Personal Development Planning

PDP is a concept that was development to aid a student's career progression by recording activities and seeing what needs to be improved. Theoretically you'd end up with a progress file that you could show to your potential employers alongside your CV and/or application form to boost your chances of getting a job. The following quote is the definition from the Higher Education Academy's website:

"...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."

You'd think that this is a great idea - and it is. However, while the government said that universities had to do it, they never said how. That's where the problems started. As there was no single implementation, there is pockets of best practice all over the place - but not everywhere. The government's reason for that is that institutions operate in different ways and the same can be said at a departmental level. This means that one implementation might not suit everyone - which is fair enough.

If you compare different institutions instead of different departments, you still see differences. Some have core modules, some have student unions providing documentation, some do very little at all.

There needs to be something done to make PDP work for everyone though. Recently, I submitted a draft of a report to a university committee and it contained three volumes of information (three sets of research done by three different people). It's interesting that all of this came to the same or similar conclusions. Here are some of the points:

• That a brand identity should be created for PDP across the University, ensuring it is easily recognisable to students.
• There is a feeling amongst students that it has no relevance to their course.
• Meetings between staff and students are sporadic and there is uncertainty about it.
• Some departments see it as an 'entitlement' and not a 'requirement'. Basically this means that some departments feel that they can implement it, but not do anything to make sure a standard is maintained or that it's enforced.
• Although there are different models to choose from, they are not always suitable for groups such as part-time students, who may have more relevant PDP/CPD schemes with their employers.
• Some students felt it was a case too much 'institutional target setting'.
• Some students feel it has been poorly promoted (some don't even know about it).

Let's consider promotion. This is absolutely vital. If done well, people will notice the system, understand how it's done, recognise PDP documents and also have an incentive to do it.

One recommendation in my report included mentioning at the beginning of each year, but not just repeating the same information every time - that would make people less receptive. Each year the delivery has to be tailored to whatever stage the student is at. For instance, this would mean putting more of a focus on employability and it's links to CPD (Continuous Professional Development - an example of it is here) in the student's final year.

Another recommendation was to create an institutional 'branding' for the system. This would mean things like documents being centrally created and while there might be slight differences in each department, the majority of the content would be the same.

If documentation was provided in a single location, then that would also be helpful. In my institution, not every department uses the same Virtual Learning Environment. However, all students have access to a web portal. If relevant documentation was provided there, all students would know where to access PDP documents.

For an example of excellent resources that are centrally located, you should got to the Bournemouth University website. There are explanations and sections of text done in a question and answer style. They also provided a number of downloads.

Another suggestion was to have a review of PDP each year and either include it in a relevant document or have it as a separate report. This would mean that you're able to monitor the system's effectiveness and whether everyone is doing what they should to make sure it works.

One other major point I made was that a good incentive would be to allocate a certain percentage of module credits to PDP activities. If the student didn't do what they should do, then they could seriously affect their degree classification.

I obtained further information after the completion of that report and it confirmed what I already knew - which gave even more weight to my argument. We could go on looking at the existing setup forever and a day, but if nothing is done you're always going to get the same results.

So, what do you think about PDP?

Technorati tags: PDP, Employment, CPD, Education

Honorary Degrees

Something I have been able to do as a sabbatical officer at my student union is go to degree ceremonies. I graduated off the platform at the City Hall in July and attended six others in that week. I attended four more this week. Although work piles up at my office as a result of these, I wouldn't want to miss them. It gives me a chance to see my friends graduate.

One thing that you often see at degree ceremonies is the presentation of honorary degrees. According to Wikipedia, these are defined as:

"An honorary degree is an academic degree awarded to an individual as a decoration, rather than as the result of matriculating and studying for several years. An honorary degree may be conferred by an institution that the recipient never attended. The degree itself may be a bachelor's, master's or doctoral degree — the last being by far the most common. Usually the degree is conferred with great pomp and ceremony as a way of honoring a famous or distinguished visitor's valuable contribution to society. The university derives benefits by association with the person's status and so enhances its networking and publicity."

I strongly disagree with this type of degree for several reasons. A degree is an academic qualification that is awarded after several years of hard study at an academic institution. It shows that an individual has gained the knowledge and skills that should allow them to have a chance of getting a good job.

Honorary degrees are awarded to people who have already had great success and not necessarily as a result of academic achievement. They might not even have studied at the institution previously. The last bit of the above quote annoys me too. They gain publicity from what is often non-academic achievement. They should be gaining publicity from the quality of degree courses, the facilities and student experience and the standard of jobs the students get afterwards - nothing more than that.

Yes, the people that are awarded these 'degrees' have usually made a massive contribution to society, but do they need a degree to recognise that? I don't think so. Why not name an award or building after the person? If that's not possible and there's nothing else of a suitable stature that can be done - then simply do nothing.

According to this page, Nelson Mandela has been awarded 28 honrary degrees/doctorates. That doesn't include all the fellowships he's been awarded too. Kermit the Frog was once awarded an honorary doctorate from Southampton College - part of Long Island University. Ediburgh University even awarded one to Robert Mugabe (although there are plans to strip him of that title). Pierluigi Collina was even awarded one by the University of Hull - he was a football referee, not an academic. All those examples completely devalue something which thousands of students work hard to get every year.

MIT don't award honorary degrees. They are an example of a highly successful and respected institution getting along fine without them. They derive their reputation and publicity from a strong academic record.

Anyway - that's what I think - what do you think?

Technorati tags: Academia, Honrary degrees, Universities, Graduations

Free speech in Academia

The following is taken from an article on Guardian Unlimited:

"More than 60 UK academics from Academics for Academic Freedom are calling for laws to be extended to ensure that academics are free to "question and test received wisdom, and to put forward unpopular opinions"."

If you just look at this quote (which is the second paragraph in the Guardian Unlimited article), it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Free speech is a good thing - the majority of the world accepts that. However, when you look at the website of Academics For Academic Freedom, a different picture is painted.

There are two points the academics are wanting to be accepted. The first one is:

"...that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive,..."

The important part of that statement is "whether or not these are deemed offensive". Yes, we live in a society where political correctness has gone mad, but that bit, if accepted, would mean academics are free to use language that is associated with things such as anti-semitism. Not only would that affect the reputation of the academic, but it would also harm the institution and offend a number of people. That might be an extreme example, but it would be excusable if the AFAF proposal was successful.

The second point from the website is:

"that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal."

Again, although it's an extreme example, this could allow things such as anti-semitism and people would escape punishment, regardless of any offense the comments may cause. This cannot be accepted at all.

The above should not be interpreted as me thinking there should be a total restriction on what academics say. That would be ridiculous. Without the ability to question long-held beliefs, we would never make progress. It was once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, but that was challenged, then beliefs were changed when it was discovered the earth wasn't at the centre of the solar system. It is one of the key factors of science and many other disciplines to challenge beliefs and experiment.

The current system that's in place may be bureaucratic, but it allows people with the necessary expertise to challenge beliefs in their particular field and it also punishes those who make incredibly offensive remarks.

Do you agree?