Evaluating PDP:

1
Evaluating PDP
Lessons learnt from co-ordinators first year
experience in three Schools
Fergal Ennis, Felicity Savage, Claire Weston,
Coral Huang and Shumaila Yousafzai
2
Project aims

• Review and compare approaches across three
  Schools in Cardiff University
• Evaluation of current approaches
• Action plans for improvement of provision?

3
Background

• Dearing Report 1997 ? Progress File
• transcript of achievements
• means by which students can monitor, build and
  reflect upon their personal development
• ? PDP
• QAA 2001
• should be operational across the whole HE system
  and for all HE awards by 2005/06
• 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.

4
CU minimum expectations for undergraduate PDP 1

• Provide opportunities to engage in PDP process
• Opportunities at every level clearly outlined
• Opportunities introduced at start of programme
• Opportunities/rationale to engage articulated in
  e.g. handbooks, module outlines

5
CU minimum expectations for undergraduate PDP 2

• Evidence of links between PDP and learning
  outcomes/curriculum
• Named individual to support the process
• Recording facility, to encourage / structure
• Promote as an holistic development process
  opportunities inside and outside curriculum

6
Recognised types of PDP (Clegg and Bradley, 2006)

• Professional for vocational degrees which are
  job specific e.g. Optometry
• Employment aimed at CV development etc for
  specific job applications e.g. Biosciences,
  Computer Science
• Academic development of thinking and learning
  skills, which may be subject specific
• e.g. All three!
• Often occur as crossover / combinations

7
School context

• Named member of staff as PDP coordinator
• Student numbers / staff training
• Avoid increase in workload
• Utilise current practice rather than create new
• Vocational aspects
• Accrediting body requirements

8
School Approach BIOSI

• Induction week talks (PDP at 4.00 Friday)
• Literature packs
• Specific forms developed for skills audits,
  achievements and evidence, and tutor meetings
• Curriculum mapping
• Substantial use of personal tutoring system

9
School Approach OPTOM

• Minimal support for named coordinator
• Zero effect on other staff workload
• Delivery of lecture in Study Skills module
• Generic PDP materials on Blackboard
• Substantial subject specific content already
  present, although hidden e.g. clinic logbooks

10
School Approach COMSC

• Minimum impact on staff working practice
• Skills modules in each year
• Induction talks and lectures within modules
• Blackboard and ePortfolio
• Personal tutor support
• Staff and student training

11
Monitoring and Evaluation

• University requirements
• Verification against minimum expectations
• Inclusion in annual programme review
• During the year
• Sporadic, anecdotal
• More needed
• Facilitate review and comparison
• Inform iterative improvement
• Evaluation by staff, students and implementers

12
Feedback

• Quantitative
• student questionnaire
• comparison and evaluation
• inform development of feedback and evaluation
• suitable across three Schools carried out same
  in each School before summer
• Qualitative feedback
• comments received from staff (BIOSI 7/85 tutors,
  COMSC 2/35, OPTOM N/A) and students
• reflections of PDP implementers

13
Questions

• Skills development focus
• Awareness of PDP delivery
• Engagement with PDP-related activities
• Blackboard and PDP
• Students perceptions
• Awareness and understanding of PDP
• Skills development and recording
• Engagement / Reasons for non-engagement

14
Awareness of PDP and Skills

• gt80 students had an awareness of PDP
• gt90 students say skills/learning cross over
• All expect to learn transferable skills at
  university, but many did not expect to develop
  reflective skills

15
Hidden PDP
OPTOM
Despite the fact that all keep a clinic logbook
specifically designed for this purpose
16
Lost PDP

• Induction week PDP talk at 4.00 Friday

BIOSI
17
Delivery methodsPersonal Tutors

• Personal tutor support can work and does work
• Awareness/training, enthusiasm, time
• Doesnt work if tutor is disinterested
• Consistency across tutors essential
• Need feedback from students and staff on
  particular individual interactions
• Need monitoring procedures for PDP tutorials

18
Encouragement
19
Delivery methodsBlackboard

• 100 use Blackboard at least once a week
• 12 used PDP materials
• Very few with access used ePortfolio
• Promote Blackboard materials
• Providing starting points

20
Is it worth doing / improving?
In BIOSCI, some students told by tutors that PDP
was a waste of time
21
Non-engagement
22
Conflicting objectives?

• Student-led, School-structured
• Encouraged, but optional with no concrete reward
• Poor distinction between Product and Process
• Explicit in own module, or embedded and / or
  hidden, perhaps to the point of being lost?
• Polarising staff views

23
Approach

• Decide whether to take a minimal approach or to
  do it properly half-baked doesnt work, wasted
  effort
• Portfolios and evidence increasing in the
  workplace for promotion / accreditation
• Requires resources staff time, training etc.
• Monitoring process links to credit bearing
  modules, e.g. logbooks, CV for references

24
Example proposals

• OPTOM accredited logbook with reflective
  component more-so in 2nd and 3rd year. Evidence
  gathering for skills / competencies.
• BIOSI simplify forms and talks in response to
  comments received, avoid induction week overload.
• COMSC credit-bearing development of ePortfolio
  within Communication Skills module.

25
Monitoring and Evaluation

• Student engagement vs. School provision
• Delivery influencing engagement
• Value
• Students
• School
• Short- and long-term
• Process vs. product
• Mark-scheme contradicting personal reflection

26
Evaluation next steps

• Follow-up questionnaire to develop points of
  interest
• Alter existing monitoring questionnaires in
  Schools
• Look into more in-depth periodic interviews by an
  independent person
• Look into improved online statistical tracking
• Focus on student engagement and the (short- and
  long-term) value to students
• Emphasis on value of process rather than simply
  work product