PDP – personal development planning/ portfolio

1. PDP – personal development planning/ portfolio An institutional practice initiative with potential to promote social justice Peter Chalk EdD Module 4 Seminar 3

2. A theoretical analysis • What factors • institutional • policy • socio-cultural • Facilitated or prevented the success of the PDP initiative?

3. Why is PDP a social justice issue? • Identified as ‘context’ by Dearing (1997): • “higher education continues to have a role in the nation’s social, moral and spiritual life; in transmitting citizenship and culture in all its variety; and in enabling personal development for the benefit of individuals and society as a whole”

4. Dearing (1997) & social justice • 5th principle: • “learning should be increasingly responsive to employment needs and include the development of general skills, widely valued in employment” • Para 29 in support of widening participation HEIs to expand & support those who are: • “under-represented in higher education, notably those from socio-economic groups III to V, people with disabilities and specific ethnic minority groups”

5. Dearing (1997) & PDP • What employers want... • Para 40 on HEIs adding to a student’s: • “Progress File which records their achievements” • and para 38 on students needing: • “further development of a range of skills during higher education, including what we term the key skills of communication, both oral and written, numeracy, the use of communications and information technology and learning how to learn”

6. QAA (2001) • Interpreted Dearing to provide guidelines: • Progress Files 'should consist of two elements: a transcript recording student achievement which should follow a common format devised by institutions collectively through their representative bodies; a means by which students can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development’ (recommendation of the National Committee of Inquiry in Higher Education; Dearing, 1997)

7. QAA (2001) effectively defined the policy for all HEIs: • “The primary objective for PDP is to improve the capacity of individuals to understand what and how they are learning, and to review, plan and take responsibility for their own learning, helping students: • become more effective, independent and confident self-directed learners; • understand how they are learning and relate their learning to a wider context; • improve their general skills for study and career management; • articulate personal goals and evaluate progress towards their achievement; • and encourage a positive attitude to learning throughout life. • The PDP element of the policy objectives should be operational across the whole HE system and for all HE awards by 2005/06.”

8. At LMU • 2004 – UUMS introduced PDP for UGs • 2008 – Skills Forge introduced for PhD students • 2009 – MSc pilot introduction – two MSc modules in FoC amended to mention it in LOs against staff resistance (email evidence) • Not yet in EdD programme?! 2010?

9. And the HEA? • Set up as the ILT in response to Dearing, says: • “PDP... provides the key to effective progression through learning and work throughout life” (HEA 2006 p5) • Now it’s the key to learning, too... A bold assertion – where is the research evidence?

10. So, why PDP? • Is it what employers want?, or • Is it what students need?, and • Which students are we talking about? • Is there confusion in meaning, aims, audience, what it is, what it is for?

11. What is PDP? • PDP is • Personal Development Planning (HEA) • Personal Development Portfolio (LMU) • personal development planning (LMU) • Personal Development Plan (NHS pdptoolkit.co.uk) • Progress File (Dearing) • At LMU • PDP is outcome • pdp is process • Both embedded in core spine modules & PG in theory, but in practice?

12. Resistance to the PDP initiative • From staff? At LMU, staff found that “students are unlikely to do tasks that not related to assessment” (Chalk 2009) • From students? “Early pilots of PDPs suggested that there was very little student support for this initiative.” (University of Sussex, 2008) • From the institution? “A Steering Group to establish PDP for undergraduate students at Sussex has been established.” (University of Sussex, 2008!) [QAA SED!] • From employers? Are they reading portfolios? (Anecdotal evidence says not, not enough time, not familiar with concept?)

13. Some PDP success stories • Much literature on this! • Including at LMU – e.g. students doing FDA Sports Coaching: “By initially focussing on positive prior achievements, their sense of pride in a confident and successful self-identity, the students seem to have been much more confident about engaging with and sharing their ePortfolios than our more ‘traditional’ students on the honours degree courses, who may come ready-acculturated to the practices of study, personal presentation and scholarship generally.” (Chalk & Blundell 2009)

14. Facilitators/ preventors of success • Facilitators • embedding in curriculum (HEO etc) • assessment related • enthusiastic staff, or students • professional body requirement • software • Preventors • institutional, staff, student resistance • disagreement with policy, or inertia, or ‘doing it already’ • software!

15. References 1 • Chalk, Peter (2009) ‘Introducing an electronic portfolio: results of a one semester pilot’, LMU PDP Pilot Group Report, Investigations, vol 5, no 2, Spring. • Chalk, Peter & Blundell, David (2009) 'Developing a successful academic identity for ‘non-traditional’ students: the role of the electronic portfolio', ePaper, Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, 2.4, March 2009. • Dearing, Ron (1997) National Committee of Inquiry in Higher Educationwww.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/sumrep.htm

16. References 2 • HEA (2006) Personal development planning and employability, HEA. • QAA (2001) Guidelines for HE Progress Files, www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressFiles/guidelines/progfile2001.pdf • University of Sussex (2008) Institutional Briefing Paper: QAA Institutional Audit, May.