WESTMINSTER
EXCHANGE
February 2010
WESTMINSTER
EXCHANGE
University of Westminster
Westminster Exchange is a central academic unit of the University. Our purpose is to promote high standards of learning and teaching across the University. We do this by offering a range of activities to support staff in their efforts to improve the student experience and produce graduates who are self-motivated and independent lifelong learners.
This guide has been designed for colleagues in the University who support students’ learning. This and other Westminster Exchange Guides can be downloaded from:westminster.ac.uk/schools/exchange/resources/learning-and-teaching-guides
For general enquiries contact Davina Saliba
020 7911 5000 ext 3371
or
More Models of Personal Development Practice
at the University of Westminster
A Westminster Exchange Guide
Will C.Whitlock, Westminster Exchange
Edition: February 2010
The copyright in this work is vested in University of Westminster and the document is issued in confidence only for the purpose for which it is supplied. It must not be reproduced in whole or in part or used for tendering or manufacturing purposes except under an agreement or with the consent in writing of the University of Westminster and then only on condition that this notice is included in any such reproduction. No information as to the contents or subject matter of this document or any part thereof arising directly or indirectly there from shall be given orally or in writing or communicated by any means whatsoever to any third party being an individual firm or company or any employee thereof without the consent in writing of the University of Westminster.
© Westminster Exchange, University of Westminster (2010)
More Models of Personal Development Planning
at the University of Westminster
Will C. Whitlock
Westminster Exchange
Contents
Preface
Introduction
University Strategy
Models of PDP
•Model A: embedded skills and extra-modular tutorial support
•Model B: embedded skills, PDP module and extra-modular support
•Model C: embedded skills with multilevel PDP modules
•Managing the Process
•Issues for consideration
e-Portfolio at Westminster
Practice in the Schools
School of Media, Arts and Design
Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages
School of Architecture and the Built Environment
Westminster Business School
The School of Law
The School of Electronics and Computer Science
The School of Life Sciences
Appendix: Examples from Practice in Schools
More Models of PDP
Preface
The previous guide, Models of Personal Development Planning at the University of Westminster, published in 2005, detailed the diversity of approaches and examples of practice in each of the schools of the University. Since then there has been much change in the University both in terms of school structures and course portfolios. Courses have taken on the principles of personal development planning as part ofreview and re-validation, often embedding the process into the curriculum design and course learning and teaching strategy. That is, PDP is increasingly seen as part of the academic approaches that support student learning. This paradoxically makes them sometimes invisible.Additionally, QAA in 2009 issued new guidelines on institutional PDP policy and practice.
Whilst there has been considerable activity in Dearing’s initial concept of a portfolio (and that modern form the e-portfolio), the focus at the University of Westminster and nationally has centred on the ‘process’ of PDP rather than the ‘product’. The principle espoused here is that it is not the portfolio as an entity that should be the primary outcome of the PDP, but the reflective student as a walking, talking graduate who can articulate clearly their high order skills and evidence them in an effective way through a variety of means. It is process not product; reflective and articulate students, not ‘students with a portfolio’, that is of primary importance.
As a result of these institutional changes and evolving strategies, it seemed appropriate to now provide an overview of the current position on PDP at the University and in each of its constituent newly organised academic schools. Additionally, since 2005, there have been developments in the provision of electronic portfolios. Consequently there is a new section in this guide devoted to an overview of e-Portfolios at Westminster, authored by Federica Oradini. What is clear is that the spirit of diverse approaches—’Let one thousand flowers bloom’–is still apparent and the development of the student learning experience is considered holistically as part of curriculum and course design. The introductory sections to this guide have not changed fundamentally from the earlier publication. The evaluation of models of practice in particular are not different. The examples of practice have changed as evolved strategies and new practices. I give my thanks to the authors of each school submission. As these approached will continue to evolve, practices will change. So watch this space for Further Models of PDP in 2015.
Will C. Whitlock
Westminster Exchange
Contributers
Federica OradiniWestminster Exchange
Silke LangeSchool of Media, Arts and Design
Laura BoubertSchool of Sociology, Humanities and Languages
Alan Lamont School of Architecture and the Built Environment
David Chalcraft WestminsterBusinessSchool
Jeanette Nicholas School of Law
Dimitris Parapadakis School of Electronics and Computing Science
Mark Clements School of Life Sciences
1
More Models of PDP
Models of PDP at the University of Westminster
AWestminster ExchangeGuide to PDP
Will C.Whitlock, Westminster Exchange
Introduction
The University’s commitment to skills and employability in the curriculum is embodied in its mission statement and contained within theLearning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (LTAS). Further to this, the University, in line with other HEIs, is committed to the availability of Personal Development Planning (PDP) for all students. This policy was initially developed jointly by UUK, SCoP (now GuildHE) and QAA in collaboration with the HE community, student and employer representatives in response to recommendations(see Box 1) of the 1997 National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, the Dearing Report1.
In February 2001, UUK, SCoP and QAA produced Guidelines for HE Progress Files2 to support Universities and Colleges of HE in developing and introducing Progress Files. In 2009, QAA in collaboration with Universities UK, Universities Scotland, GuildHE, the Centre for Recording Achievement, the Higher Education Academy, and the National Union of Students provided new guidelines to HEIs3. The fundamental understanding of Personal Development Planning (PDP) has remained unchanged and is described as,
… a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan for their personal, educational and career development.
The objectives of the PDP process relate explicitly to student development; to improve the capacity of students to understand what and how they are learning, and to review, plan and take responsibility for their own learning.
The concept sees PDP as:
•a structured process integral to higher level learning;
•learning in a holistic sense, both academic and non-academic;
•involving self-reflection, often not addressed in academic curricula;
•improving the capacity of students to communicate their learning to others, including employers;
•facilitating how students review and evaluate their learning attainment, identify their future learning requirements and plan for their future learning;
•increasing students’ capability in their subject discipline and their employment prospects.
For students, PDP helps them to:
•make links and gain holistic overview of their studies;
•reflect critically;
•become more independent learners;
•become more proactive in their academic study, extra-curricular pursuits and career planning;
•better able to capitalise on their learning in a variety of contexts; and
•be more articulate in describing their skills and capabilities.
Currently all academic schools in the University have developedtheir PDP processes in a variety of ways, as integrated parts of their curriculum and/or though a variety of academic means. Some of these measures are more mature than others having been based upon former good practice or professional requirements. The best have student reflection on learning as the primary process. Many of these processes are still undocumented and not seen (or ‘badged’) as PDP. Many of these see the process as fundamental and not the production of a portfolio. PDP is seen to be most effective when it is
•a mainstream activity;
•linked to the learning objectives and outcomes of programmes;
•undertaken regularly;
•supported and valued by staff;
•supported by institutional structures, resources and expertise;
•owned by the learner; and
•seen to be valued by society (e.g. employers and professional bodies).
Employers are keen to know not only that graduates have a particular skill and can prove it, but also that they can apply that skill in different contexts and provide evidence for using the skill in a variety of different situations. Many employers value the process of PDP. Indeed, many have such procedures of their own, as do professional bodies.
Research review of practice by the Institute of Education4 suggests that ‘PDP can have a positive effect on student attainment’.Theirfindings support the claim that PDP enhances students’ academic learning and achievement and that its development should be encouraged.Examples of current PDP practice at Westminster endorse these findings. This document illustrates some of these practices and attempts to model the various approaches.
University Strategy
In May 2001, Academic Council agreed the University’s HE & Career Management Skills Policy (see Box 2). The two related elements of this policy are the formal identification of skills and employability in course curricula and learning strategies to deliver these opportunities. This process is outlined in the EIC (now part of the larger Westminster Exchange) Guide, How to express your skills policyin your validation or review document. Programmes through validation, review or minor modifications have introduced a skills strategy within the taught provision.
The current view of these principles are embodied within the University Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (LTAS 2009-11). Within this current LTAS, the strategy identifies (page 6) objectives to:
•facilitate students in acquiring a range of skills (built on enquiry-based, research-informed approaches, and values for professional life);
•support students’ lifelong learning through promoting their self-awareness, personal development planning and career management skills; to provide opportunities for work-related learning and career development, in collaboration with relevant employers; and
•develop a wider range of enterprise, work-related learning and voluntary and community-based opportunities for all students, to support students’ applied disciplinary learning, professional and commercial awareness and their development of a range of attributes.
Whilst the focus for development has concerned undergraduate courses, the principles stated here apply too to postgraduate provision.
The need to include graduate skills development and PDP in curriculum design is a formal aspect of the University review and validation procedure. The documents that support this include the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Handbook (the ‘yellow’ book sections 45 and 46) and particular Westminster Exchange Guides5.It features too in the Curriculum and Assessment Enhancement Workshops for courses as they begin review or validation. Graduate skills and personal development planning are therefore considered as integral to the process of curriculum design and the development of the learning, teaching and assessment strategy of the course. They should not be bolt-on extra-curricular components but integrated elements of a whole course strategy. For many courses skills and employability strategies are still evolving,requiringcontinuous evaluation and refinement, but they provide a firm foundation for PDP. These skills and employability components of the curriculum are ‘personal development opportunities’ for students. Appropriate methods of delivery of PDP for postgraduate programmes are likely to be even more particular to the course, work interest and/or professional body.
Progressively recording reflections and plans for of skills and employability, in conjunction with the transcript of achievement, constitute what Dearing referred to as an HE Progress File. The transcript element development of the HE Progress File, which follows a nationally agreed format, has already been completed by the University.
However, for many, the Progress File is an outdated concept. It focuses on ‘the product’, a portfolio; that is just one means of support for students’ iterative and progressive development founded on programme embedded academic skills and employability. Courses primary support is for the process, allowing for the production of a portfolio where it is appropriate for enhancing the process or where this is a professional body requirement. Portfolios are primarily working documents supporting the reflective development and planning process and integrate with local PDP guidance and support procedures.
A student personal development portfolio, consisting of reflective narratives on skills and capabilities and smart action plans for development, has to be supported in the context of an academic programme. Many believe that this is best achieved by incorporating PDP as an integral component of an accredited course of study.
Practical solutions involving electronic materials to support the process of PDP as well as ‘capturing’ it within a portfolio system (e-Portfolio) have developed for various courses. This solution capitalises on the University’s VLE, Blackboard. In addition to providing support to the developing PDP practices across the University, any e-Portfolio allows the user to save a huge variety of artefacts and share all or any of these with other people—for example academic tutors, careers consultants or employers. The section entitled, ‘e-Portfolios at Westminster’ provides a more detailed overview of this provision. E-Portfolios are considered a good vehicle for Personal Development Planning, as they provide support for skills development, self-reflection and career planning. However, not all courses have viewed this as meeting their students’ reflective learning strategies and have developed other embedded means of supporting students’ learning. The objectives for PDP at the University are to require courses to:
•provide a flexible mechanism to allow students tostrategically reflect upon their learning;
•provide a mechanism to allow tutors to contribute to a students reflection and development plans; and
•customise to reflect their different approaches and specific curriculum needs.
References
1Dearing, R. and NCIHE. (1997), Higher Education in the Learning Society: National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, HMSO.
2Developing a Progress File for HE, qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressfiles/archive/summary/
3QAA (2009), Personal Development Planning: Guidance for Institutional Policy and Practice in Higher Education, qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressfiles/guidelines/pdp/
4A systematic map and synthesis review of the effectiveness of personal development planning for improving student learning, EPPI, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London (commissioned by LTSN and funded by the four HE funding bodies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), June 2003.
5Westminster Exchange Guides that inform and support PDP:
- Principles and Processes of Curriculum Design
- How to express your skills policy in validation or review document
- Models of PDP at Westminster
Models of PDP
Will C.Whitlock, Westminster Exchange
On two occasions I have been asked,‘Pray, Mr.Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Charles Babbage(1791-1871) computer pioneer
The diversity of approaches to PDP demonstrated across the University, as illustrated in ‘Practice in Schools’ (page 14), can be seen as following a variation of one of three models for PDP.Other variations may appear as schools, departments, or courses translate these models and construct a strategy in the context of their own disciplines and resource constraints. The models provided here are to facilitate those translations. The University recognises that there is no single model for the integration of PDP within course programmes—one size does not fit all. The diversity, innovation and quality within our taught provision would not be served by a single prescription. The differences between these models are in the nature of the support for each mode of reflection, and the accreditation and assessment of skills development. Each course should consider the most effective model of PDP to meet the needs of theirstudents and staff within their respective discipline context. Indeed, other varieties than those identified here are entirely possible and acceptable. Westminster Exchangeadvises on the appropriate translation of these models and supports their development within schools.
The curriculum-embedded skills and employability components—’personal development opportunities’—within courses have already been identifiedby course teams in the development of skills strategies (see University Strategy, page 3). Students’ reflections on these embedded skills and employability components we can consider as the primary and universal level or mode of reflection. This is indicated as in figures 1 to 4). The signposting of these skills and the evaluation of their attainment is subject to the learning and teaching practices of the modules as determined by the course implementation strategy. An evaluation of the effectiveness of this mode should form part of the course monitoring procedures.
In addition, students will want to reflect upon other academic and non-academic activities—particularly in the context of any part-time employment and community volunteering—in the construction of a personal profile and development action plan. Each model provided here identifies the role of these curricular and extra-curricular components (the vertical arrows). This second level or mode of reflection ( in the diagrams) is where the reflection is the primary task. It is seen in either specialist ‘PDP modules’ (as in the models of figures 3 and 4) of various descriptions and/or particular academic and personal tutorial support (as in the models of figures 2 and 3). The selection of these approaches in different programmes account for the majority of the variations across the University.Portfolio development as a specific mechanism to support reflection and action planning is recognised in these models as a third level or mode (and horizontal arrow in the diagrams). This is considered desirable, but is not a requirement—PDP without a portfolio product is perfectly reasonable.