from poor punctuality. It has been assessed via a learning
journal and the learning journals are becoming very effective means of students developing and
recording a reflective approach.
This development was also informed by work on career management skills undertaken at LCF.
This focused on the personal and transferable skills that will be required by students to access
the work place and to manage their careers throughout their lifetime. In conjunction with the
Careers Service LCF had developed a Careers Education and Guidance policy, and as part of
the implementation plan we ran a pilot of three different models of career education. A key
finding of the pilot was that careers education, and career management skills in particular, that
are integrated into mainstream learning have greater success and that students show more
commitment to this area of work if it is assessed. Many existing components of the curriculum
can become vehicles for developing careers management skills in our subject areas: team
projects, industrial placements, study skills, diagnostic assessments, live projects, student
presentations, business orientation projects, research projects, and degree shows.

We have also carried out key skills mapping exercises on all programmes as part of the
preparations for subject review. The nature of our subject disciplines and the vocational focus of
the courses means that it has been a matter of identifying and making explicit the development
and assessment of key skill rather than the introduction of key skills into the curriculum.
Building on these initiatives and work done in key skills we are now developing a model of
integrated delivery and assessment. This has already been implemented in one course and is
now being introduced to all courses in the undergraduate framework. The are of curriculum is
entitled Personal and Professional Development. Although it is not a separate unit of study, the
title and description in student handbooks spells out for students that there is a strand which
runs through their programmes that specifically addresses their development in preparation for
future study, work placement and employment. Delivery is integrated but not invisible and
particular sessions will be signposted to students so they are aware of its purpose, as is
assessment.
A reflective approach to learning is underpinned by the tutorial system, and students are
required in tutorial to use their learning experiences and to discuss, develop and change their
approaches to learning, and to develop action plans and learning goals.
Currently 200 students involved, by Oct 2001 500, and by Oct 2003 1,500.

Case Study 7
Author: Della Fazey

Institution: University of Wales Bangor
Subject/programme context: Sport Science
Key words that capture your approach: accessible, flexible, supported, student-owned
Email address: d.m.a.fazey@bangor.ac.uk
1st year students within my School are introduced to the Personal and Professional Portfolio
during Welcome Week. The purpose is to provide students and tutors with a means of
evaluating and recording progress within the degree programme and to provide students with a
means of organising and planning activities more generally for personal development. Students
are given a folder which contains some pro-forma and the purposes and process is explained in
a workshop. Following this there is a series of individual tutorial meetings with their personal
tutor, which occur at certain times of the year. At each meeting different forms are filled in by the
student in preparation for the meeting (e.g. an introductory, CV-based form for the first meeting)
and at each meeting a carbon-backed report is agreed that indicates what was discussed and
what actions were to occur on the basis of the discussion. Sensitive, private information is not
recorded on these forms although it may have been discussed. The tutor retains a copy of the
report. Students are advised to build up their portfolio to demonstrate what they can do /
experiences they have had. Discussion with the tutor also includes consideration of feedback
from work and opportunities that are available for achieving personal goals. In year 1 there is no
credit awarded for the activity but students assume that this is what is required for university
students. Effectiveness at this stage depends on an interaction between the commitment of both
the tutor and that of the students.
In year 2, this year, the portfolio work has been continued but is less structured with the
responsibility being handed over to the students to a greater extent. In the portfolio are recorded
activities that the student wishes to present for his/her skills module (10 credits). In this module
students have to complete 5 units of work of approximately 20 hours each. Categories for these
units include qualifications (e.g. First Aid, Coaching qualifications) and professional placements
(e.g. shadowing a physiotherapist, teaching in school, Camp America). Students arrange their
own experiences or sign up for those that are offered. A student chooses activities that are
personally relevant. The portfolio, however, is not there just for the reflection and planning of the
skills module but asks students to consider their academic progress in relation to aspirations
and expectations (e.g. what overall grade do you want to achieve this year? In which modules
will you achieve this grade and in which might you struggle? Why? What can you do about it?
Discussions about career options also arise and these often raise questions about the best use
of the skills module for CV purposes.
In the final year of the degree we do not, at present use a portfolio though the present 2nd years
will continue to develop one if they wish. On the basis of their record they will be asked to write
a brief statement of their achievements which will be left with personal tutors to use for
reference purposes.
Future developments include: within the School – next year a new Level 2 module has been
created which is called Personal and Professional Development (10 credits). This is a core
module for Single Honours students in the School. The learning outcomes include
demonstrating the ability to plan appropriately for personal and professional progress and the
portfolio will be assessed accordingly. Within their portfolio students will have to provide
evidence that they have planned for and completed units similar to those in the Skills module
described above. They will also be expected to demonstrate reflection and planning in their
academic work and for employability. The process is still embedded within the personal tutor
system and there will be a minimum requirement for tutor-student contact during the year. 1st
and final year students will use the portfolio as is envisaged at present with a requirement in
year 1 and an option in the final year of study.
Future developments at university level: a working group is, at present, considering the use of a
pan-university IT based system that was initially developed (but never entirely complete) during
a project from 1994-1996. With the advent of new technologies and a new student record
system it is believed that an up-dated version of the original can be developed. This may be
dependent on funding. The student will be able to download information from the central record
system which will also support the tracking of their progress within the year. The ProFile will
contain all the usual elements at different levels of the system e.g. CV-based information (the
record) at the top level with the second level being reflective (e.g. assessment of key skills using
information from the record to provide evidence and evaluation and a third level which will be
the long and short term planning, identification of opportunities, requirements etc. To be
effective, support from personal tutors or similar will be required. The development of a
university system for students is part of the teaching & learning strategy. As yet no source of
financial support has been identified.
Within the Scholl of Sport, Health & Exercise Sciences the present scheme is in its second year
although individual tutors have used systems that are less- formalised for a number of years.
There are approximately 100 students in each year with 10 fully active personal tutors (i.e.
about 30 students per tutor).
See above
Some students are very positive about the process whilst others don’t value it. I suspect that this
is largely an interaction between student pre-dispositions (organised & intrinsically motivated vs.
disorganised & extrinsically motivated) and staff attitudes (committed to student development/
don’t see student development as part of their role &/or lack interpersonal skills). In this School
staff are largely supportive & are involved at a professional level in PDP work. We teach about
goal-setting, motivation, self-efficacy etc. so have an academic background that supports the
work. There are, however, staff who can’t/won’t deal effectively with students – problems with
equality of opportunity for students!
The process is amended each year on the basis of staff & student feedback.
Costs and benefits

No real evidence but it’s debatable as to whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs in
measurable terms – but then we can’t measure, except in the very short term, the positive
outcomes for students. For staff it appears to be an additional burden.

Case Study 8
Author: Dr Angela Smallwood

Institution: School of English Studies, University of Nottingham; Director of the University of
Nottingham PADSHE Project (Personal and Academic Development for Students in Higher
Education)
Context: Personal and Academic Records system (PARs) were developed first in the School
of English Studies and were then customised in a wide range of further disciplines at
Nottingham and, through the PADSHE Project, in 6 further UK universities. They will be
implemented institution-wide at Nottingham for all first-year undergraduates in October 2001. At
the moment they are mainly in paper form but some schools are piloting Internet-PARs (see
below) and Nottingham is likely to go entirely electronic over the next few years.
Key words: Personal tutoring; quality assurance; academic feedback; modularised courses;
reflection; skills; IT
Email address: angela.smallwood@nottingham.ac.uk
PARs were developed to quality assure personal tutoring and to provide support for students’
academic progress after the modularisation of courses fragmented students’ contact with
academic staff. They were first used in 1993 and the University adopted a policy to develop
them for the whole institution in 1996. There is a very high level of take-up by students because
the use of PARs is integral to the workings of academic departments. PARs are not assessed.
The PADSHE approach to PDP can be summarised in six points
• Institution-wide guidelines with scope for individual interpretation by discipline

• Academic-led, via a pro-active, equal-entitlement approach to academic support and guidance
• Dual-purpose records providing
-- PDP for students
-- QAA documentation for departments
• Staff-student partnership in one-to-one discussions
-- academic feedback and progress overviews
-- option choices and forward plans
• Quality-assured personal tutoring
-- published calendar of PAR-related events in every department
-- published baseline agendas for tutor-tutee meetings, agreed by staff and students
• Holistic developmental component: opportunities for students to record and plan
-- skills and career development
-- work experience
-- extra-curricular activities.
Institutional policy is set out in the University’s Quality Manual. Guidelines for departments are
published on the PADSHE website at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/padshe.
Since 1998 the PADSHE team has been working in partnership with C&IT developers in the
Faculty of Medicine at the University of Newcastle on the Newcastle-Nottingham Internet-PARs
Project, a web-based development of the PADSHE principles. Internet-PARs are not intended to
replace the face-to-face meetings between tutors and tutees, but to transfer the records on to
the web and develop the potential of the web to support reflective tools to help the student
prepare for progress meetings and develop forward plans afterwards. Access to a
demonstration version of the tool for managing personal tutorials is available via the project
website at http://info-pars.ncl.ac.uk. A second phase of the project is running 2000-2002
providing:
• consultancy for other HEIs on the practicalities (logistics, resource implications, strategies for
managing change) of implementing PDP on paper or electronically
• a feasibility study on harmonising PDP in HE with the new Progress File in schools
• a development of Internet-PARs for CPD in Medicine and Education.
Skills and capabilities
From the beginning, vocational subjects regulated by PSBs (public and statutory bodies) have
incorporated the evidencing of skills and capabilities into their PARs. Examples include Urban
Planning, Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Radiography. Some non-vocational subjects have
incorporated study skills elements. For students on non-vocational courses transferable skills
have so far been highlighted mainly through voluntary, bolt-on sessions delivered by career
advisors. This area of the PAR at Nottingham will now be complemented by further academic-
led activities arising out of the introduction of programme specifications.
How has it worked?
PARs work well where staff and students work together to customise the concept for a
department individually, creating a version of PARs which is immediately relevant to them and
which picks up on their existing good practice. It works well where it is perceived as integral to
teaching and learning. It works much less well where an existing PAR is imported into a new
department and imposed without revision, or where it is presented primarily as an administrative
chore, the record-keeping made to dominate over the educational value of the process which it
should serve.
Evaluation has shown that students’ responses are very strongly influenced by the attitudes
(positive and negative) adopted by their tutors. In the main, students respond to the
opportunities which PARs offer them but they emphasise the importance of how induction is
handled, of just how PDP is introduced to them.
Staff identify a range of positive points including:
• the value of PARs in defining a minimum standard of tutorial support
• the opportunity to re-evaluate existing provision, to build on strengths and weaknesses
• the value of enabling students to recognise the benefits of all their activities, academic and
extra-curricular.
Staff also appreciate the challenges still to be met:

• accommodating the differing needs of different student cohorts (mature students, part-time
students, international students, etc)
• changing the culture for students and staff
• ensuring that students engage with the process
• meeting the staff training needs, e.g. in providing developmental feedback to students, in
helping students become more reflective learners
• recognising the time commitment required from staff to support a high quality experience.
Generic principles
The key idea behind PARs for academic staff is to build upon, not displace or duplicate, existing
procedures and documentation as the basis for PDP. In consultation with students, staff review
their department’s existing good practice in providing academic support and guidance for
students, bring it all together in a streamlined, standardised system, enhance it in any further
ways needed to meet the requirements of all external bodies (QAA, PSBs), make the provision
fully transparent and the documentation which concerns individual students available to them as
the basis for PDP. In this way, PDP for students is based either in what the department would
have wished to do anyway, or would have recognised the need to do; it brings economies of
effort and a visibility to the department’s system of student support which inspires confidence.
Under PARs, the chief motivators for students are:
• students’ interest in feedback from tutors. Wherever possible, the personal tutor is a lecturer
who also teaches the student and who can discuss the student’s academic progress in an
informed way.
• the idea of having someone to whom to address their reflective writing, in this case their
personal tutor. Most students who would not be interested in keeping a learning diary for
themselves welcome the chance to have an academic sit alongside them in a one-to-one
meeting, however briefly, ready to give them individual attention and to join them in taking stock
of their progress, looking at their performance across the array of modules which they happen to
be studying and across the totality of learning experiences which they have chosen to engage
with while at university.
Costs and benefits
Time costs: An initial investment of staff time is required to customise the PAR concept within a
department. The University of Nottingham has appointed an academic-related PARs
Implementation Manager to co-ordinate development work in departments and provide support
through workshops etc. The ongoing development and updating of PARs, once they are
established, falls within the routine administrative responsibilities of a department’s Senior Tutor
or PARs Co-ordinator, assisted by the school administrator.
The minimum standard time investment for personal tutors using PARs is three 10-minute one-
to-one progress tutorials, per personal tutee, per year. A staff-student ratio of 1:25 is emerging
as the upper limit for effective operation of the current system. Because the meetings are
structured and the students prepare for them, the agendas cover a number of essential matters
at one time and represent a streamlining and enriching of staff-student interaction, although
there is clearly the potential to develop the process much more, if time could be made available.
Internet-PARs will facilitate further ways in which students can be supported to work reflectively
around their personal tutorials, as well as ways in which quality time in personal tutorials can be
further enriched.
Time savings: anecdotal evidence suggests that because the system of academic support is
provided for all, is so integrated and so visible, fewer students than before claim time from staff
on an ad-hoc basis. There are also considerable efficiency gains.
Costs of materials
Paper-based system: The cost per student, per three year course, is up to £8.00, including a
customised, printed ring-binder and photocopying of year-specific sets of documents. Some
departments have attracted business sponsorship to cover the cost of materials provided for
students.
Web-based system: As yet, we have no data on the cost to departments of using Internet-PARs,
as we are running only fairly small-scale pilots during 2000-2001. The University has so far
created two 2-year C&IT posts, one senior, one junior, in our Information Services department,
to interface Internet-PARs with the University’s central data systems and to support the needs of
pilot departments customising the tool.
The University has made these investments in the interests of providing a quality-assured
system for student academic support and guidance across the institution. As more and more
HEIs develop networked learning environments, the support of student learning through the kind
of human contact provided by personal tutoring looks like becoming crucially important. This,
after all, is the point.

Case Study 9
Author: Andrew Holmes

Institution: University of Hull, Centre for Lifelong Learning
Subject/programme context: Student Voluntary Work Skills Development Module
Key words that capture your approach:
Email address: A.G.Holmes@hull.ac.uk
The student union voluntary work skills development module provides a structured framework
whereby students who participate in voluntary activity are given the opportunity to reflect upon
their existing skills base, identify skill areas for current and future development, and develop
enhanced skills through their voluntary work. It is a pilot programme that started October this
year in conjunction with the University of Hull student union sabbatical officers. The aim of the
course is to recognise the transferable skills which students development through their voluntary
work activity and provides them with a framework for reflecting upon their existing skills and
planning their future skills development. The module is articulated against the September QCA
NVQ Key skills at level 4. Skill areas covered; students have a choice from one or more of the
following: 'Problem Solving', 'Working With Others', 'Communication - Oral', 'Communication -
Visual', 'Communication - Written'.
There are 25 students registered on the pilot project. It is offered to any student that is currently
involved in voluntary work through the University of Hull Student Union. Students who are
successful in achieving the learning outcomes gain credit towards the Centre for Lifelong
Learning's Foundation Award programme, which is an initial higher education qualification.
Students receive a study pack (paper based, but can be available on floppy disc or CD) which
contains reading material, pro formas, a skills audit, information/diagnostic test for their learning
styles (based on Honey and Mumford's /Kolb's) plus VAK (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic)
learning style tests, and guidance on how to critically reflect. Students have access to a mentor
and regular tutorial support.
This is a module I developed at the request of the student union. There is a reference within the
University's mission statement to the accreditation of student voluntary work, but at the present
time no real institutional interest. Colleagues have shown interest in the module.
What skills and capabilities are you setting out to develop through PDP?
How do these relate to the outcomes for academic programmes? What evidence do you require
to demonstrate that students have learnt through the process? Does it gain credit? Is it
assessed? If so how is it assessed?
'Problem Solving', 'Working With Others', 'Communication - Oral', 'Communication - Visual',

'Communication - Written' and the skill of becoming a critical self reflector. I also hope that the
students who work their way through this module will become more autonomous learners and
will become more aware of existing skills they have and the skills they need for their future
professional careers.

Students produce a written learning portfolio of evidence, which is assessed against the overall
learning outcomes for the module, which are:
• Be able to identify how skills are learnt

• Have reflected upon their existing skills base
• Have identified skill areas for current and future development
• Have developed appropriate skills through their voluntary work
• Be familiar with and have engaged in the process of becoming a more reflective learner
in terms of their individual skills development needs.
There are also specific outcomes for the transferable skill the student chooses to develop. For
example, Skill Area - WORKING WITH OTHERS (extract below).
You should provide evidence for one category of working with others, either:
• Working with another person on a one-to-one basis, or

• Working with other people in a group situation(s) *
If you wish you may provide evidence for both categories you may do so.
Your evidence should show that you can:
• Identify and develop a strategy(ies) for using skills in working with others over a period of
time
• Establish opportunities for using skills in working with others and identify the outcomes
you hope/aim to achieve
• Plan how you will work with others, and reflect upon how you have done this.
Negotiating responsibilities, methods and working arrangements for achieving your
identified outcomes, as required
• Monitor your progress over time and improve your skills in working with others
• Take a lead(ing) role in managing an activity in ways that help you and others to be
effective and efficient in meeting your responsibilities
• Establish and maintain co-operative working relationships and, where required, agree
ways to resolve any difficulties
• Monitor and critically reflect on your use of skills when working with others
• * For 'Working with other people in a group situation(s)' take a lead(ing) role in managing
at least one complex group activity.
And that you have:
• Improved your skill in working with others

• Self Awareness of the role that your own actions have in affecting the effectiveness, or
otherwise, of the working relationship
And that you able to:
• Reflect critically on your overall strategy for working with others

• Reflect critically on your overall skills improvement/development in working with others
• Identify ways of further developing your skills in working with others
Response from students and the student union so far has been very positive. It is difficult to
answer the other questions until the pilot has finished
Generic principles
Critical self reflection, externally referenced - guided and supported, goal setting and planning.
Costs and benefits
Students are charged a £20 fee (which is being waived for the pilot). In terms of my own time it
has taken quite a while to develop the materials. I do genuinely believe that it helps students to
become better learners; hopefully evaluation of the pilot will prove this.


'Case Studies of PDP in Practise

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

'Case Studies of PDP in Practise

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Series of Case Studies highlighting examples of

10. Case Study 5

11. Case Study 6

13. Case Study 7

15. Case Study 8

19. Case Study 9

LTSN Generic Centre 1

Framework for describing PDP practice

Author: Jayne Stevens

What skills and capabilities are you setting out to develop?

How has it worked for you?

Costs and benefits

LTSN Generic Centre 4

Framework for describing PDP practice

Author: Alan Maddocks

What skills and capabilities are you setting out to develop?

How has it worked for you?

• Relevance (e.g. to professional development)

Costs and benefits

LTSN Generic Centre 6

Author: Dr Rosie Stacy, Senior Lecturer in Medical Sociology

Subject: Medicine in Society is an integrated course comprising primary health care/general

Time: It has been done for 6 years

Student numbers: 220/year, 440 across the 2 years of Medicine in Society

Support materials: handout, worksheet

Framework for describing PDP practice

Author: Sue Prince

What skills and capabilities are you setting out to develop?

How has it worked for you?

Costs and benefits

LTSN Generic Centre 9

Framework for describing PDP practice

Author: Val Humphreys

What skills and capabilities are you setting out to develop?

How has it worked for you?

Costs and benefits

LTSN Generic Centre 10

Framework for describing PDP practice

LTSN Generic Centre 11

LTSN Generic Centre 12

Framework for describing PDP practice

Author: Della Fazey

What skills and capabilities are you setting out to develop?

How has it worked for you?

Costs and benefits

LTSN Generic Centre 14

Framework for describing PDP practice

Author: Dr Angela Smallwood

Email address: angela.smallwood@nottingham.ac.uk

The PADSHE approach to PDP can be summarised in six points

• Institution-wide guidelines with scope for individual interpretation by discipline

• a development of Internet-PARs for CPD in Medicine and Education.

Skills and capabilities

How has it worked?

Staff identify a range of positive points including:

• the value of PARs in defining a minimum standard of tutorial support

• the opportunity to re-evaluate existing provision, to build on strengths and weaknesses

Staff also appreciate the challenges still to be met:

LTSN Generic Centre 16

• changing the culture for students and staff

• ensuring that students engage with the process

Under PARs, the chief motivators for students are: