activities. What was disappointing was the lack of further response from schools after follow-up
meetings, and having copies of the actual data sent to them. Without more staff having a grounding
in learning and teaching theory, the majority are unable to move much beyond delivering subject
material. Further, a one-off visit from an education developer is not enough to bring about a
sustained change in practice or culture, there needs to be a consistent sustained building of
relationships and working together.
Key purpose
At the July 2010 NARN meeting in Nottingham, there was an emerging view that we needed to
move forward from the term PDP, which in some quarters had started to carry a negative
connotation. Defining the purpose of PDP was seen as important, as this would allow a constructive
alignment of support and plans. However, I now see that conceptually what was emerging for me
was not a single purpose, but at the level of the whole curriculum; that we should not be looking
upon this in a simplistic bricks and mortar analogy, but in a more holistic manner. Much of this is
expressed far more articulately in Barnett and Coates’ publication ‘Engaging the Curriculum in
Higher Education’ (2005), in which they say curricula are normally understood in terms that are far
too narrow.....(and) a wish to widen the concept of curriculum to embrace a sense of the student’s
self and self-understanding (p.8). I should have read their book then! So now, with hindsight, and
through the reflection in writing this article, I can see an emerging model of curriculum expressed
through an over-arching framework of what a graduate should ‘be’ or be expected to be able to
‘do’, which has evolved into the concept of graduate attributes. Within that, reflective practice would
be engendered through planned activities, often associated with assessment, and also with other
drivers such as employability.
Through the subsequent CRA ‘PDP academy’ programme, I was from 2011 – 2013 able to continue
this progression from PDP as a project to elicit student perceptions, to graduate attributes as an
overall framework for curriculum outcomes. This was helped by having a specific graduate
attributes / employability working group at UCLan, which also considered the requirements of the
HEAR and KIS. Having discussion with colleagues at UCLan, and with those from the wider
community through the annual CRA meeting, finally culminated in a graduate attributes paper to
the University.
It’s the curriculum!
A focus on the curriculum as the central vehicle for change has also been realised through another
piece of work, combining the elements of staff engagement, curriculum design, and assessment
and feedback. I had been working on both feedback and assessment for some time (e.g. the Open
University FAST project) and in 2011 began to deliver workshops specifically on these topics. These
were school- or often course-specific. I’m now much more proactive in gaining access to
schools/subject teams, and the tailored sessions have allowed a genuine joint exploration of their
approach to assessment, including an examination of the type/diversity of assessment they have
selected. This has been far more successful than the old approach of offering workshops and
hoping staff will attend. It has involved a detailed interrogation of module descriptors, and is
evolving further to include a commentary on learning teaching and assessment strategies, with
THE CENTRE FOR RECORDING ACHIEVEMENT 104 -108 WALLGATE, WIGAN, WN3 4AB |
10