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

Christian Unions vs. Student Unions

This BBC news article highlights something that has been going on for quite a long time.

"The former Archbishop of Canterbury has given his support to the University of Exeter Christian Union.

The union is seeking a judicial review at the High Court, after it was suspended by the university's students' guild and had a bank account frozen.

The guild took action after students joining the union were required to sign a statement of religious beliefs."

In the mind of the Christian Union, this is seen as a restriction of practice which they feel is illegal under the Human Rights Act.

This UCCF says that all christian unions that it's affiliated with have to sign a doctrinal statement. That might not be a problem for some people as they may believe what is in that document. This is what's in the contents:

• There is one god in three persons, The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.
• God is sovereign in creation, revelation, redemption and final judgement.
• The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour.
• Since the fall, the whole of humankind is sinful and guilty, so that everyone is subject to God's wrath and condemnation.
• The Lord Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son, is fully God; he was born of a virgin; his humanity is real and sinless; he died on the cross, was raised bodily from death and is now reigning over heaven and earth.
• Sinful human beings are redeemed from the guilt, penalty and power of sin only through the sacrificial death once and for all time of their representative and substitute, Jesus Christ, the only mediator between them and God.
• Those who believe in Christ are pardoned all their sins and accepted in God's sight only because of the righteousness of Christ credited to them; this justification is God's act of undeserved mercy, received solely by trust in him and not by their own efforts.
• The Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners, enabling them to turn to God from their sin and to trust in Jesus Christ.
• The Holy Spirit lives in all those he has regenerated. He makes them increasingly Christlike in character and behaviour and gives them power for their witness in the world.
• The one holy universal church is the Body of Christ, to which all true believers belong.
• The Lord Jesus Christ will return in person, to judge everyone, to execute God's just condemnation on those who have not repented and to receive the redeemed to eternal glory.

However, student unions have equal opportunities policies. That means that any member of the union should be allowed to join any club or society. So, theoretically that could mean a Jewish person would be allowed to be a member of the Christian Union. That situation is highly unlikely though, so there is no need for a doctrinal statement. If you don't do or believe in something - you won't join a society relating to it. I don't watch Neighbours, so why would I waste my money and join the Neighbours Society?

The constitution, bye laws, policies and regulations of students unions are all legally binding, so you would think the action of the student union is perfectly fine - the society contravened something which is legal.

Ekklesia, a think tank, seems to agree with me:

"antagonistic legal action could lead to widening an 'us' and 'them' mentality on campuses". It continued: "This does not help with friendly dialogue between the diverse cultures and views that can be found within the UK's educational institutions."

NUS simply wants mediation between the two sides of the argument and, like Ekklesia, doesn't believe legal action is the best thing to do.

Do you agree with me, or do you believe the Christian Union at Exeter would have a chance in court?

These are two more articles about the issue:

Christian Union takes legal action over suspension
Christian unions warned against legal action

Technorati Tags: Christian Union, Christianity, Student Unions, Societies

2020 Vision

This 2020 Vision report is quite interesting. It was done by a review group linked to the government and it analyses the current school-level teaching and learning setup and suggests improvements. It's way too long to go through everything in one post, so feel free to download it and look at the entire thing yourself. I'll be going through what I consider to be the most important bits in this blog entry.

The following are five points from part 2 of the report that were suggested to improve assessment:

1. Engineering effective discussions, questions and tasks that elicit evidence of learning.
2. Providing feedback that moves learners forward.
3. Clarifying and sharing learning intentions and criteria for success.
4. Activating pupils as the owners of their own learning.
5. Activating pupils as resources for one another.

Point 1 is expanded by the report suggesting things like pupils having more time to answer a question. How long is 'longer'? That could be interpreted in a number of different ways. If a pupil has more time it doesn't necessarily guarantee that they'll know the answer. There should be more of a focus on content and it's delivery, not timespans for answering questions.

I agree with point 2 - feedback is so crucial, but I think it should be for all tasks and not just a selection. Also, it should be alongside marks - not a replacement for them.

I agree with point 3. The report suggests providing access to mark schemes, which is what universities do already.

Points 4 and 5 are perfect examples of management speak. I agree with point 5 - working with other pupils is good, but point 4 is dubious as it suggests pupils selecting from tasks. This could lead to them only picking the easy ones which won't help at all.

Part 4 of the report focuses on what happens when some pupils fall behind. I'm glad they covered this as it's important to make sure everyone gets to a good standard. However, most of the points in this sectin are fairly generic and/or only mention access to additional support - not what the actual support is. It's not going to be any good if the access is excellent and the support is rubbish. Pupils will then either be left in the same position or worse.

the government should use the opportunity of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review to introduce a national and school-level aspirational target for there to be no ‘stuck’ pupils. This should provide a focus for increasing the rate of progress between KS1 and KS2 (thereby reducing the number of children leaving primary school with below expected levels of attainment) and between KS2 and KS3.

This is ok, but doesn't suggest options for what the target should be, which doesn't make it too useful. It also points out the obvious - that there should be support for the core subjects of English and Maths from KS1 upwards.

The report also covers learning spaces and Continuous Professional Development (CPD), which is an equivalent of Personal Development Planning (PDP). I'm not surprised by the PDP issue, the government are pushing PDP in universities so it would make sense to implement it in lower levels so it is truly 'continuous'.

The report has a few points about learning spaces:

1. Be flexible enough to allow for a variety of learning and teaching approaches and greater diversity in the size and age mix of pupil groupings.
2. Be familiar and welcoming for parents and the wider community, inviting them and encouraging them into school.
3. Emphasise participation and collaboration, through being open, safe and inviting.
4. Support interaction, knowledge sharing and learning amongst teachers and support staff.
5. Use technology - both within and outside classrooms - to enhance learning.

I don't disagree with these points, but they are far too generic. As there is so much room for interpretation, some schools could comply with the five points and still not have good learning spaces. For instance, 'Use technology' could mean either two computers and a printer with a few bits of software, or it could mean loads of networked PCs, with WiFi access, projectors etc. and continually updated programs that are totally relevant to the course.

Catering for different styles is also mentioned. This could be good, but it depends on how it's implemented. It could mean increased paperwork and unnecessary complexity.

To conclude, I would say that the report highlights several points that are worth considering to improve schools, but some parts are far too generic and could mean a 'good standard for all' is unobtainable.

A DfES article about this report can be found here.

What do you think?

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?

An opening about Oxford

Higher education has become a big part of my life. I have a degree and now work in part of the HE sector. I created this blog because of that. The first thing I want to comment on is something that happened in the news recently which relates to the University of Oxford.

Dr. John Hood, who is the vice-chancellor at the university, submitted plans to change the council structure so that there would be more lay-members and they would then have more of a control over matters such as finances. This caused outrage amongst some members as it would be a massive change in the ancient university's governance. There was a long debate and it resulted in a humiliating defeat for Dr. Hood when it went to a vote. This story was reported in such places as the BBC news website and the Guardian Unlimited website.

I then noticed a post about this on the Mortar Board, which is an education blog on the Guardian Unlimited site. The paragraphs which provoked my initial comment were the first two:

"Where now for Oxford? Dons today decisively rejected plans by the vice-chancellor John Hood to modernise the running of the ancient university.

By a clear majority they expressed dislike of his proposal for a ruling council with a majority of outsiders from business, to bring Oxford into line with every other university in the UK except Cambridge."

and the last one:

"We must hope for an outbreak of Christmas goodwill in the university - after all there is far too much important scholarly work to be done to get distracted by who sits on what committee."

I must admit that my initial response was a little reactionary, but it also got the basis of my point across. However, people disagreed with what I posted. I wasn't surprised - you can't make everyone agree with you. Some of the points did seem overly opinionated and just plain wrong though. One person posted:

"What may - or may not,'work' for lesser Universities is not good enough for the very best.

Our younger son, educated at the local state comprehensive and the local sixth form college, is a graduate of Oxford and we are absolutely delighted with the way the University is, and has been for a long time."

Hmmm - 'the best'? I thought to myself, 'let's examine that statement'. The University of Oxford has been regarded as one of the top universities for a while now, but how good is it? The Times does the 'Good University Guide' every year and publishes rankings based on a series of criteria. Oxford appears at the top of the 2007 table, but then I looked at the figures more closely. According to the table, it doesn't have the highest average spend on facilities, the highest completion rate, the highest ranking for entry requirements, isn't the best for career prospects, doesn't have the best student:staff ratio and has no mark for student satisfaction. As it boycotted the National Student Survey that's another way we can't judge satisfaction.

Yes, it might have the highest number of degrees classed as 1st or 2:1, but academic achievement isn't the only thing that is considered by employers now. 'Soft' skills such as interpersonal skills and things that make you a well-rounded person are much more important (the career prospects figure is an indicator of this). In reality, while it might be the best in terms of degree results, I don't think it's the best overall. This response didn't seem to relate to the article anyway. It just seemed to be posted because I was disagreeing with something Oxford did.

Getting back to the point of the article, someone posted:

"Congratulations to Oxford academics for resisting the tendency to "modernise". i.e. change a university from a self governing community of academics (well sort of!) into a business"

I'm sorry - this is just a ridiculous statement. Competition is getting much stronger nowadays (especially post-1992). Therefore it's important that a universities markets itself properly and has a strong grip on it's finances. It's important to get the funding required to provide high quality facilities to attract the students as well as providing good teaching quality. It's important that a university has a business aspect to it so that it can make the correct investments and make best use of it's funding. You have to accept at least some modernisations to stay with or keep ahead of the competition. It is standard practice to have a council structure like Dr. Hood was proposing and that standard has (mostly) worked for a number of years. Why do they assume it will fail at Oxford?

I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.