CASE STUDY – HIGHER EDUCATION

Title: Introducing PDP at Staffordshire University as a part of its

institutional learning and teaching strategy Building a Learning
Community.

Submission Date: May 2002

Institution: Staffordshire University

Department: Learning Development Centre

Subject/Focus: Developing towards an institution-wide PDP

Primary Contact: Steve Outram

Address: Co-Director of the Learning Development Centre

Staffordshire University
Thompson Library
College Rd
Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire
ST4 6QX

Tel: 01782 294808

Email: s.g.outram@staffs.ac.uk

Description: Staffordshire University embarked on the development and

implementation of an institutional learning and teaching strategy Building and Learning
Community in 1996. This was amended in 1999. It is a learner-centered strategy that is
forward-looking and has a focus on improving the students’ learning experiences.

Detailed elements include the introduction of flexible learning methods; the campus-wide
introduction of virtual learning using two VLE’s – Lotus Learning Space and COSE
(Creation of Study Environments); and greater support for students including enhanced
employability. PDP is an integral part of this.

Since 1996 we have gradually introduced and embedded most of the early strategy
goals. PDP remains one of the goals that we are introducing cautiously. There have
been three pilots in Geography, Law and our Foundation Degree. Further pilots in
History and Social Work are planned for 2002-2003. It is intended that we should learn
from the experiences before ‘rolling out’ PDP across the university from 2005.

Key words:

1. Institution wide
2. Voluntary
3. Electronic

1
SCOPE OF PRACTICE
Who is it for?
Ultimately, it will be for all undergraduate students. Currently, it is for students on the
single honours Geography Degree, Legal Studies Degree and Project Management
Foundation Degree. In 2002-3 it will additionally include undergraduate students on the
History Degree and Social Work Diploma.

Is it compulsory or voluntary?
It is a part of the core curriculum for Geography and for the Foundation Degree. It is a
part of the personal tutor scheme for the Legal Studies students.

Is it assessed or non-assessed?
It is not assessed at the present, but discussions are taking place to ascertain whether
it ought to be and, if so, in what way. Tutors are reporting (with some exceptions) that
they would prefer it to be assessed – students are reporting through the Students
Union Council that, if it is to be assessed, it should be assessed separately from their
subject assessment.

RATIONALE FOR PRACTICE

The PDP Steering Group that oversees this initiative has considered the rationale,
including whether the University ought now to be doing it at all.

Are these written down anywhere?

According to the Interim Report of the PDP Steering Group that was submitted to the
University Learning and Teaching Sub-Committee in May 2002:

Within the more recent context of tighter financial planning and control it is important
that a business case can also be made to support the [PDP] initiative. The rationale
articulated by members of the Working Party includes;

· PDP supports student admission and retention.

· PDP supports the delivery of key skills and the University’s Statement of Skills
and Personal Characteristics
· PDP supports the Personal Tutor system and enhances staff satisfaction
· PDP supports widening participation initiatives by giving students responsibility
and confidence in relation to their future employability
· PDP is consistent with a number of professional body requirements.

An action point following this meeting is that a clear business case for introducing PDP
should be articulated by Easter 2003.

2
DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE
Is it supported by a person/people?

(If yes, who?)

personal tutor X other( please state who

X
academic tutor

careers adviser

mentor

How often is the support given?

Support varies according to the programme – from meetings every two weeks to once
each term.

Is it supported by a support tool or materials?

Electronic tools and materials are being prepared. Paper-based resources are
currently used.
If yes, is it (are they) paper-based or electronic?
The PDP Steering Group has recommended that:

· Whilst it was useful and valuable to have some resources available

electronically it was also felt that it was important to retain a face-to-face
element that included a student’s written summary of what had been learned or
gained to be discussed with a tutor.

How is the support structured?

The PDP Steering Group has recommended that:

· In some PDP schemes it is the student’s responsibility and choice to engage

with PDP. In others, the tutor has responsibility for students’ undertaking PDP.
Similarly, some schemes are voluntary and others are compulsory.

The Working Party concluded that PDP at Staffordshire ought to be tutor-led

using the Personal Tutor scheme and that it should be compulsory for all
undergraduate students.

There remains an issue that the Students Union Council has stated that they
would prefer schemes to be voluntary.

Are the materials or the tool available for use or scrutiny by others?
If so, please give details of how to access/obtain, including any costs involved:
Not yet but will be in 2002-3.

3
Other features?

MONITORING OF PRACTICE
Quality assurance systems? Please provide details below:

The PDP Steering Group report states that

· Consideration was also given to how PDP might be quality assured and
monitored. It was agreed that it should be a normal part of module and award
monitoring as well as a part of the evaluation of the personal tutor scheme.

The Viewfinder survey [an annual student satisfaction survey] might also be used to
elicit student views.

Also, the PDP project is itself subject to being evaluated as a part of the evaluation
of learning and teaching strategy developments. This evaluation is based on the
SEEC Student Learning instrument used extensively in the USA, and has been
developed electronically. The evaluation model requires that tutors input the
learning outcomes for their modules into a standard SEEC template. Evaluation is
then against the achievement of the learning outcomes. All PDP elements are
described as learning outcomes and, therefore, their assessment (where
appropriate) and achievement are amenable to the same evaluation as the
achievement of learning in general. All students will be required to undertake a
reflective learning log as a part of the evaluation process as well as the PDP
process so that they complete the questionnaires as ‘experts’ in their own learning.

Record keeping systems? Please provide details below:

These vary according the programme – as a part of core modules in Geography; as a
part of the personal tutor’s records in Law.

Co-ordinator/administration? Please provide details below:

Each programme has a co-ordinator. From 2002-3 each School will have a project
manager to oversee the introduction of PDP in their own Schools.

Data protection systems? Please provide details below:

4
PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF PRACTICE
For the individual learner:
1s t Provide a process for all
undergraduate students to obtain a record
of achievement within the context of PDP
2nd To facilitate the greater employability
of students
Evidence:
All to be determined through the project
management and evaluation
methodologies described below under
‘most special features’

For the organisation: Evidence:

1st To engage with nationally agreed As above
policies and practices

RESOURCING
In 2002-2003 a Business Case using Prince2 project management tools will be
prepared for this project.

PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT

To continue to pilot and to identify cost-effectiveness in 2002-3.

MAJOR CHALLENGES AND HOW THEY WERE TACKELD

On-going. The issues identified so far include:

· Finding space in the curriculum – to be resolved through a curriculum

management project
· When to start – the pilots report that Level 2 is better than Level 1
· Staff competence to be resolved through staff training
· How to deliver to ‘joint awards’ – not yet resolved
· Reconciling student views with those of staff – not yet resolved

MOST SPECIAL FEATURES

1. The use of Logical Framework and Prince2 Project management tools

At Staffordshire we use a number of project management tools to support the

implementation of our institutional learning and teaching strategy, especially logical
framework or logframe and Prince2. They can be described as:

Project Management Tools

As we develop a mindset that is focused on cost-effectiveness and efficient delivery of

outcomes so it may be useful to adopt ‘tried and tested’ project management tools.
Two such tools are Logical Framework, or Logframe as it is sometimes called, and
Prince2. Their origins are described below. Logframe is a method used extensively by
NGOs and quango’s associated with health and housing action planning. It is a method
best suited to ‘soft’ projects and is most amenable to evaluation. Of course, it has to be
customised to fit specific contexts. This is the method we have used with BLC project
specification for the last two years. See Special Features 2.
Prince2 is harder-edged and takes more time. It is more suitable to bigger projects and
to projects with a ‘hard’ outcome as well as a ‘soft’ one – e.g. an architectural project

5
rather than one that leads to more effective practice. It does have a business case
format which is useful

The Logical Framework

The Logical Framework was first formally adopted by USAID in 1971 and has been
taken up by many other aid agencies since. As a management tool, the framework
emphasises objectives. Its ancestry can thus be traced back to the management by
objectives approach of the 1950s which has subsequently been developed to become
performance management.

Although widely used since the 70s the LF has not been put under the spotlight of
academic scrutiny until relatively recently*. Several weaknesses of the LF as a tool
have been noted and several agencies have modified it in various ways to overcome
these. The main conclusions from the literature seem to be that although the LF is
worth having it has to be modified here and there to fit with particular types of projects
and that it needs to be better integrated with other forms of project management tools
which are commonly used.

The logical framework as originally prepared for USAID is presented here:

* Wiggins S & Shields D (1995) Clarifying the "logical framework" as a tool for planning
and managing development projects. Project Appraisal Vol 10 No 1 March 1995 pp 2-
12

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ausguide/ausguidelines/1.html
http://www.worldbank.org/children/design/starting/logframe.htm
http://www.metametrics.com/logframe.html
http://www.kar-dht.org/logframe.html

Prince2

PRINCE (Projects in Controlled Environments) is a project management method

covering the organisation, management and control of projects. PRINCE was first
developed by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) now
part of the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) in 1989 as a UK Government
standard for IT project management and has since been developed for non-IT projects.
Since its introduction, PRINCE has become widely used in both the public and private
sectors and is now the project management tool of choice of the NHS. The latest
version of the method, PRINCE2, is designed to incorporate the requirements of
existing users and to enhance the method towards a generic, best practice approach
for the management of all types of projects.

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/prince/
http://www.learnprince2.com/htmls/whyprince.html
http://www.scoll.co.uk/prince2/