Personal Development Planning: A Summary of Research and Evaluation

A. The context for this summary

Though a variety of terms have been used to describe strategies to encourage students to reflect upon and evaluate their own learning experiences and plan for their own development, the use of the term Personal Development Planning (PDP), and its introduction as an applied educational policy, is directly located within recommendations made by the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, or the Dearing Report as it is better known (NCIHE 1997). Importantly, while the term originated here, the practice(s) themselves did not; evidence suggests that much practice pre-dated Dearing and was essentially local and ‘bottom-up’ in origin (see for example Ward, 2001).

The report was dominated by issues of funding and economic sustainability (Grace and Shepherd, 2007; Barnes, 2010) and it was through these issues that the role of Higher Education was to become more clearly defined both in terms of personal learning and as a provider of knowledge and skills for the knowledge economy. Lord Dearing’s report visualised Higher Education as a key socio-economic driver within a learning society, a society in which personal and social wellbeing become inextricably combined in a lifelong relationship. Through the adoption of such an interpretation personal learning carries with it a social and economic responsibility in which the acquisition of knowledge and skills must at least in part be responsive to our increasingly fluid socio-economic situation. As the economic and political awareness of globalisation grew so did the vision of a ‘learning society’ as a response to it (Simons & Masschelein 2008). In addition, by relocating Higher Education within a dialogue of social accountability, the ability of the sector to evidence its responsiveness to that learning society has become important in maintaining its worth. If education is to retain its social position then it must be able to account to a wider range of socio-economic stakeholders in a far more explicit and responsive way (Jackson & Ward 2004).

With reference to the introduction of Personal Development Planning, Dearing identified the need for students to “monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development” (Recommendation 20, NICHE, 1997). A consultation process led by the QAA, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) was subsequently established to shape that recommendation into a policy supported by the QAA.

Given this framework, this paper will:

1. Identify key challenges associated with research and evaluation practice in this area:

2. Report upon a range of research and evaluation activities, including signposting to where key resources can be accessed.

3. Summarise the current ‘state of play’, and identify what might need to happen next in order to advance both conceptual understanding and practical application.

B. Challenges to Research and Evaluation

As has already been identified, those discussions which followed the publication of the Dearing Report were built not only on the recommendations of in respect of PDP but on a long history of educational policy and practice. In the pre-HE sector in particular, work to record a wider range of student achievement in more holistic ways already possessed a long history as the basis for the National Record of Achievement (see Broadfoot 1998, Assiter & Shaw 1993), whilst established work on skills acquisition, learning outcomes and ‘graduateness’ were also seen as contributory factors within HE (Jackson 2002). This notwithstanding, two major challenges to research and evaluation of practice have been identified over the past decade, and remain important today. These deal respectively with the conceptual basis for PDP, and with the operationalisation of research and evaluation practice in this area.

In terms of conceptualisation, Jackson (2002) connected the development of Personal Development Planning to the constructivist learning approaches of Biggs (1999)2 (Jackson 2002). While Jackson recognised that ‘the concept of constructive alignment did not envisage the wholesale take-up of the idea of learning through reflection and action planning’ (2002: 4) the direct and explicit extension of the constructive alignment model to incorporate PDP activities was developed by Houghton (2002:15 and figure 6):

At my level 4, the focus is on how the student can manage what the student does, initially within frameworks created by the teacher, but ultimately negotiating or creating his/her own framework. …. Managing one’s own learning is therefore an important ability not necessarily covered by (Biggs) level 3. Indeed I would argue that it is the ultimate of HE, that graduates should be autonomous individuals capable of advancing their own learning. …Level 4 involves students in reflective planning of their own learning. i.e. level 4 is what PDP is about. My argument then is that PDP relies upon and gives purpose to level 3 teaching and constructive alignment.

The use of a constructivist perspective naturally grounded PDP in learning theory, a foundation that has been built on through the further use of concepts such as meta-cognition (Jackson & Ward 2004, McKellar & Barton 2006) and the socio-cognitive models of self-regulation (Zimmerman 2000), dispositional change (Knight & Yorke 2003), and – in relation to the use of electronic portfolios specifically - threshold concepts (Joyes 2010). Recording, planning, self-evaluation and, most significantly, reflection have consistently proved common and central attributes to theory and practice. Self-awareness, internal and external, is seen as the driver to both learning and its application as performance.

PDP was therefore associated with a wide range of perceived educational and social needs, together with an ideological perspective on how learning in higher education could be changed for the better (Jackson 2001a). The emphasis upon active engagement, and corresponding increased focus on stakeholder needs considerably broadened the range of skills to be developed and evidenced, whilst a focus on processes in context emphasised the diversity in application and continuing desire to avoid prescription within the implementation process. Despite later attempts to explain practice in more specific and detailed ways, (see e.g. Grant and Richardson (nd); Ward et al, 2005, Peters and Tymms, 2010), including with reference to student perceptions - and how these evolve over time - (Lumsden and Davey, 2010) this has proved challenging to some at least, leading to the interpretation of such inherent complexity in critical ways.

Reflection can be seen as a core constituent within many of the constructivist models being offered as theoretical foundations for PDP. Reflection has become seen as fundamental to self-awareness and self-evaluation and as such is an essential process within self-regulation and identity management (Buckley 2006). Here identity management refers to the learned ability to build skills, character and values (McKellar & Barton 2006) as a learner, employee and social member. Drawn again from a constructivist model of self-development it extends an inherently implicit psychological process into an externalised, explicit and objectified form. As Buckley (2006) suggests, this could refer to a particular form of learner or the ability to shape oneself to the needs of different contexts and different roles as demanded by others (Kumar 2007). However in spite of its popularity, critiques of reflection as a theoretically fragmented concern remain common (see Bleakley 1999, Atkinson & Claxton 2004, Clegg & Bradley 2006). As early as 1996, Ecclestone was raising concerns over the inappropriate level of interest that reflection was receiving in spite of its lack of evidence and theoretical solidity, whilst Ecclestone, Hayes & Furedi (2005) have been openly critical of it as an element of what they have called a therapeutic shift in educational practice.

Self-regulation has offered important and consistent underpinning to PDP’s proposed intentions. As Jackson & Ward remarked, “Interest in the model (self-regulation theory) has been encouraged by the growing awareness that personal success involves more than innate ability and exposure to good teaching. It also requires the personal qualities of initiative, persistence, belief in self and self-direction” (2004). Boekaerts et al. (2000) have offered some concerns regarding the ability of educationalists ability to use cognitive and socio-cognitive models, but these theories have offered a route for engagement to support possible PDP practices. As with reflection, none could claim to be uncontested within their field, but they offered a basis onto which practice could be constructed. Similar issues such as post-modernism (Barnett 2000, Jackson & Ward 2004), complexity theory (Tosey 2002, Mason 2008) and management models of knowledge production (Jackson & Ward 2004) have been adopted in the same way as the PDP practitioner community has worked to align PDP with an existing consensus amongst its diverse stakeholders. Systems models in particular, as expressed through meta-cognition and complexity theory, have proved influential through their ability to structure both the self as a unique processing individual and the ways in which that could then be applied to organisational settings.

Criticism of constructive alignment per se is harder to find, although Biggs himself has acknowledged the risk that outcomes-based education will become associated with a managerial agenda, while McMahon and O’Riordan (2006) in seeking to introduce constructive alignment into the curriculum, emphasise the importance of the social and the community in effective implementation. In research terms, Haggis (2003) offers a critique of Biggs model of deep/surface learning, or more accurately the ways in which the approach has been used in the context of educational research, a critique responded to by Marshall and Case (2005). A key concern for Haggis is the value ascribed to ‘deep’ approaches to learning, which may not be shared by all students within near mass systems, and may involve seeing the student as passive and manipulable into ‘deeper’ approaches to learning by modifications to learning and assessment contexts. Haggis’s wider work, however, emphasising as it does complexity, sociocultural aspects of learning, particularity and the importance of context, itself coheres well with much of PDP thinking and practice, and the importance of context is shared with Marshall and Case (see also Beattie et al 1997). Equally, all three authors appear agreed that it is the way in which these approaches to learning have been elevated into universal truths that is unhelpful.

Such recognitions notwithstanding, the complexity of conceptualisation in respect of PDP itself has created challenges in terms of research. Fry et al. (2002) called it “poorly problematised” and suggested that it rests on concepts that are ‘ill-defined’, ‘under researched’ and dependent on a wide set of variables; Clegg (2004) called it “chaotic”; Steuer & Marks (2008) comment specifically on PDPs lack of clarity. Conversely, based upon student feedback, Lumsden and Davey (2010) reported that:

‘We were surprised at how mature some of the content of the first year posters were, and what a comprehensive view they presented of PDP even at such an early stage of their course.’ P5-6 While the proximity of tutor input on PDP and initial poster production led to an element of simple reproduction of such input the authors reported that a number offered more complex representations, and that this complexity was also reflected in responses generated a year later when no further staff input was provided. Similar levels of sophistication and development were reported in the concept mapping approach to personal development research by Jankowska (2010), which illuminated the potential of such concept mapping as a powerful technique to support reflection and offer space for internal dialogue.

The issue of complexity is therefore important at the operational level too. Although practitioners have expressed support for the idea of PDP as a holistic process (Ward et al, 2005) for research purposes PDP has often not been conceived of as a single entity. Rather, it is interpreted as a collection of student-centred goals and processes through which learning may take place more effectively and more explicitly. The absence of a universally agreed conceptual basis and much local diversity in implementation provides challenges that researchers have had to contend with. Set within such a diverse set of educational and political expectations different personal areas of concern have brought with them different points of focus surrounding the theoretical models that could underpin PDP, how those models could be applied in practice and which of those practices are most effective for students. As Ward (2001: 5) – drawing upon practice already in existence – noted at the start of the decade:

‘There is an important balance to be struck between the development of institutional policy, which may suggest a common approach, and the importance of 'psychological engagement' with the processes of Personal Development Planning by staff and students. The latter emphasises the need for embedding within, and customisation to, the culture and demands of particular programmes and disciplines. While this can be readily identifiable in relation to the demands of awards subject to external professional recognition, or where 'reflective practice' is itself already a tradition, it is also important within broadly based non-vocational areas. Much institutional policy is therefore characterised by 'frameworks' for practice which encompass opportunities for both subject and individual student autonomy…’

The complexity evident in the work of Lumsden and Davey and Jankowska has already been noted. In similar vein, as Hughes et al (2010) emphasised, PDP needs to be considered in the situation where it is designed and implemented, and this, in turn brings in ideas concerning ‘academic tribes’ with distinct practices in research and learning and teaching (Becher and Trowler, 2001), communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991), ways of thinking and practicing (Entwistle, 2003) and the practice already carried by key players (Bamber et al., 2009). Thus:

When looking at HEIs, this perspective will reveal a ‘multi-cultural configuration’ of different social practices in different locales. These practices are shaped by ‘tools’, which might be anything from a policy document to a specific piece of learning technology. The practices that emerge will also be significantly influenced by the dominant discourse of each context. A further key element is that ‘histories and stories about the past will impact on enhancement initiatives in the present’ (Trowler, 2010, p.5). (2010: 4).

In addition, such issues have been reinforced, at the operational level, by more practical research concerns. Case studies have dominated the research field, and such studies, including those highlighted here, have often been centred upon highly context-specific evaluations, focusing on the acceptability to staff and students of local procedures and tools. Often the focus has been to improve the practice of the ‘practitioner-researcher’ involved. In such cases it has been difficult to generalise from the variety of methods and instruments used and there has been little focus on outcomes, perhaps because this is still a relatively recent innovation in most institutions. Whilst such case studies can provide rich insights into practice and highlight areas for development, their contextually specific nature, when combined with the highly specific and situated nature of practice limits the extent to which generalisations to be drawn from their different contexts (van Manen 1997). Conversely, larger, more conventionally designed research studies prove highly challenging in naturalistic environments; in terms of the ethical basis for assigning participants to ‘experimental’ and ‘control’ groups respectively, in attributing change to particular interventions and in moving from correlational significance to causal relationships (see Strivens and Ward, 2010).

C. So what can we say from Research and Evaluation?

As already identified, the freedom in terms of implementation within which PDP was initially introduced and supported by policy encouraged specific expressions of understanding and practice, and research has reflected this. Practitioner interpretations have been shaped by a plethora of ideas, from employability through generic skills transference to deeper academic learning and particular value-based models of democratic social-constructivism (Bowskill & Smith, 2009). Early research was therefore inevitably eclectic – or highly situational - in focus.

In 2003, the EPPI review by Gough et al (2003) offered the first systematic review of educational research on Personal Development Planning. Its key terms of “reflection, recording, planning & action” were agreed by the Reference Group as a proxy for PDP; specifically for ‘a number of constructs that attempt to connect and draw benefit from reflection, recording, action-planning and actually doing things that are aligned to the action plan’. The key terms identified 157 relevant studies that had been written in English, only 41 of which originated in the UK. Following critical evaluation these were reduced to 25 studies, only one of which came from the UK. Nonetheless, Gough et al concluded that:

The findings of the map and synthesis confirm the central policy claim that PDP supports the improvement of students’ academic learning and achievement.

Set alongside this overall level of support however the review’s authors did not identify any specific areas of causality due to the diversity of the nationalities, contexts and methods from which data were drawn (Jackson et al 2004, Clegg & Bufton 2008). Ultimately the EPPI review proved able to confirm the possibility of benefit but not how or why those benefits could be obtained (Clegg 2004). The EPPI review therefore provided both a sound methodological approach but equally recognised the limited existence of substantive causal evidence.

At the same time a report was produced by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI) (Brennan & Shah 2003) based on an institutional survey commissioned by the Progress Files Information Group (PFIG) to evaluate the implementation of Progress Files across UK HE. Drawing upon data from institutions elicited by post and telephone, they reported that the implementation of PDP had been patchy, subject to different interpretations even within institutions, and demonstrating a limited consensus amongst respondents on key issues (such as the degree to which PDP was or should be assessed or not, supported by tutors or not, employment or academically focussed). This notwithstanding Brennan and Shah (2003) remained cautiously optimistic; while progress was ‘slow’ and ‘uneven’, there was ‘little evidence of ‘compliance’ in introducing PDP’ (2003: 8). On the basis of this, they concluded that PDP was being introduced where academics saw the value of it and for some this meant seeing its potential as a radical innovation that could maximise employability, improve tutor contact and increase retention, but that some staff were concerned by issues related to workload and resources.

Both studies offered a positive perspective regarding the use of PDP for a wide range of purposes, but can also be seen as representative of a stage in research that was concerned more with PDP’s possibilities than its detailed practice.

At this point is it also pertinent to note that evidence for the potential efficacy of PDP processes may come from outside the field. For example, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), drawing on over 2,600 studies over 3 decades and reported by Stanbury (2010) highlighted key conclusions or potential relevance to the PDP agenda. Thus:

• The focus upon the development of self highlights key facets of development that accord well with PDP thinking (2005: 48)

• Student engagement is actively supported by key practice which may be shown to be highly congruent with the PDP agenda (Constructivist pedagogies; Integrative and holistic learning; extra-curricular learning from volunteering and placements) (2005: 608ff)

Elsewhere Wiseman (2009) tracked the lives of over 700 people as they attempted to achieve their New Year’s resolutions. Participants were asked to describe the techniques that they had employed and their level of success. Only 12% of participants achieved their resolution. By comparing the techniques used by successful and unsuccessful participants, Wiseman identified effective and ineffective ways of achieving long-lasting change, based upon sound action planning principles:

• Break your goal into a series of steps, focusing on creating sub-goals that are concrete, measurable, and time-based. Focus on creating goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time based (SMART).

• Tell others about your goals, thus increasing the fear of failure and eliciting support.

• Regularly remind yourself of the benefits associated with achieving your goals by creating a checklist of how life would be better once you obtain your aim.

In relation to PDP specifically, since the EPPI and Brennan and Shah studies much research and evaluation evidence has tended to focus upon individual implementations led by practitioners, though sometimes within wider initiatives, such as Cohort 5 of the Inter/National Coalition for E-Portfolio Research (2007-10) and the National Action Research Network (2008-10). Key themes to emerge from such studies, and others, are as follows.

1. Evidence of the positive effects of PDP implementation is most readily available from professional contexts, i.e. fields that have perhaps already accepted PDP as a component of existing approaches, including in relation to Continuing Professional Development (CPD). Joyce (2005), in a study of personal development and portfolios in MSc Nursing students, found portfolios to be an effective tool when aligning theory and practice in a professional context. Cotterill et al (2010) employed an action research approach to provide evaluation of the use of an e-Portfolio and blog within Initial Teacher Training (ITT). Results showed substantial levels of student engagement: ‘All students (N= 154) used the e-Portfolio and the mean number of logins was sixty three (the range being from 4 to 253). Of the 4,124 blog entries made, 67% were linked to one or more QTS standards, and on average each blog entry was linked to five standards. Thirty-six percent of blog entries were posted to a community, mostly the community of all PGCE students or to subject communities….’ P7. The work of Frith (2010: 12) similarly emphasises the position with regard to professional domains:

In a professional model of PDP, such as Social Work, the process (of e-portfolio implementation) was quick and easy because issues such as assessment of reflective practice, authentic tasks for reflection and staff expertise in reflective practice were well established. The e-portfolio simply replaced a previous similar system. Apart from some initial issues with learning about and using new technology, the embedding was a smooth process.

Such contexts traditionally valued the practices and beliefs that had shaped the initial implementation of PDP and were therefore comfortable ground for evidence-building. For Clegg & Bradley (2006) this was to be expected as they were teaching areas that have traditionally been founded on the practices of reflection and self-evidencing. Discussing their interview findings gathered from lecturers in Health & Social Care in a large post 92 University they concluded that such professions had “strong traditions of reflective practice and PDP as part of continuing professional practice” and that “practitioners in these areas had ready-made discursive frameworks within which to articulate their views” (2006: 60).

Clegg and Bradley (2006) conclude that (PDP) initiatives are more likely to succeed if they engage positively with teacher beliefs. Drawing upon the work of Barnett (2000) and Moore (2001) who identified two directions which courses can face; either projectional, outward-facing to employers and the economy, or introjectional, facing inwards to the discipline and the academy. Clegg and Bradley position the professional and employability models in the outward facing group whereas the academic model tends to face inward. However Hughes, et al, (2010: 12ff) in reviewing case studies of practice across four contexts at the University of Bradford, concluded that while the Clegg and Bradley categorisation might have been used, their findings were:

‘more consistent with a social practices based analysis to revel in the particularities of each case. We have exposed a range of situated pedagogies of PDP; we have not identified a best practice pedagogy of PDP’ …. ‘local contexts and cultures (and the individuals of which they are composed) are influential in shaping PDP practices.’

2. There is some evidence of a relationship between engagement with PDP and academic performance, echoing the conclusions of Gough et al. This may relate both to formative and summative outcomes. For example Lawton and Purnell, (2010: 5) noted the increased submission of work when the e-Portfolio system is used for this purpose:

‘The electronic submission has encouraged an early stage dialogue between students and teachers, and identified non-submission and non-engagement with tasks. Teachers have been able to provide ‘just in time’ support and thus increase retention and attainment’.

In terms of summative achievement, outcomes from Peters’ (2006) study, carried out as part of his National Teaching Fellowship, showed that across the six very different institutions which took part in the research, there was a statistically significant relationship between students’ willingness to engage in PDP processes and their ultimate degree classification. No causal relationship(s) can however be ascertained within this. In similar vein, Clark et al. (2010) reported that comparison of ‘scores’ on the Effective Lifelong Learning Inventory (ELLI) (see http://www.ellionline.co.uk/) achieved during the first year of the degree course with those of the same students at the end of the second year module, with reference to reflective writing ability, indicated that those who engaged with the PDP/e-Portfolio process (that is, those whose reflective writing showed deeper thought) showed most positive change. Those who did not engage, however, showed a decrease in learning ‘power’ in those three ELLI dimensions identified as having a significant correlation with high achievement (Critical Curiosity, Changing and Learning and Strategic Awareness). While such outcomes as these do not of themselves provide support for a causal relationship, they do merit further investigation.

3. There is significant support for the importance of reflective practice in academic and professional learning. Reflective practice had an existing presence within professional and vocational courses through the theories of Schön (1987). Rogers (2001) has shown it to be an essential component within the process of cognitive accommodation, assimilation and equilibrium, central to Piagtiean cognitive constructivism. Efforts to extend its use into the academic arena as a means of evidencing and improving learning and practice had been gaining interest through the Recording Achievement movement (Jackson 2001b). As a pragmatic component of understanding and improving learning and practice reflection has gained significant evidential support within both professional and academic arenas. Bullock et al (2007), in a study of dentistry students, identified how reflective activities in PDP modules support the ways in which students choose CPD activities, making choices that best reflect their developmental needs. Cotterill et al (2010) concluded that the use of an e-Portfolio and blog within Initial Teacher Training (ITT) was successful in supporting student reflection and evidencing; 77% of the students perceived that the e-Portfolio helped them to reflect on their learning and development, though the direct connection of the portfolio to QTS standards may of course have contributed to this. A recent study of teacher education in Queensland found that making reflection public had a positive impact on the quality and style of reflection (Rocco, 2010); trainees valued seeing multiple perspectives, which built up confidence and competence for engaging in reflection and professional dialogue.

Looking beyond the professional context, Brown (2002), in a qualitative case study of an adult learning cohort, found reflection and portfolio building to be both highly motivational and effective for making learning explicit within the adult sector per se.

The challenge of conceptual diversity remains important here too. Fry et al (2002), investigating PDP as a potential tool in support of lifelong CPD within professional courses, concluded that whilst processes such as reflection and self-evaluation are beneficial in motivating students to evidence their learning, a concept such as reflection could only be usefully applied where an adequate degree of consensual understanding could allow it to be presented in a confident and consistent form.

4. Securing student engagement with PDP is key, and can be mediated by levels of staff engagement Within constructivist theory knowledge emerges from an existing experiential field that is unique to the individual and therefore must be considered central to that individual’s learning and development, it is a process of subjective construction (Jackson & Ward 2004: 437). As such it becomes central to the educational process, a process that – as Houghton (2002) explicitly identified - must ultimately be owned by the students themselves if their subjective understandings are to be translated into effective engagement. Chalk et al (2010: 4) reported in relation to their research: ‘Engaging students with the process in partnership with the tutor as one of the possible audiences takes the debate further forward in a significant yet under-theorised researched area’.

For Jackson (2002) it was through this specific subjectivity that students could use PDP to align themselves to explicit disciplinary and trans-disciplinary educational outcomes; however this depends upon student engagement. In addition, we have already noted the conclusion of Clegg and Bradley (2006) that (PDP) initiatives are more likely to succeed if they engage positively with teacher beliefs.

The range of variables present here is however complex and some research has explicitly acknowledged this, whilst also reinforcing key factors. Thus Crawford et al (2010: 10), researching the use of an e-portfolio system and volunteer ‘coaches to support students in gaining an extra-curricular award, concluded:

‘What this research reveals is a complex interplay between the student use of an eportfolio tool to support reflection and the pedagogic support provided through introductory training and 1-1 coaching. It indicates the importance of the collaborative process in supporting reflection and the need for the learner to perceive the person providing feedback as possessing an authentic voice.’

Elsewhere, Monks et al (2006), through a quantitative study of business students at the University of Dublin, have shown how PDP can actively improve motivation and retention, whilst Turner (2007) through an online questionnaire of student perceptions of PDP at Ulster found it to be supportive of employability, reflection and individual boundary management. At the University of Wolverhampton 75% of the 606 students who responded to one of the research projects in this area said they enjoyed participating in e-PDP activities and found them useful (Lawton and Purnell, 2009). In their study Cotterill et al (2010: 17) noted that ‘most students understood the purpose and rationale of the e-Portfolio in relation to the skills/standards being evidenced, recognised that it was valued by their programme and promoted by staff , and that the portfolio was embedded in the curriculum and activities – all favourable factors for engagement’ . Riddell and Bates, (2010) reported upon outcomes from the introduction of a curricular approach to PDP (2010: 5) within an Interprofessional Learning Programme in the Adult Nursing pathway. As the researchers noted, ‘engaging academic staff in the delivery of PDP is not always easy, particularly when some structures are not assessed or credit bearing, such as mandatory PDP group tutorials (Dunne, 2005), or when staff are not confident that they have the skills to fulfil the personal tutor role (Strivens, 2006).’ Interestingly, the generally positive feedback from staff about their changing role from pastoral tutor to deliverer of personal development modules within the curriculum was echoed by students, who valued the positive relationship they had developed with their personal tutor and with each other by the end of the year. This study therefore reinforces the connection between staff and student engagement. Conversely, Varnava and James (2005) investigating the implementation of a paper-based progress file as part of the personal tutoring system at the Law School at Glamorgan University reported that a lack of belief in the core values of PDP by tutors, and a lack of understanding by students were two of the main reasons given for the poor involvement with the scheme. And Raiker (2010: 8) researching the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development, concluded that ‘a finding of this research is that, resonating with Stefani et al’s (1997) work, collaborative enhancement of shared understanding and agreement of the purpose and place of the tutorial record is essential to establishing realistic, meaningful PDP to support learner development within the dissertation process.’

Based upon Tutorial records, Raiker (2010) further reported that ‘The principal issue revealed by content analysis affecting learner development was the varying engagement of supervisors with giving feedback and the generally poor quality of formative feedback.’ (p11)… and that ‘learner development could be enhanced through supervisor development’ P13

Equally, staff inconsistency regarding PDP has been seen as a consistent factor within research on student disengagement (Miller & Martin 2007), with direct correlations being found between staff and student attitudes (Cosh 2008). As Rees-Jones and Jackson (2001: d16), reporting upon earlier student evaluation at the University of Leeds, noted:

Notwithstanding the importance of developing student responsibility for the process, a consistent theme amongst students was the important emphasis placed upon the interest and support of a ’significant other’. Where the process was linked to tutorial provision, the response of the Tutor was a significant ‘driver’ (or non-response a significant ‘inhibitor’) in relation to student engagement.

As Brennan & Shaw (2003) initially showed, staff attitudes towards PDP are highly influential on student engagement, and yet staff members have been found to struggle when faced with conceptual confusion and a perception of challenge to their own values and competencies (see also Crawford 2008). Betts & Calabro (2005) found perceived conflicts with staff values and competences as being key to staff disengagement, and the implication remains that if students remain confused by the concept (Cosh 2008) this may have stemmed from staff confusion as well. Analysing questionnaire responses from 125 academic and learning support staff Powell, (2010) demonstrated that both PDP as a process and its elements were perceived as useful by academic staff - over 82% of the participants saw PDP as either useful or very useful, this number increasing even further in relation to each of the elements of PDP. Feedback further suggested the rationale for the ranking of PDP as a process was directly linked to perception rather than experience. When PDP was ranked as useless or not very useful, the perception offered appeared to be based around a view that PDP was a concept or fixed structure imposed upon the curriculum by the institution. It was also further emphasised that ‘the attitude that staff hold is also mirrored by students or vice versa.’ P8 (our emphasis).

The importance of staff engagement can be extended to work with employment based learners. Savory et al (2010: 9) reported that:

Twelve of the (fifteen) undergraduate students (within a focus group setting) valued the support provided by a personal tutor which was felt to build confidence, provide reassurance and an opportunity to clarify issues about the course, and seek advice and guidance, in some cases about career development.

The ‘staff’ role as defined here may not necessarily taken by a staff member. Working within a University Medical School, Braidman and Regan (2010) reported upon the development of student mentors to support online communities of reflective learners. Their work was referenced upon that of Garrison et al (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) who recognised that reflective learning experience online resulted from interaction between three “presences” namely Cognitive , Social and Tutor, and upon the analysis of student contributions to such supported online discussions. Results demonstrated that it was possible to develop online learning, facilitated by students themselves which promotes reflective discussion and critical thinking, and that the training of such student mentors enhances the participation of group members and also spreads good practice among those who do not receive this training.

Finally, in research related to staff engagement with the use of e-portfolio for their own development Chesney (2010: 7) drew attention to the importance of the ‘significant other’ for staff themselves, concluding that:

Our findings suggest that e-portfolio use for staff development is highly dependent on the direction and support of other stakeholders within an institution. Participants could see the practical benefits an e-portfolio offered such as a reduction in paper, but in addition to this they needed some indication of ‘approval’ from a selected audience if they were to be motivated to using the e-portfolio.

Since student engagement is crucial to the effectiveness of PDP, so is the understanding of the barriers that prevent engagement. Evidence suggests that ensuring personal relevance and message consistency and clarity are fundamental to any potential success (Maggioni & Parkinson 2008). It is a point that Dyke et al. raise through research on pharmacy students whilst attempting to explain why half of them refused to engage with PDP, further adding that compliant presentation of portfolios should not be considered engagement (2009: 61). Goodwin & Burkinshaw (2007) have highlighted just how important student ownership of PDP processes is to effective engagement. Reporting upon a major process of implementation at the University of Wolverhampton, Lawton et al (nd) concluded:

Seeing a tangible benefit to the learning experience was a high motivator for staff to instigate and continue with an ePortfolio pedagogy. The ability to give iterative feedback was attractive to tutors, enabling them to interact more with students in a different forum to a traditional tutorial and encouraged learner engagement through formative and summative assessment. Tutors have also found that in the modules where iterative feedback is used consistently, that there was a significant increase in the submission of work. Although this may mean that students were not selecting the correct pieces of work and possibly just submitting all work, the positive side might indicate an increased motivation to not only complete the work but to read and act on the feedback given. Some tutors felt that student motivation to use the tool was low, possibly because it is still used in ‘pockets’ of modules rather than being completely embedded. It was also felt that the training barriers above had a direct impact of the engagement of the student as the tutor has to be committed and up skilled in the use of the ePortfolio in order to enthuse students. An unexpected outcome from this research has been that the ease of communication with tutors and ability to create communities of practise within the tool has also led to the early identification of students at risk. It is encouraging that these students feel confident enough in the tool to use it as a channel in times of difficulty.

Engagement remains a key concern for the potential long-term success of PDP; the work of Peters has revealed the full extent of the diversity that lies in student attitudes to the PDP process. As he comments, “Higher Education (HE) policy on implementing PDP implied that students would be grateful recipients of whatever system an institution provided. Yet experienced practitioners consistently reported a wide variety of responses, ranging from creative engagement, through compliance, to active resistance” (2006: 7). Perhaps, as Peters suggests, the next step in research should revolve around a greater understanding of the intentions and motivations of students, particularly with such a diverse context regarding age, gender and culture. Without a full recognition of the relationship between the individual and their social and political contexts the socio-constructivist views on self-regulation become potentially negated as the power of the individual agency becomes over-stated.

5. Employability and the skills debate are key drivers in many institutional implementations (Brennan and Shah, 2003) and for research (Clegg 2004). Employability is currently both a national and an institutional concern, and the bond between PDP and employability is strong in many institutions. A range of practice linking PDP and Employability has been documented (see e.g. Ward et al 2009). From an employer perspective, Edwards (2005), reported upon the potential benefits of PDP to graduate recruitment and early career development.5 For Streeting (2007), then President of the NUS, employability and the ability to express skills acquisition has become a key aspect of student expectations, Kneale (2005), in developing employer development materials for use within the HE curriculum, argued that employability remains the best route through which student engagement with PDP can be assured. It is an opinion reinforced by the research of Cosh (2007) at Anglia Ruskin University, who reported on a study concerned with staff and student attitudes towards the provision of a core PDP module shaped around questionnaires, an analysis of e-resource provision and contact with PDP ‘champions’ in each relevant department. This reported that the work was more valued when framed within the context of employability, a result which may relate to a further finding that students found it difficult to understand the rationale behind PDP work and that employability offered them this.

Investigating the value of personal development planning, taking a discipline focus and extending into early graduate careers, Riley et al (2010) reported the views of employers with regard to the value of one key component of PDP – that of critical reflection. Evidence from three discipline areas (computing, education and law) of the value that senior students, alumni and employers perceived to come from student participation of critical reflective practices during their studies at university found that employers in particular valued the processes of critical reflection, though this was not always recognised by students. This was however a small study and one which has yet to replicated.

Savory et als (2010) work with employment-based learners offers a different frame, though one which complements the findings of both Edwards and Riley et al, with all bar one employer respondents thinking that activities supporting the PDP process had the potential to be useful or extremely useful, and concluded that (2010: 14):

‘sponsoring employers place considerable emphasis on subject and technical knowledge but at the same time refer to the need for students to be able to problem solve and act autonomously in unpredictable complex situations, in line with the concept of functioning knowledge.’

However evidencing the development of student employability as an outcome measure has proved a difficult task. Knight & Page (2007) noted that the sort of skills that employers tend to value remain very difficult to identify effectively and assess: they further argue that staff’s avoidance of these skills within their teaching is not so much a lack of will but a genuine concern regarding their interpretation as measurable outcomes.

Despite issues surrounding assessment and outcome validity, employability has become an important theme within PDP practice. This focus has however raised challenges and tensions. Rowe (2010) reported from her institutional study that some staff felt politically and ethically uncomfortable with what they perceived to be a change in the focus of the tutorial relationship away from the traditional concept of academic guidance towards a relationship ‘nested within the employability framework’ (Clegg and Bradley, 2006). And the categorisations employed by Clegg and Bradley may serve to neglect the degree of overlap between concerns for employability and improved learning promulgated in the work of the National Co-ordination Team for Employability (ESECT, 2002-5, see also Harvey, et al, 2002)6. Findings from research and evaluation confirm this complexity. Thus Bowen et al (2005) referring to the number of students displaying a deeper understanding of their subject through a PDP/skills module, reported that:

"Student reaction to the module has been overwhelmingly positive, with students embracing the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of their individual learning identity/behaviour. The majority of students displayed `deep' levels of learning (95%) and the application of skills development in real-life situations helped students to transfer personal development to outside of the classroom.” (205: 1165).

The module was practice-based module "with a clear focus on skills development" (1165), though these results were based upon the 'crude indicator' (1163) that intrinsic motivations reflect deep learning. And East (2005) identified that, while it would be easy to interpret the Dearing Report as a policy for employability alone, but to do so ignored the value of Progress Files to the learning experience as reflected in the student questionnaire results in University of Glamorgan Pilot studies in 2002-3.

5. E-Portfolios as a vehicle for PDP implementation. The concept of the e-portfolio has become identified not only as a route to reflection but through that to reflective practice (Moon 1999, Pellicione & Raison 2009), employability (Streeting 2007), supporting inter-disciplinary connections (Goldsmith 2007), lifelong learning (BECTA 2007) and the tacit-explicit shift (Skiba 2005). Owen (2009: 729-30) provides a summary of evidence in relation to e-portfolio practice, based on socio-cultural principles and theory.

A survey carried out by CRA for the Higher Education Academy found that from sixty-one UK HEIs responding, over half were using some form of technology (other than an e-Portfolio) to support PDP institutionally (Strivens, 2007). These findings illustrate the strong tendency in UK higher education to associate e-Portfolio (technology and practices) with PDP practices (see also Strivens et al., 2010).

Given this degree of congruence, results from research and evaluation studies in respect of e-portfolio practice provide a consistent level of reinforcement for conclusions in respect of PDP practice reached elsewhere. Using Repertory Grid Analysis with students, a cross disciplinary team from London Metropolitan University (Chalk et al 2010: 3) identified:

‘a common set of important constructs which have a high correlation with the ‘ideal’ e-portfolio: ownership (me), about (me), profile (professional not social), access (private), views (personal, not shared), creating knowledge… Broadly, outcomes of the repertory grid process can be themed by the individual, the role of the tool (personal via professional) and around creating knowledge with others. The individual aspects are very much around ownership of the portfolio, personalisation and reflecting the student in differing personas, thus for social networks a distinction seemed to be made around personal life i.e. socialising and staying in touch with friends; whereas any professional aspects of a portfolio would be far more about ‘my skills and my experience’, i.e. work related.’p3

More broadly, the development of e-portfolios has been associated with a similarly varied range of purposes to that of PDP, and, as Moule and Remahn (2010) report, can present similar challenges, such as to student engagement for example. Early review work by Butler (2006) on portfolio assessment served to highlight what a varied area of practice this could be, with the working characteristics of portfolios being defined by educational outcomes that were being sought from them. However, as Rodaway (2005) suggests through their findings within the Individualised Support for Learning through e-portfolios (ISLE) project, e-portfolios offer more than simple evidencing, rather providing a holistic support platform incorporating diagnostic tools and learning signposts. For Goodridge & Burkinshaw (2007) they were found to promote student engagement through individualisation.

For Haigh (2008), working in healthcare education, the transparency offered by e-portfolios was found to effectively complement and extend the standard competency framework. As such they appeared to offer the potential for individualised learning, improved engagement and improved inter-disciplinary awareness. Rodway et al., 2008, working with Psychology students, reported findings which indicated that both structured and unstructured reflection through the e-Portfolio improved students’ use of metacognitive strategies. Conversely, the work of Rowe (2010: 16) researching the implementation of a new e-PDP system at Exeter, reported that an ‘over-emphasis …on the importance of using technology to support the PDP process, can result in the notion that somehow PDP is deliverable through a simple electronic system of input/output, rather than through development of a rich and often highly negotiated relationship between tutor and tutee’.

Investigating learners early experiences with their e-Portfolio Moule and Rhemahn (2010), reported an analysis of responses based upon focus group discussion. This confirmed many themes noted elsewhere: the integration of e-Portfolios across curriculum and assessment design; striking a balance between formative and summative assessment; and the expectation for tutors to be fully involved and engaged. In addition two themes emerged that appeared less well documented, related to creativity and play and uncertainly about purpose and audience respectively. The latter, further related to trust, ownership, audience and security, appeared to present a barrier to engagement. This notwithstanding, respondents reported that the e-Portfolio was helping their learning in terms of identifying development needs, enabling them to better focus their attention (e.g. to identify where more effort was needed) and improving their IT skills.

Finally, and connecting to other aspects of this review Symonds (2010) used an Appreciative Inquiry framework – and the ‘Discovery’ dimension of this in particular - to elicit staff and student views as to what the benefits of using an e-Portfolio were. Results reinforced the importance of staff engagement, specifically through the use of the institutional e-portfolio system for creating resources and exemplar materials, and for the submission of student work (though students were more reticent about the latter). They also highlighted the need for technical and pedagogical support for students in particular and the necessity of embedding the use of the e-portfolio in the curriculum.

With e-portfolios has come a globalisation in research (Strivens 2007), with contributions coming from Australia, and particularly America, where it was has been linked to citizenship education and the cognitive narrative work of Baxter Magolda (Baxter Magolda 2009). Yancey has highlighted how in the United States non-cognitive issues such as family and racial attitudes have become key issues for admission purposes and that the e-portfolio is seen as the best way of evidencing these (2009). In addition it has become recognised as a key factor in inter-disciplinary understanding and personal development towards socio-economic skills such as social responsibility and teamwork (2009). For Clark, e-portfolios will ultimately result in a global standardization of learning as the world becomes increasingly international and inter-disciplinary (2009).

D. Conclusions: Where next? The implementation of PDP is a highly complex one. Where Jackson has called for practice within the field to be as experimental as possible (Adanakan 2010), the subsequent diversity has created challenges to the policy’s acceptance by academic staff. Quinton and Smallbone (2008: 107) in giving consideration to what makes the implementation of PDP successful or not, suggested that:

‘…successful implementation requires a blend of the following five areas of good practice: the effective and appropriate use of technology; internal staff champions; support for all staff involved in delivering PDP; clear and meaningful communication with students; and the capture of the institution's cumulative experience over time. Good practice within the conceptual aspects of PDP would include a clear vision of where responsibility lies for PDP within a university, a shared understanding of the purpose of PDP and the promotion of a PDP culture which engages both students and staff.’

This notwithstanding, within a research review it should be asked whether the gathered data has been of sufficient quantity and quality to be effective in raising the profile and application of PDP within Higher Education. Many of the key underpinning concepts remain open to debate, and those asserting the importance of conceptual clarity continue to sit alongside others who emphasise the importance of survival and development in a complex, messy and culturally diverse world in which transdisciplinary learning is valued alongside disciplinary learning (Jackson and Ward (2004)), and of situated practice respondent to local needs and circumstances.

Much depends on the nature of the evidence one is looking for. In a related field, Reardon & Hartley have commented that whilst the e-portfolio movement in America has been strong on expectations and rhetoric regarding their application in reality they have proved unable to offer data to support claims made (2007: 83). Quoting the work of Ayala (2006) they comment that within 300 articles supporting e-portfolios, only 5% included supporting data of any kind. More recent work (Buckley et al, 2009) in a specific area has not supported this earlier conclusion, rather reporting:

… evidence of an improving trend in the quality of reported studies. ‘Higher quality’ papers identify improvements in knowledge and understanding, increased self-awareness and engagement in reflection and improved student–tutor relationships as the main benefits of portfolio use. However, they also suggest that whilst portfolios encourage students to engage in reflection, the quality of those reflections cannot be assumed and that the time commitment required for portfolio completion may detract from other learning or deter students from engaging with the process unless required to do so by the demands of assessment. Further work is needed to strengthen the evidence base for portfolio use, particularly comparative studies which observe changes in student knowledge and abilities directly, rather than reporting on their perceptions once a portfolio has been completed.

Roberts has commented similarly on issues surrounding reflection. Having stated all of the claims for the process he adds that “there appears to be rather less literature providing evidence to show that encouraging students to reflect improves their resultant actions. To some extent this remains an assumption, albeit one that is underpinned by a number of seminal pieces of literature’ (2009: 634).

Research in PDP has raised considerable observation and comment but it could perhaps be argued that it has been less successful in producing solid empirical evidence of the type called for by Peters & Burkinshaw (2007). Much of the reason for this may lie in the nature of the processes that have been used within PDP, the ‘wicked competencies’ “that cannot be neatly pre-specified, take time to develop and resist measurement-based approaches to assessment” (Knight & Page 2007). Case studies drawn from within the community of practice have clearly dominated, and provide a considerable database of observations and recommendations regarding practice. These have shown that for some students, in some situations, certain PDP practices can deliver benefits in terms of self-knowledge, employability and their approaches to learning. In addition given this focus on practitioner research, output has been dominated by the community of practice associated with PDP. Doubts could perhaps be raised as to whether the ideological certainty of that community is effective when trying to convince others of a belief they don’t necessarily share. Research can only therefore be seen as partially successful in that it has often addressed only part of the questions that surround PDP’s conceptualisation and implementation as policy. This may be seen as characteristic of any movement that seeks to grow from infancy to maturity, and particularly so where the community of practice concerned has often proved nervous of traditional research methodologies and academic criticality (Peters 2010). And yet it is a criticality with which the community must inevitably engage if it is to provide the “scholarly research that PDP deserves & needs” (Peters & Burkinshaw, 2007).

So where next? In conceptual terms, if it retains its constructivist foundations, it is perhaps, time for research to leave behind questions of what PDP as a set of processes could or should be, and equally what they should achieve in terms of outcomes. Facing the increased significance of individual relevance to the processes of self-construction, perhaps they should instead turn to a fuller awareness of their actual and experienced abilities to create change and the personal factors that define their potential. Perhaps it is time to recognise that in a student-centred constructivist system of education may be seen as being centred on individual relevance rather than social expectation, consider how easy is it to unite the two, and what roles PDP might play in this?

Operationally, we need to continue to work at raising the standards of research and evaluation in order to counter arguments regarding a lack of proof. A recent international seminar bringing together practitioners from the US, the UK, Europe and Australasia, Cambridge and Hartley (2010) acknowledged the challenges of the e-Portfolio research agenda, and highlighted six questions which may themselves have strong resonance for future work on PDP:

• The long-term impact of e-Portfolio adoption/use (how should this be evaluated?).

• Whether we can expect one e-Portfolio to suit every student (or even the majority of students).

• The underlying psychological processes that support or impede the take-up of e-Portfolios, for both staff and students.

• The importance of IT skill and confidence.

• How reluctant tutors can be persuaded or encouraged.

• What are the most significant institutional barriers and enablers.

• A better understanding of the multiple audiences for e-Portfolios (not just students and tutors).

Cambridge and Hartley speculated that meeting these challenges will require a broader range of methods and approaches (crucially involving more observation of behaviour and less self-report), with methods and approaches shared across the e-Portfolio community of practice so that data can be compared across institutions. While PDP and e-portfolio practice are by no means wholly congruent one with another, this analysis provides an important framework for future research and evaluation activity.

Appendix A: Further reading (20 short PDP reviews)7

1. ‘The Prevalence of ‘life planning’: evidence from UK Graduates Brooks, R., and Everett, G. (2008) British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 325-337 Whilst the article does not deal with PDP specifically, its aim is to question a core aspect within PDP modelling; the need to promote life planning. Brooks and Everett examine the view that such a term cannot be seen in a generic, normalized form, but is individually specific to every individual and the aspirations, motivations and values that they carry with them. For those constructing PDP systems, the challenge is therefore set as to whether learning goals can be set effectively if they do not, or indeed more significantly cannot, match those of the learner themselves.

2. Beyond the Honours Degree Classification. The Burgess Group Final Report Universities UK (2007) http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/Burgess_final.pdf Whilst much has been discussed about the legislative factors that have influenced the implementation of PDP, such reports allow us an insight into where its future may ultimately lie. Central to this report, lies the potential adoption of the HEAR, the Higher Academic Achievement Record, and the role which PDP may have within it. Whether such a system is inevitably adopted remains unclear, but for most practitioners, the singular nature of PDP as reflected in the report may be of interest, particularly where diversity has characterised a majority of articles within this collection.

3. “A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios” Butler, P. (2006) Massey University College of Education, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 2006 Concentrating specifically on the role of portfolios with progress files and PDP, Butler seeks to draw our attention to the potential diversity that exists within portfolio type and purpose. Naturally, such a discussion centres upon key influences, such as discipline type, academic/employability focus and theoretical choices however, Butler further comments on the individual roles that the students themselves apply to the process. Through such a discussion we are therefore forced to question ‘who’ controls the process; those who develop and promote it, and the underlying reasons behind its implementation, or those who must ultimately use it.

4. Models of Personal Development Planning: practice and processes Clegg, S., and Bradley, S. (2006) British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, February 2006, pp. 57–76 7 Not all of these are referred to in the main body of the text. Through much of her recent research, Sue Clegg has consistently questioned the ways in which PDP policy drivers and practitioners have dealt with the practical and contextual complexities that characterise PDP. Here, drawing extensively on the discipline identity work of Basil Bernstein, Clegg & Bradley argue that the nature of PDP provision must inevitably be linked to the subject disciplines of which they are a part. Through the recognition of three ‘ideal’ PDP types – academic, professional and employability – they conclude that PDP provision can rarely be seen as student centred. Instead it is driven by the needs, goals and expectations of the disciplines to which they are seeking membership, and the educational stakeholders that contextualize their place of learning.

5. The implementation of progress files in higher education: Reflection as national policy. Clegg, S., and Bradley, S. (2006). Higher Education 51: 465-486 Reflection can be identified as a core process within the implementation of progress files, and yet little work has been written on what Clegg and Bradley see as a key shift in the expectations of studentship. Drawing on interviews with academics at a single university, the authors challenge us to recognize the difficulties in teaching and learning that have arisen through the explicit use of reflection; difficulties that concentrate on what the authors see as inevitable individual differences in the understanding and assessing of reflection. Furthermore, they claim that the demands made upon teachers’ personal confidence in applying such processes have been dramatically underestimated.

6. Student support through personal development planning: retrospection and time. Clegg, S., and Bufton, S. (2008). Research Papers in Education, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 435 -450 Whilst many articles approach Personal Development Planning from a systems perspective, Clegg & Bufton have here chosen to approach it specifically from that of the student themselves. Arguing strongly against those theorists who they see as welcoming student complexity without revealing any understanding as to how it can be managed, Clegg & Bufton seek to highlight the power of the individual and not the system to recognise, interpret and manage the PDP process. Specifically commenting on issues such as time, retrospective meaning making, understanding autonomy and the roles of self-narratives, the assertion is made that PDP may only be effective where it is identified as authentic to the beliefs and aspirations of the individual students themselves.

7. PDP ‘View from the Ground’ Closing the Policy Gap Conroy, C., Greenhaigh, L., Holt, C., & Regan, P. (2008) http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/events/conference/2008/Carole_Conroy.doc Centred on a case study of the University of Salford, this article aims to identify the key issues that help shape effective PDP implementation. Unusually, one of its key areas of focus lies within the ways in which national and university policy interact with departmental attitudes to shape student perceptions. As such it is

naturally drawn into key areas such as purpose, assessment and the transparency of each. Furthermore, within their research conclusions, Conroy et al question the relationship between national policy and localised learning, particularly commenting on the potentially negative consequences of allowing inter-departmental freedom of interpretation, and subsequently application, of those policies; a freedom which is seen as central to the revised PDP guidelines produced in 2009.

8. Personal Development Planning at Oxford Brookes – Still Developing? Cooper, K. (2006) Brookes eJournal of Learning & Teaching Although limited in scope to a single case study, by focusing on a single university Cooper is allowed time to both identify the original goals underpinning PDP at Oxford Brookes, and the ways in which they have responded to pressures placed upon them by both staff and third parties. The subsequent study focus is therefore broad and enlightening, including complex theoretical and practical areas, such as reflection as a process, quasi-industrial teaching methods, problems with resourcing and participation, and the role of personal tutors within the system. Ultimately, it is through such an expansive study, that Cooper concludes that any system of PDP can only develop when based on genuine evidence concerning where it is and where it wishes to go.

9. Getting the Most out of Progress Files and Personal Development Planning. Croot, D., & Gedye, S. (2006) Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 30, No. 1, 173-179, Starting from the premise that PDP processes are by nature both complex and varied, both within and between institutions, Croot & Gedye have tried through this article to highlight the general benefits that underpin such differences in approach. Their focus is firmly located upon the student view of PDP processes and how they can perceive benefit from them, whatever model they are faced with. Focusing largely on PDP’s ability to enhance both employability and academic success, the article may prove very useful for those practitioners struggling to sustain student engagement with the PDP process.

10. A Progress Report on Progress Files: The experience of one higher education institution. East, R. (2005) Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 6(2): 160-171 Commenting specifically on the implementation of the Progress File across the HEI system, East draws on his experiences at the University of Glamorgan to highlight concerns surrounding the effectiveness of their policy making and the subsequent policy application. The picture painted within the article is one of confusion, a confusion levied at the use of subject benchmarking, the unclear goals of PDP and inadequate staff resourcing. Furthermore, East uses the article to cast doubts upon the sincerity of some provision, commenting that when faced with such a complex picture it may prove easier to adopt a symbolic system which merely satisfies organizational requirements rather than student needs.

11. Connecting PDP to Employer Needs and the World of Work Edwards, G. (2005) The Higher Education Academy, www.heacademy.ac.uk/.../id71_connecting_pdp_to_employer_needs.pdf Whilst many articles have concentrated on PDP from either the student or academic perspective, Edwards instead chooses to view the PDP process from the perspectives of the employers and professional organizations to which the students will inevitable seek membership after graduation. Therefore, as a research study, his aim has been to examine how PDP should be shaped in order to improve graduate employability, and, ultimately, whilst it doesn’t offer a description of particular tasks or methods to develop specific graduate skills, it does serve to highlight those areas which, in the eyes of some employers, are of most significance.

12. Developing Progress Files: a case study. Fry, H., Davenport, E. S., Woodman, T., & Pee, B. (2002). Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 Although discussing Progress Files rather than PDP, Fry et al highlight some key aspects with regard to PDP as a process within the educational arena. Whilst noting the complexities that exist within PDP provision, they conclude from this study that such diversity doesn’t hinder its development but underpins it, allowing for the interconnecting strands of practice to be shaped appropriately for each educational context. Furthermore, whilst Fry et al note how professional subjects may benefit better from such processes due to the clarity of the goals, such a differentiation between academic and non-academic subjects can be minimized through the adoption of more precise goals and aspirations. Overall, the study offers a wide range of insights and advice for those either establishing or developing their PDP provision.

13. A Systematic Map and Synthesis Review of the Effectiveness of Personal Development Planning for Improving Student Learning Gough, D., Kiwan, D., Sutcliffe, K., Simpson, D., & Houghton, N. (2003) EPPI-Centre, http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=XSlHVsvxA10%3D&tabid=309&mid=1188&language=en-US Gough et al’s 2003 study represented the first major attempt to review the literature regarding PDP. Drawing on research from a wide range of countries, and a broad set of research terms, the report offers an extensive research base, together with a rigorous approach to study. Its final conclusion remains that PDP is indeed beneficial for student learning, although, perhaps due to its extensive terminological remit, it remained unclear as to why. For those wishing to research PDP, the piece therefore offers a clear and precise review methodology, whilst simultaneously warning against over-extending such an approach.

14. Integrating Progress Files into the Academic Process: A Review of Case Studies Haigh, J. (2008). Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 9(1): 57-71 Drawing on Clegg & Bradleys’ (2006) work on the recognition of ‘ideal’ PDP types, Haigh seeks to further investigate how such a contextualisation of understanding has continued to shape both its provision and experience. Providing clear examples from each ‘ideal’, Haigh concludes that the contextual differences that exist both within and between institutions, together with the varying ways in which they have interpreted their goals and processes, have continued to drive a proliferation of provision. Furthermore, she specifically remarks that the future of PDP may yet rely on the ability of institutions to build PDP processes into academic curriculum, manage the additional staff pressures which it has created and fund the introduction of those technological systems that are being increasingly associated with its effective provision.

15. A fresh perspective on progress files – a way of representing complex learning and achievement in higher education. Jackson, N. and Ward, R. (2004). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 29, No. 4 Central to this piece lies the conceptualisation of PDP as a necessary response to the individual, political and educational complexities that define our present society. Drawing specifically from Complexity Theory, a systems model which highlights the complex and unpredictable nature of social interaction, Jackson & Ward argue that whilst the practicalities of PDP provision may shift significantly according to the goals that are being applied to it, issues such as autonomy and self-regulation must remain core concepts if the student is to act effectively within the modern economic and social climate. Ultimately, through its academic focus, the article offers a challenging view of PDP as a driver for individual development within a post-modern social framework.

16. Employability & Good Learning in Higher Education. Knight, P. T., & Yorke, M. (2003). Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 1 Whilst Knight and Yorke have not mentioned PDP specifically within this article, its focus is very much on the ways in which university education can improve graduate learning and employability. Therefore, by focusing on educations potential role in altering student dispositions towards themselves as students and economic contributors, Knight and Yorke comment specifically on the underlying potentials underpinning effective PDP. Drawing on the socio-cognitive work of psychologists such as Dweck, they serve to highlight both the potential benefits of such an approach and the potential difficulties that it must ultimately face when applied to a massified educational context, as found in the United Kingdom.

17. Personal, Academic & Career Development in Higher Education: SOARing to Success. Kumar, A. (2007). Routledge, Abingdon Kumar’s’ ambitious book offers both a theoretical model of personal development planning and a practical guide to its provision. Centred on SOAR, a cyclical model of reflective learning, the book is constructed around an eclectic and sometimes confusing selection of theories; however, setting this aside, it offers a wide range of practical exercises and useful approaches to Personal Development Planning from a teaching perspective. In addition, Kumar’s focus on human resource practice and theory would make this publication particularly relevant for those practitioners seeking to adopt an employability framework to their PDP provision.

18. Integrating Personal Development and Career Planning: The outcomes for first year undergraduate learning. Monks, K., Conway, E., & Dhuigneain, N. (2006). Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 7 (1); 73-86 As with Clegg & Bufton (2008), the aim of this article is to examine specifically the first year experience of PDP. However, here, rather than adopting a theoretical stance, the article describes a research study which aims to measure the influences of a single PDP module on student self-awareness, and its subsequent impact on issues such as retention, motivation and career development. Ultimately, Monks et al claim evidential support for the module, but for those wishing to quantify the influence of their PDP provision, the article more effectively highlights the strengths and weaknesses of adopting a questionnaire based methodology within PDP research.

19. PDP Implementation at English Universities: What are the issues? Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2008). Journal of Further & Higher Education, Vo. 32, No. 2, 99-109 Drawing from a small scale telephone based interview study of university academics, this research study by Quinton and Smallbone, seeks to both understand the complexities inherent within the different approaches to PDP, as found in a range of English Universities, and to recognize ways in which those universities have successfully accounted for the specific difficulties which they have faced. Their conclusions reveal a core need for universities to be internally coherent in both the forms of PDP they present to students and the ways in which such a learning culture is promoted. Whilst recognising that such a planning process remains on-going, the article may be particularly useful for those seeking to establish or improve their current methods of PDP provision.

20. ‘Personal Development Planning under the Scope of Self-Brand Orientation’. Rigopoulou, I., and Kehagias, J. (2008). International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 300-313 Rigopoulo & Kehagias raise the concern that through PDP’s dominant focus on specific agendas, be they either academic development or employability, the risk exists that a generic graduate must inevitably result. In essence, we no-longer focus on who we are but who others would have us be. In this article, the authors examine self-brand orientation, in which students focus on their own holistic needs, seeking personal development on a breadth of scale that far extends beyond graduate recruitment. In seeking to offer the student far greater personal control over their individual development, Rigopoulou & Kehagias offer an alternative PDP model designed to challenge what they see as an implicit move towards graduate normalisation.