Perceptions of personal development planning in sociology and social science: the Scottish higher education context

Dr James Moir and Professor Catherine Di Domenico, School of Social and Health Sciences, University of Abertay, Dundee

Dr Stephen Vertigans and Dr Philip W. Sutton, School of Applied Social Studies, Robert Gordon University

Abstract

In the United Kingdom (UK) it has been just over ten years since personal development planning (PDP) was proposed by the National Commission into Higher Education (Dearing 1997), and, since then, it has become a central feature which has been put into operation across the sector. This has come about as the result of an awareness that in a globalised education and workplace market, students will need to be more competitive in developing and marketing their academic and other skills. Nowhere is this more keenly pursued than in the Scottish higher education system which has adopted a quality-enhancement approach. In this context, PDP is viewed as crucial ‘added value’ aspect of students’ higher education experience.

However, whilst the basic principles of PDP are generally accepted, there is something of a paradox, for at a time when education and work are becoming more globalised, students are being encouraged to look inward at themselves in order to become more self-determined. Yet, setting aside what may be for many sociologists their inclination to be sceptical of such individualist notions, it is therefore possible to view PDP as a paradoxical outcome of an increasingly globalised world. This paper considers this paradox by drawing upon an empirical study that highlights these tensions.

Introduction

It has been just over ten years since PDP was proposed by the National Commission into Higher Education (NCHE) (Dearing 1997). The broad aim of PDP put forward in the report ‘of a means by which students can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development’ (Dearing 1997: 141) has become enshrined in the Quality Assurance Agency’s guidance 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’ (QAA 2001: 28).

This process is now a central feature of the student experience in higher education and has been actioned across the sector in different ways. The basic principles of PDP are action-orientated and cyclical and include the following dimensions:

1. goal-setting and ‘action’ planning;
2. doing (learning through the experience of doing with greater awareness);
3. recording (thoughts, ideas, experiences, evidence of learning);
4. reviewing (reflections on what has happened, making sense of it all);
5. evaluating (making judgements about self and own work and determining what needs to be done to develop/improve/move on).

However, whilst these principles are readily accepted, their translation into curricular developments and relationship with subject provision is less clear. When considering social science provision and how it can contribute to PDP, there needs to be some recognition of the multidisciplinary context in which subjects operate and the changing nature of course provision. Moreover, students in the social sciences, as part of their education, may well reflect upon and critique individualist notions of ‘personal development’ without setting this within prevailing social, political and economic conditions. However, setting aside what may be for many sociologists their natural inclination to be sceptical of such individualist notions, it is also possible to view PDP as a vehicle or tool for encouraging students to engage with the subject, and its relationship to other social science subjects they learn about, in terms of an overall learning process.

This is potentially a significant issue as the first-ever mapping and synthesis review of PDP processes (and their analogues) by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Centre found that most ‘adopted a prescriptive approach to PDP implementation in order to achieve course-specific outcomes’ (Gough et al. 2003: 2). The danger with such prescriptive approaches is that PDP may come to be seen as an imposition rather than something integral to the higher-education experience. By engaging with social-science staff and students in advance of designing a PDP process, a more inclusive approach can be adopted that builds in stakeholders’ views on content and delivery. In this way, PDP processes can be more readily tailored both to the social science educational experience and the Scottish higher education sector context in which PDP will become embedded.

Therefore, if the process of PDP is to become an integral part of the student learning experience, a number of fundamental constructs need to be accepted by staff and students. It is therefore crucial that these processes should be embedded firmly with the rest of the curricula/student experience and not seen as a separate activity or concept. The process also needs to be underpinned by institutional strategies, especially for teaching, learning and assessment and student support and needs to be learner-centred, in terms of supporting a wide range of different learning styles and motivations. The main outcome from such processes in terms of personal development will likely be a significant contribution to students becoming independent, autonomous, self-aware learners – something that many sociology lecturing staff view as essential given the ‘critical’ nature of the discipline. The processes should be relevant to students at all stages in their studies in higher education and employment and link to previous developments in schools and further education. A key feature should be an effective and easily grasped delivery model that helps students engage in a progressive process of collation through a portfolio of evidence such as an e-portfolio approach. And finally, the process needs to be supported, not only by an effective recording model but also by staff who can provide supervision and advice, particularly when students are learning the PDP process.

These aims can be set within the effective learning framework (ELF) model for student learning which has been developed by the Joint Working Group (JWG) of Universities Scotland and the Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA) who were charged with developing an effective implementation model for PDP in Scottish higher education. The concept of ELF is based on the principle that PDP is just one of many processes embedded within a general framework of learning, teaching and assessment strategies, careers information and guidance, and learners’ personal aspirations and experiences. The framework encourages institutions to consider the holistic aspects of the student learning experience and how these should be linked, in terms of (a) the institution directly supporting the student’s learning experience (e.g., by encouraging academic staff to work more closely with careers staff) and (b) how the student integrates their internal learning experience (e.g., by being able to relate what they have learned to their range of employability and transferable skills) through a series of focused learner questions.

At the core of ELF is a self-audit process for students, set within the context of an overall student learning experience represented by considering the three fundamental aspects of academic curriculum, career aspirations and personal experience as a set of interlinked ‘spheres’ of academic, personal and career activity and experiences across the student life cycle. Although the intersections of these spheres represent the focus of self-audit for students, it is also the case that this model can be used to chart the influence of, in this case, sociology and social science staff and students’ ideas about the relationship between them. It was therefore our broad aim to examine staff and student perceptions of the ‘worth’ of this kind of model for planning and implementing curricular development.

This is important within the Scottish higher education context, which is distinct from the rest of the UK sector. One major difference is the four-year rather than the three-year honours degree. This is based, in part, upon the ‘gold standard’ for admission to university on the basis of Scottish Higher Grade qualifications. This one-year qualification is less demanding than the two-year Advanced Level qualification on offer in the rest of the UK, and, typically, students take more than three and sometimes up to five or six higher grades over successive years in secondary school between the ages of 16 and 18. As a consequence, students enter their studies in higher education with a more broadly based general level of education rather than the more specialised A-Level route. This has also continued on into higher education in the Scottish system with students traditionally studying a broader curriculum in the early stages of their programmes. It is also the case that the unclassified general degree which can be awarded after three years of study is still viewed as a valuable award in its own right, although most students enrol for an honours award.

Another important feature of the Scottish higher education system is the emphasis on quality enhancement as a key driver of the quality system. However, this does not mean that quality assurance takes a back seat but rather there is a recognition that improvement and advancement in higher education is very much dependent upon understanding the nature of a system now founded upon wider participation. This is very much within the tradition of an egalitarian approach to education in Scotland and the need to understand and meet the demands of such diversity. It is also the case that a focus on quality enhancement has led to a number of funded projects on a range of interconnected themes. The work of the enhancement themes is planned and directed by the Scottish Higher Education Enhancement Committee (SHEEC). SHEEC manages the programme of enhancement-theme activity in the context of a five-year programme and covers such areas as the first year experience, employability, integrative assessment and flexible delivery. It would be reasonable to say that this approach has attracted considerable interest and praise from those involved in higher education, both from within the UK and overseas. However, it is still the case that despite this distinctive approach, the Scottish higher education system shares many features in common with the rest of the UK, including acting upon sector-wide initiatives such as PDP. In this respect, the Scottish higher education system is much the same as the rest of the UK although the implementation of such initiatives is framed by its distinctive nature.

Project design and methods

As the PDP policy is both UK-national yet necessarily diverse in implementation, it was expected that there may well be similarly diverse student and staff expectations of PDP in national and regional contexts. This project focused upon the Scottish higher education sector and involves an initial investigation of existing PDP provision on undergraduate sociology and social science degree schemes. This informed the development of an electronic questionnaire which social science students in selected universities and further education institutions were asked to complete in order to examine one side of the ‘perception equation’.

Staff perspectives were gained through questionnaires and semi-structured in-depth interviews covering how they regard the new emphasis on PDP as a feature of academic provision. Sociology as a discipline has now extended into a range of multidisciplinary areas within the social sciences, and the aim of this aspect of the project was to therefore consider how it can dovetail with other disciplines in relation to PDP, what it offers that complements these and what it can offer that is unique.

Three main research questions followed from the above:

1. To what extent is the ‘buy-in’ to PDP amongst sociology and social science academic staff and students across Scottish tertiary education within the partner institutions?
2. How, if at all, do staff and students see this as being translated into curricular developments across a range of social-science programmes of study?
3. What similarities and differences are there in the perceptions of staff and students in their understanding of and ‘buy-in’ into the value of PDP within an ELF context?

Unlike more vocationally targeted degree schemes, social science degrees are interdisciplinary and inevitably lead to varied career destinations. Therefore, PDP processes need to be shaped around this diversity, and both staff and student participation at the design stage should be a central feature if PDP is to be successful. Although diverse career outcomes should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness of undergraduate social science, confusion and uncertainty exist about personal development and future employment prospects, particularly in the early stages of social science degrees. It is sometimes the case that in the early periods of such degree schemes, student retention is a major problem. Improving the students’ understanding of the connections between higher education skills, personal and professional development and employment should make a positive contribution to combating student attrition. If PDP processes are to help improve retention rates, then more information is required about student expectations and requirements. In other words, staff and students should be able to engage actively with the PDP process rather than experiencing it as an imposition.

The Dearing Report began the rethinking of PDP and recording student achievement in HE. PDP has come to be seen as a main part of this, and expectations of what it might achieve are high. PDP is expected to improve student progression and retention rates, enhance key skills and help to make students more employable. Beyond such measurable outcomes though, PDP is concerned with personal development, not simply academic achievement or career planning. One part of this project will be to discover what students understand by this framing and whether they consider the concept of personal development to be a legitimate goal of higher education. Although there is a large literature on PDP-related schemes, this is not a coherent body of work in relation to effectiveness, type of scheme, balance between descriptive and evaluative research and different national contexts. However, the general assumption is that PDP and associated schemes are seen as helpful by many students, teachers and employers. Due to the specific staff/student comparison within the Scottish higher education context, the project concentrated on the current PDP debate and case studies within the emergent literature in evaluating this initiative.

Staff perceptions of PDP

A literature search relating to a previous PDP survey was conducted as the basis for the design of an interview schedule for use with staff in higher and further education institutions about their perceptions of PDP. The most useful paper in relation to this was Brennan and Shah’s Report on the Implementation of Progress Files (2003). This was used as a ‘baseline’ source in order to construct the interview schedule, focusing around key issues such as responsibility for PDP in institutions, the extent of adaptability for sociology and social science, perceived drivers for undertaking PDP, the use of electronic portfolios, etc.

Contact was made with staff in social science/sociology departments who have an involvement in PDP activity, and a programme of interviews commenced. Three Scottish universities, one pre-1992 and two post-1992, were involved. This interview phase involved an iterative process such that issues arising from the initial interviews were used to inform areas for further probing in later interviews. It is important to note that this aspect of the research was not concerned with obtaining a representative sample of staff perceptions about PDP but rather pursued substantive issues that the introduction of PDP initiatives raises for staff and for the way in which social science and sociology are involved. These interviews were transcribed and entered into a qualitative software programme and key themes extracted and examined, especially with respect to contradictory issues. Table 1 provides a distillation of the perceived benefits of PDP that were extracted from these interviews, and Table 2 highlights perceived problems.

Table 1: Perceived benefits of PDP

It is evident from these extracted points from the interviews that PDP is considered of value for students in terms of encouraging reflective skills related to their studies and in teasing out issues of vocational relevance, especially in terms of the employability agenda which is now a prominent driver for the sector. It is also the case that there are merits seen in adopting an electronic platform for students to engage with. However, as Table 2 indicates, these positive endorsements were to some extent offset by tensions which are seen as besetting the practical implementation of PDP. Therefore, it was evident that there was something of a perceived principle-versus-practice dichotomy. Whilst in principle PDP is regarded positively, a number of practical concerns were raised about its actual implementation, which is perceived as being more problematic.

Table 2: Perceived problems of PDP

It was apparent in these interviews that several lines of tension are perceived which affect the implementation of PDP. One major aspect of this is the extent to which PDP is dealt with on an institution-wide basis and its relevance for sociology and social science. In effect, this is an issue of generality versus specificity. However, there is also more to this, which bears closer inspection in terms of the way in which PDP can, at a broad level, appear to be related to the issue of enhancing employability which some staff do not see as their subject in the sense that it is not an academic matter as such. On the other hand, there are members of staff who have suggested that PDP is something that could be used to encourage reflexivity, which they see as a key academic skill for sociology and social science students. A key issue that cuts across the above practical concerns is ensuring that whilst the ‘personal’ nature of the process stays with the student, there are means of ensuring engagement that bring about the ‘development’. On the one hand, it is something that is within the individual student’s control, but, on the other hand, it needs to be accessible to allow staff to assess its impact.

These findings resonate with Clegg and Bradley’s recent research (2006) on the varying perceptions of PDP within one institution. They propose three ‘ideal types’ encapsulating the attitudes of different subject or discipline areas, which they call professional, employment and academic:

The first ideal type, the professional, was strongly influenced by the requirements stipulated by professional and statutory bodies, for instance the Teacher Training Agency and the specific health care professional bodies such as the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. The second, employment, includes both a general orientation to graduate employment and also specific work placement during study. This model was associated with areas such as management and business, sport and leisure, and those areas of applied science and engineering where the course focus was primarily towards employment rather than discipline. The final model, academic, was focused on the academic development of the student, incorporating metacognitive skills and those of the specific subject discipline. Humanities and social sciences predominated in the academic. The model also included some areas of pure science where the emphasis was more on subject understanding.
(Clegg and Bradley 2006: 64)

In summary, the main themes from these interviews are that there are lines of tension for the implementation of PDP which centre around its perceived purpose in terms of employability versus academic criteria. Other tensions for PDP have also emerged from these interviews, notably with respect to notions of ‘the personal’ and the focus on individual agency, something that sociologists would perhaps wish to adopt a critical perspective on. Lambier and Ramaekers (2006) point out that the nature of any virtual learning environment defines the nature of the learning process via provision of tools and templates for actions. All too often, the learning process is thus subtly moulded as an instrumental rather than a critical process. They argue that learning in this context has become a process of managing information (including personal information), rather than discovery, insight and growth, and that the virtual has enabled a managerial model of learning to be surreptitiously substituted for the dialogic and critical model which characterises the ideal of learning in higher education. It is evident that this danger is something that staff in sociology and social science may well be reflexively aware of as an undercurrent that can pull PDP off course in terms of being a meaningful reference point for students in their studies.

Student perceptions of PDP

This part of the project aimed to accumulate information about student perceptions of PDP processes and comprised two main aims: (1) to identify any elements within PDPs that students consider are useful and (2) to establish which delivery methods are likely to be most successful. The student respondents involved in the project were based at four Scottish universities.

The research commenced with the appointment of a summer scholarship student in June 2006. During the scholarship, all further and higher education institutions in Scotland were contacted to try to establish whether they delivered social science courses. Institutions with social science courses were subsequently contacted to try to establish whether they had introduced PDPs. Although the response rate for this stage of the project was limited, a number of universities were identified and contacted about participating in the next stage of the research. This led to four universities becoming involved, selected from different Scottish cities and including both ‘old’ and ‘newer’ institutions (Abertay Dundee, Robert Gordon University [RGU], Edinburgh and Glasgow Caledonian). Because the research aimed to undertake comparisons about experiences, departments with and without PDPs were examined. This enabled comparative analysis to be undertaken according to a range of student experiences. To ensure confidentiality, the results are not divided by university.

As part of the scholarship, the student examined C-SAP documents relating to PDPs and also undertook a broader literature review. To date, research into student perceptions had been restricted to a small number of projects. These include Clegg (2004), who draws a conclusion from a number of studies that PDPs had positive effects on student learning, attainment and approaches to learning. East (2005) reports on research by the University of Glamorgan which discovered 70 per cent of students who took part in pilot studies into PDPs were positive about the value of progress files in facilitating their learning experience.

Based upon existing C-SAP documentation and limited findings from other studies, a questionnaire was designed for students at the participating universities. To try to enhance levels of accessibility, an electronic questionnaire was designed which could be accessed remotely. Participating departments issued the web link through communal emails to their students. By using the link, students could access the questionnaire and respond. The questionnaire was divided into four sections which mainly consisted of fixed options and had been piloted by some RGU students in advance. The first section, ‘You and Your Degree’, sought to establish information about the respondent: gender, age, ethnicity, year of study, university attended and title of degree scheme. This is not the main focus of this paper and therefore is not discussed here. Section B was only for students who attended a university with a PDP. They were asked about the type of PDP, the years in which it operates, what the PDP includes, support tools, evaluation opportunities and documentation procedures. Section C, ‘Your Views on Personal Development Plans’, was also designed for students with PDPs. Students were asked for their views on how helpful the process had been for academic studies, links with careers, integrating into the department, support, personal reflection and the effectiveness of record-keeping and review meetings. The students were given an opportunity to provide suggestions for improving the PDP process. The final section (D), ‘Your Views on Personal Development Plans’, was for students who did not have a PDP. They were asked to respond to questions about the type of PDP that should be used, when it should be available, what should be included, whether a support tool should be available, whether they should be able to evaluate the PDP and what should happen to the documentation. Finally, they were asked how helpful they thought the PDP would be with regards to the areas identified in Section C (discussed above) and how the process should be implemented.

Students in Years 1 and 4 were invited to participate because they were considered to possess different experiences, expectations and hopes. A total of 74 degree students responded to the survey. Of these, 21 had experienced PDP (23 less two from a university without a PDP who answered the wrong part of the survey), and 51 had not. This latter figure includes 15 students of the university who actually had a PDP of which they were unaware. Because these students were under the impression that they did not have a PDP, their responses have been collated within that category. Analysis of the results was divided according to the sections and questions. After the questionnaire data was examined, two focus groups, each consisting of ten students, were held with RGU Year 1 and 4 students to explore some of the salient issues in greater depth. The remainder of this paper discusses the questionnaire’s main findings.

Views on PDPs (students with PDP only)

This section was addressed by twenty-one students who had experienced PDPs. It does not include students who should have had a PDP but did not think this was the case. Two students who answered the wrong section are excluded on the grounds that they were describing procedures that did not exist.
When asked about the type of PDP that was in place, e.g., paper based or electronic, 76 per cent of the 21 students were most accustomed to paper-based plans. In response to a question about the years in which PDPs had been introduced, 67 per cent of respondents thought that it had been introduced for Year 1 students. Perceptions of the following years gradually dropped, with only 48 per cent considering that PDPs were in place for Year 4. 29 per cent did not know when the PDP operated.

Table 3: Perceptions of elements within PDP

The most identifiable element within PDPs was a personal tutor (62 per cent), followed by personal reflection on academic achievement (57 per cent) and progress review meetings (52 per cent). At the opposing end, the careers service was not selected by any respondents, and only 5 per cent included formal assessment or examination of PDP.

A third of respondents who had experience of PDP were aware that a support tool was available for the PDP process. When asked if they had an opportunity to evaluate the department’s delivery of PDP, 95 per cent either didn’t know or thought they had no such opportunity. Large numbers (86 per cent) were also unsure what happened to their PDP documentation after graduation.

Student views on the value of PDPs were varied. Less than a quarter (five respondents) found it helpful for their academic studies. The same proportion suggested the PDP process helped to see the link between academic subjects and future careers more clearly. Slightly more (six respondents) felt it provided an effective record that they would use in the future and that continuous personal reflection on achievements had been helpful. However, most students disagreed with these statements or were uncertain about them (see Table 4).

Table 4: Views on existing PDPs

	Strongly agree	Agree	Unsure	Disagree	Strongly disagree
The PDP has been helpful for my academic studies.	0	5	6	3	7
The PDP process has helped me to see the link between academic subjects and future careers more clearly.	0	5	5	4	7
The PDP provides an effective record that I expect to use in the future.	1	5	5	5	5
Progress review meetings have been useful.	2	4	6	4	5
The PDP process helps students to integrate into the department.	0	7	5	4	5
The department provides effective support for the PDP process.	2	6	5	3	5
Continuous personal reflection on achievements has been helpful.	1	5	7	3	5
Number of possible respondents to each statement = 21

Respondents were slightly more positive about whether PDPs helped students to integrate into the department, with a third in agreement. The most positive response was for the department providing effective support for the PDP process with eight respondents agreeing or agreeing strongly.
The final question for these students asked for suggestions for improving the PDP process. In light of the nature of the responses highlighted above, it was unsurprising that a number of critical remarks were raised. These included:

• Little ownership amongst staff or students.
• Staff are disinterested.
• Relevance needs to be made clearer.
• Limited attempts to connect to employment criteria.
• Clearer guidance is required.
• Needs to be more achievement-based.
• Staff should conduct progress reports.

Views on PDPs (students without PDP only)

51 students responded in this section, including 15 from a university that did have a PDP (discussed above).

When asked about their preferred type of PDP, 43 per cent expressed a preference for electronic PDP (43 per cent) followed by a mixture of both electronic and paper versions (37 per cent). Only 6 per cent chose a paper-based system. Within the focus groups, the general perspective was that both electronic and paper copies were important methods of collating details about academic development that could provide a useful basis on which to develop employment applications.

Responses to the years in which PDPs should operate were reasonably spread. Nearly half (47 per cent) wished to see it offered in Year 1 of study and slightly less (41 per cent) in Year 2. Years 3 and 4 were thought the most beneficial years for PDP (57 per cent and 59 per cent respectively). 20 per cent did not know to which year or years the PDP should apply. The range of views was also reflected within the focus groups. Year 1 students tended to place greater emphasis upon introducing PDPs during the induction day held at the commencement of their time at university. Yet, although it was thought that reference should be made to PDPs early in their academic careers, the emphasis should be grown incrementally across years. As one first-year student mentioned when asked about introducing PDPs, ‘Maybe in first year not so much. I can see second, third and fourth, but first year I think is a year for settling in like finding you know your interests and preferences in whatever subjects [ . . . ] I wouldn’t go too far with it in first year probably.’

By comparison, the comments of Year 4 students were more directly focused upon careers. This is perhaps unsurprising in light of the group meeting towards the end of their final year. As one student suggested, there was a need ‘to tie into that inevitable career choice at the end as early as possible.’ This point was developed by another student who stated:

'I think probably second year would be the better time to start really. But you have to try like you can’t just say what skills you are going to learn because well it’s kind of pointless unless you can tie them into something like into certain careers and about the skills you are learning thinking what career they want at the end of it.'

A few students suggested that it would be beneficial to embed PDPs within Year 1 so that students accept the commitment and are less likely to challenge the related work as an imposition. For example:

'The thing is, like, fair enough, in your first years of running it, people think this, ‘Oh God, it’s an extra burden’ because they’ve never had to do it before. But when you start getting the first years to start if that’s already a part of the curriculum they’re not gonna know any different. Do you see what I mean? It’s not gonna be like an extra task . . . if you start and it’s there then its part of your degree.'

Other students connected into the selection of modules which take place late in Years 2 and 3 because:

'It would be good to sort of briefly mention it in first year but in first year you’re not really concentrating on that sort of thing. But in second year, before you have to pick your choices in third and fourth year, you are given information of what you can go into, what sort of skills you need. You can sort of plan that when picking what courses you want to do and then obviously continue with third and fourth year.'

Students identified a number of elements that they thought should be included in a PDP (see Table 5).

Table 5: Views on what should be included in a PDP

It can be seen that students were most in favour of including career development record or CV (77 per cent) and a record of university achievement (75 per cent) in PDP. The least popular options were formal assessment of PDPs (14 per cent) and an audit of learning strategies (16 per cent). A further 8 per cent had no idea what PDPs should include.

A number of students in the focus groups picked up upon these issues. The value of a development approach to individual records was raised. Two fourth-year students suggested that ‘CVs . . . people miss things if you’ve got it all written down, you can discuss it so it can be more in your head bringing ideas of your computer kinda thing’ and ‘So it will help when you actually graduate and come to do your CV and apply for jobs rather than having to try and remember and forget half of it.’

A first-year student also identified the value of PDPs in tracking changes, in that ‘it’s quite useful to keep a record of how you change and the skills that you have got linked to it.’

Meetings with personal tutors were considered to be positive because they ‘know you, know your profile. They know what you’ve done and know what courses you have studied. They have got a rough idea of the last two or three years of a way you might be heading.’ A first-year student commented, ‘I think it’s important that you know the person who you are talking to because there is no point in speaking to someone who doesn’t know you now. I just think that’s a bit false.’ Another respondent added ‘because they’ll, like, know what, like, your strengths and stuff are so they will be able to, say, give you better advice than a complete stranger who doesn’t know you at all.’

Most respondents (80 per cent) were in favour of a support tool for PDPs being available for students to use. 90 per cent agreed that they should have an opportunity to evaluate PDPs. Opinions about what should happen to documentation after graduation were less clear-cut. 51 per cent thought that their PDP documentation should be kept by students while 37 per cent thought PDP documentation should be kept by both students and the department. Only a few respondents offered suggestions as to how long departments should keep PDP documentation after graduation. The most common response was for one year (six responses). Also suggested were two years (three responses) and up to five years (two responses).

When asked about the purpose of PDPs (Table 6 below), students were generally supportive of the possibilities. Particularly popular elements included the need for departments to provide effective support for the PDP process (40 either agreed or strongly agreed). The least favoured element of PDP was that it would help students to integrate into the department (24 respondents agreed or strongly agreed and twenty-one did not know). The element of PDP regarding the benefits of continuous personal reflection on achievements attracted the most negative responses (nine respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed). However, it should be noted that continuous personal reflection was rated positively by 35 other respondents. Unlike the students who had PDPs, there was no discernible difference according to the ages of the respondents.

Table 6: Student views on PDP

	Strongly agree	Agree	Unsure	Disagree	Strongly disagree
The PDP will be helpful for my academic studies.	2	29	13	5	2
The PDP process will help me to see the link between academic subjects and future careers more clearly.	7	21	17	6	0
The PDP will provide an effective record that I expect to use after graduation.	6	25	17	2	1
Regular progress review meetings should be included.	3	24	20	4	0
The PDP process will help students to integrate into the department.	3	21	21	5	1
The department will need to provide effective support for the PDP process.	11	29	10	1	0
Continuous personal reflection on achievements and goals will be helpful.	6	29	7	8	1
Number of possible respondents to each statement = 51

Within the focus groups, there was a tendency for Year 4 students to draw upon the links with careers, emphasising earlier points. For example, ‘I perhaps thought that you can identify the skills this is what you’re learning then it would help to identify people careers that would match up with those skills.’
Year 1 students also identified a lack of direction within their cohort and the indecision within the year about future prospects and believed that:

The development plan could actually encourage those who are thinking of leaving to stay on and there’re not fully aware of the paths that could lead afterwards. And so with a bit of guidance they might change their mind and they really might stick with it and end up doing alright with it.

Another student added in support, ‘I would look on it as more of a career thing, tailoring you towards a career rather than just a kind of, you know, review-of-your-year-to-date sort of thing, I would view it as directing me specifically towards something.’

Finally, a first year respondent explicitly addressed a requirement for direction, stating:

'Yeah I just think, ‘Yeah you need to kind of know where you are going’, and it’s fair enough you can view yourself as much as you want. But I personally prefer to know where this is going to lead to, because I need to know within myself how I’m doing and where things are going to lead onto.'

A number of suggestions were made about how the PDP process should be implemented:

• After staff and students have been informed. At present, a lack of knowledge was reported. It was suggested in the first-year focus group that: 'It should be just more formal classes and a bit of discussion based around this sort of the thing. Because we haven’t really had anything which comes to my mind about what we are actually going to do after, like how we’re going to tie up unless we are 100 per cent and being approached by a member of staff we haven’t really heard anything and you will always get the ones who will not just do it so a forward plan it would help to address that.'
• The number of meetings was contested within focus groups. Suggestions ranged from one meeting at the start of each year, prior to assessment and when choosing electives to the end of year or post-assessment period. The most popular response was: 'you could almost have it where you have one at the start of the year and then you could outline your goals. You could set an agenda and what you were hoping to achieve and possibly near towards the end of the year [ . . . ] you could have a review and see did you match your goals and that and if not how could you improve.'
• The rationale needs to be highlighted. Within the focus groups there was some discussion about students reacting differently. Conscientious students would be heavily involved; other students may aim to ignore. Consequently, ‘it just needs to be made clear then people will see that it’s for their benefit and it’s always a good thing whereas if it’s just sort of laid on by another class half the time doesn’t really count for anything.’
• The above point led to an inconclusive debate about whether PDPs should be compulsory to ensure maximum participation or voluntary, exemplified by the following first-year participant, ‘loads of people don’t even turn up for essential tutorials or lectures so the chances of them turning up for this unless they are genuinely interested is quite slim. There would have to be some kind of incentive.’
• The process should be simplified to ensure that it does not encroach on time for studying and fits within the course programme.
• Raise awareness before commencing Year 1.
• Links could be established with school final years, or, alternatively, the process should be initiated at the last year of school and then developed in the first year at university.
• Staff should be committed.
• Departments should make more formal connections with employers.

Overall there were 74 responses to the survey canvassing views on PDPs in Scottish higher education. Of these, 21 (28 per cent) respondents had already experienced a PDP, 51 (69 per cent) respondents had not. There were two (3 per cent) missed responses which have been excluded from subsequent analysis. Comparative analysis between these two groups produced some important differences, which raise concerns about the delivery of PDPs.

As Table 7 details, respondents with PDPs were more negative about the process, although older students were more inclined to perceive elements more favourably. With the exception of departmental support for the PDP process, two-thirds or more of students with PDPs either disagreed with the statements or were unsure about them. By comparison, students who had not experienced PDPs were much more positive, and more than half of them agreed with all the statements except one (the PDP process integrating students into the department).

Table 7: Comparative analysis about views on PDPs

Drawing upon these figures and the comments provided earlier, it is apparent that views of PDPs are more favourable amongst students without any experience. To a lesser extent, amongst students with PDPs, it is also considered more positively amongst Year 1 compared to Year 4. This would indicate that either there are problems with the current delivery of PDPs or that student expectations of PDPs are too high. From the student responses, there appears to be a number of problems including staff engagement, limited student awareness and, ultimately, a failure of the system to achieve its objectives, namely to provide students with a helpful link between academia and employment. A number of critical comments, including lack of relevance, limited ownership and weak connections between academic and employment criteria suggest that universities may need to place greater emphasis on existing PDPs. Positive responses from respondents who have not experienced PDPs and Year 1 students with PDPs highlighted popular support for the principles and a widely held view that it could be potentially beneficial to their degree studies. However, students with no experience often have little knowledge, and issues are consistently raised about implementation processes. There is an underlying concern across all the responses about the level of universities’ commitment. These will have to be addressed by supportive departments if the problems encountered by other students are to be avoided and PDPs are to fulfil their purpose.

Conclusion

It is evident from this study of both staff and student perceptions of PDP that there are potential benefits and pitfalls to PDP. Both staff and students view it as a positive contribution in terms of the Dearing Enquiry’s aim of supporting students in acquiring valuable skills in self-reflection and planning. However, it is also clear that whilst this is almost universally accepted in principle, the perceptions of implementation in our study raise some problematic issues. Whilst PDP is almost universally accepted in principle, the perceptions of implementation raise some problematic practical issues. Perhaps this is not to be entirely unexpected given that PDP has to function as a public institutional quality enhancement measure related to such themes as employability and the development of graduate attributes and, also, as something which is private and personal to students and within their control. It is precisely this tension between an advocacy of principle versus practice that is where political matters come into play. A discourse focused on personal development is something that is almost universally agreed upon as beneficial in principle. However, it is when people come to flesh out and specify what this means in practice that political matters are at stake. This is the point at which there has to be a commitment to action and where responsibility for those actions is apportioned.

There is a clear tension here for some between what they regard as the academic nature of personal development leading to personal growth, and the concomitant contribution to an educated citizenry, and the underlying national imperative which requires knowledge linked to economic wealth creation. However, in an era of mass higher education, it is often the latter that is a priority for governments. This political dimension to PDP can be lost when located inside the practical matters associated with education as an inner-directed process. Once set within this discourse, the practicalities of such matters as curricular design, delivery and assessment come into play. Moreover, if PDP is viewed as being driven by students themselves, then the political dimension dissolves away as they engage in the practicalities of the educational process. An inner-directed focus is not one that usually leads to a reflexive engagement with the political nature of PDP and the location of agency within the individual. Learning the process of PDP becomes the end in itself in an instrumentally driven fashion. In this way, learning is depoliticised in the sense that its purpose is driven down to the level of the personal.

A neoliberal discourse that stresses individual control, planning and choice is often justified in terms of a paradoxical discourse of a global knowledge economy that requires and structures the need for a greater focus on the flexibility of individuals. It is not the case that individuals can simply develop themselves through exercising freedom of choice but rather that an internationalised and globalised knowledge economy demands that people are ever-increasingly more adaptable to change. As we look outward to the global impact of this world upon our lives, so we are encouraged to look inward as a means of generating our capacity to change to meet these demands.

It is also somewhat paradoxical that in higher education the notion of widening participation and access has come at the expense of actual contact with other students and teaching staff. It is now individual students who must participate and learn by themselves as they engage in PDP, often mediated via a virtual learning environment. It is a moot point to consider this distant and introspective form of ‘participation’ as the result of expansion of higher education to meet the demands of the knowledge economy without much in the way of an accompanying expansion of resources. If the EFL (English as a foreign language) system is itself to be effective then these issues need to be addressed and faced up to. There are clearly tensions between the aims and implementation of PDP. This paper has also shown that it is not without its problems when applied to sociology and more broadly social science. Although, the political nature of its application is also something that cannot be ignored, it is possible to consider PDP as offering potential benefit to students in terms of reflexive learning. However, if it is implemented in an instrumental fashion then this benefit may well be lost. This would go against the grain of a Scottish higher education system founded upon an egalitarian notion of self-improvement and development.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the UK Higher Education Academy Centre for Sociology, Anthropology and Politics under Grant 40/S/06.

References

Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2003) Report on the Implementation of Progress Files, Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, Milton Keynes. Online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/324/1/ProgressFiles.pdf.

Clegg, S. (2004) ‘Critical Readings: Progress Files and the Production of the Autonomous Learner’, Teaching in Higher Education, 9 (3): 287–98.

Clegg, S. and Bradley, S. (2006) ‘Models of Personal Development Planning: Practice and Processes’, British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1): 57–76.

Dearing, R. (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Hayes: NCIHE Publications.

East, R. (2005), ‘A Progress Report on Progress Files: The Experience of One Institution’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 6 (2): 160–71.

Gough, D. A., Kiwan, D., Sutcliffe, K., Simpson, D. and Houghton, N. (2003) A Systematic Map and Synthesis Review of the Effectiveness of Personal Development Planning for Improving Student Learning, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit.

Lambier, B. and Ramaekers, S. (2006) ‘The Limits of “Blackboard” Are the Limits of My World: On the Changing Concepts of the University and Its Students’ E-Learning’, 3: 544–51.

Quality Assurance Agency (2001) Guidelines for HE Progress Files, 28. Online at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressFiles/guidelines/progfile2001.asp.

The authors

Dr James Moir is a senior lecturer in sociology and Project Leader for the study reported on here. He currently holds a C-SAP Associate award. Professor Catherine Di Domenico is Professor of Social Development and previously held a C-SAP award for a project examining the impact of studying sociology on non-traditional university entrants after graduation. Dr Stephen Vertigans is a reader in sociology and collaborated with Dr Philip Sutton, formerly Senior Lecturer in Sociology at RGU, on this project.