Personal Tutors’ Responses to a Structured System of Personal Development Planning: A Focus on ‘Feedback’

Abstract

Being a personal tutor is something that most university lecturers experience. The role of the personal tutor varies and sometimes is combined with elements of personal development planning. This paper is aimed at practitioners developing and experiencing their system of personal development planning/personal tutoring. It outlines the development of a new model of such a system within the BSc. in Environmental Planning at Queen's University Belfast. The paper provides the context and rationale for the development of the system which aimed to embed reflection on skills development and experiences inside and outside of university within its format. Examples of this embedding via assessment, induction and careers events are provided. Subsequently the paper draws on interviews conducted with personal tutors of Level One students at the end of the first year of its implementation. This enables an exploration of how tutors experience and approach their roles and the ways in which ‘holistic’ feedback is built into the system. Therefore the paper interrogates the nature of ‘feedback’ within the system, the extent to which tutors believe they can be effective and the developing relationship between tutor and tutee. Thus the paper is intended to be useful to practitioners and concludes by reflecting on the system of personal development planning/personal tutoring, providing suggestions for its ongoing development.

Keywords:

• personal tutor
• personal development planning
• skills development
• feedback
• tutees

Introduction

Questions often arise as to whether the role of a personal tutor should be restricted to academic issues, with nervousness frequently expressed when tutors feel they are being required to be ‘counsellors’ in an increasingly litigious era (see Price et al. 2008). Conversely, students often find it difficult to define the role of their personal tutor, particularly when they are viewed as lecturers and monitors of student work. At Queen's University Belfast (QUB), a team from Environmental Planning and the Centre for Educational Development has developed a system of Personal Development Planning (PDP) and Personal Tutoring (PT) with an emphasis on facilitating student reflection on feedback in order to encourage active learning. This paper draws on these developments by considering tutors' perspectives towards the role of the personal tutor, what its function is and the kinds of relationships being developed with tutees, focused by the topic of feedback. For tutors, a focus on feedback in developing the PDP/PT system provided a tangible ‘hook’ on which they could hang their understanding of the system, their role within it and the kind of relationships this required them to have with their tutees.

This paper has two aims therefore. Firstly, it outlines the development and implementation of the PDP/PT structured system and, secondly, considers tutors' perspectives on its implementation focused by the topic of feedback. The team believe that for any system to be successful, the ‘buy in’ of busy tutors is essential. Hence consideration of their perspectives is felt to be particularly valuable. The paper is structured to give a full and rounded picture of the background, implementation and future development of the PT system. Firstly, case study material on the context, development and implementation of the structured system of PDP/PT is outlined. It is hoped that such material will be useful to practitioners currently developing their system/s. The methodological approach taken to gathering data with tutors is then briefly explained. Findings are then presented which draw on interview data and finally conclusions and recommendations are outlined. The findings form part of a larger research project which also considered tutees' attitudes to the system. The research was conducted by the team with Level One tutors on the BSc. Environmental Planning degree in 2010/11 subsequent to the implementation of the system for a year.

Context, development and implementation of the PDP/PT model

Personal development planning

This section provides a consideration of how educational theory and policy literature was drawn on in order for the specific system in Environmental Planning at QUB to be developed. Educational literature reveals that, although it may not be perceived as such, the skills that students are considered to require, both in an academic and professional context, are remarkably similar (see Cottrell 2008). As Gibbs (1992) notes, these skills require nurturing over time and work well when they are embedded and practised in all modules, thus advocating a reflective and developmental approach. Therefore, reflection via a range of feedback mechanisms is crucial to such development. One of the key aims of PDP (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2009), is not only to encourage students to adopt this approach to skills development, but also to learn, communicate and discuss their ability to utilise these higher level skills in a variety of experiential contexts. Thus a focus on feedback and encouraging a dialogue between tutors and students is considered crucial in facilitating student reflection and action on feedback.

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) guidelines also note the link between PDP and processes like Continuing Professional Development (CPD) which extend well beyond the lifetime of a degree or postgraduate programme:

Effective PDP improves the capacity of individuals to review, plan and take responsibility for their own learning and to understand what and how they learn. Facilitating student reflection on feedback within a system of PDP assists learners to articulate their learning and the achievements and outcomes of HE more explicitly, and supports the concept that learning is a lifelong and life-wide activity.

(QAA 2009, p6).

Generally, therefore, in order to bring about implementation of PDP, different subject areas will often take different approaches. As Figure 1 illustrates, more than one implementation model has emerged as a result of this. For example, some institutions have chosen to embed the PDP process into the curriculum through designated credit-bearing modules (Johnson 2006). Others see PDP as an overarching external process best delivered through a tutorial or mentoring system, including consideration of extracurricular experiences (see Strivens 2005). Thirdly, a mixed economy model can be identified, being a mixture of the previous two, in that embedding forms the framework for the PDP activities with the PT system complementing it and supporting the student. It has been shown, however, that whatever system is developed, achieving tutor and tutee ‘buy in’ can be challenging; this was an issue the team fully recognised.

Figure 1 Development of the Environmental Planning structured system of PDP/PT.

Personal tutoring

As indicated, PDP and PT can be separate or stand-alone systems. Three main models for personal tutor systems can be identified in the literature (Laycock 2009). It is useful to review these so that the Environmental Planning system can be situated within the approaches and more clearly identified as providing a structured and holistic ‘bridging’ approach to PDP/PT. Firstly, as outlined above in Figure 1, a Pastoral Model can be identified, which is the traditional model for PT. Here the relevant academic takes on the role of someone who provides guidance on personal and moral issues, as well as academic support. However, understandably, academics often express discomfort with the notion that they are best placed to provide guidance on personal or moral issues outside their academic remit.

Secondly, the Professional Model addresses some of the concerns raised by academics, by specifying that on approaching staff all students will be referred immediately to, for example, professional counsellors, welfare rights workers, housing or finance officers (Laycock 2009). However, one of the short-comings of this approach is the lack of a distinct role and purpose for the personal tutor. Without this, it is unlikely that personal tutors will be able to converse with students on general matters which are within their area of expertise and which may help to motivate students towards higher levels of academic achievement.

Thirdly, there is what Laycock (2009) describes as a Curriculum Model. Here skills acquisition, information about the operation of the university, the operation of PDP, and the allocation of a personal tutor may all be incorporated within an accredited course/programme/module. This has the advantage of ensuring that meetings with the personal tutor can be timetabled as part of the course and is seen to be linked and directly relevant to it. However, there can be logistical problems with this approach where large numbers of students and staff are to be facilitated, particularly where they are involved in a wide range of programmes, modules and research responsibilities.

The Environmental Planning model - a structured system of PDP/PT

The team considered these three models in developing their system. They also noted the synergy between some of the PDP and PT models. Therefore, the team moved forward to develop a fourth model indicated in Figure 1. This model embeds feedback and reflection into modules, wider support events, the personal tutor system and students' wider experiences. Thus this ‘structured system of PDP/PT’ was implemented in September 2010. The issue of ‘feedback’ was central to its development, for feedback was felt to be the ‘meeting point’ between tutors and tutees and where active learning coincides. The team acknowledged that tutors often express frustration about students' lack of engagement with feedback. Thus the structured PDP/PT system aimed to increase dialogue, reflection and action for learning between tutors and tutees by being ‘wrapped around’ the issue of ‘feedback.

Implementation of the Environmental Planning structured system of PDP/PT

The personal tutoring team within Environmental Planning introduced the new system to students in Welcome Week in year one. Students were encouraged to prepare for the feedback they would be receiving from lecturers, peers and support staff in relation to their academic progress. As in most universities, QUB has guidelines for the personal tutor role and the systems that can be implemented. The key elements and a defined role for the personal tutor and a senior tutor/co-ordinator are set out within a guide (Queen's University Belfast 2011). The ‘Guide for Personal Tutors’ (Appendix 1) is based on good practice which has been observed within courses at QUB and at other universities. As well as containing key elements, the guide stipulates a minimum of six meetings which may be in group and individual contexts for both Level One and Two students. The guide also requires Schools ‘to have regard for local issues such as the need to reflect the requirements for professional bodies and existing good practice within their schemes’ (Queen's University Belfast 2011, p2). This is relevant to the BSc. course which is accredited by both the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Thus Environmental Planning has customised its PDP/PT structured system to accommodate the tenets from the guide, but also goes beyond this to incorporate Level Three students. Six ‘events’ were built into each level, via a mixture of embedded support, activities and assessment in modules (Level One only), meetings with personal tutors, study support workshops and sessions focused on PDP and development of an Independent Learning Plan (see Appendix 1 for the full schedule of events).

This Learning Plan was the culmination of the system in Level One and was embedded and assessed within a Level One skills module. This ensured that the students considered feedback, drew on personal tutor meetings and made honest assessments of their progress. It encouraged the students to plan for carrying out appropriate actions to address issues that they had identified for self-improvement. As they settled and matured in their course, they were encouraged to broaden their reflections in order to incorporate consideration of wider issues such as employability, interpersonal skills, professional skills and communication of their achievements and experiences with employers. It was intended that this plan would be discussed at meetings with personal tutors. Thus Kolb’s (1984) Learning Cycle of doing, reviewing, reflecting and planning was built into students' engagement with feedback and the PDP/PT system from the beginning of their degree.

The personal tutor role

Endeavouring to achieve tutor ‘buy in’ was felt to be crucial if the system were to be successfully implemented and each tutor received a copy of the embedding diagram. This meant that for time-short academic staff, clarity and efficiency was imposed on the ‘types’ of events, ‘who’ was organising them and ‘where’ they were embedded in the curriculum and/or support activities. The PDP/PT co-ordinator also prompted personal tutors as students made their way through the embedding points within the system. This aimed to overcome issues of tutors being unsure of their role and, it was hoped, made it clear ‘what’ could be a starting point in conversations with tutees. It was intended that the system would address some of the concerns tutors had previously expressed at students perceived lack of initiative and engagement with feedback and their wider academic and personal development.

Being seen to be tackling issues of concern to tutors was also felt to be crucial to achieving this ‘buy in’. For example, academic writing, referencing and time-management skills, in particular, had been identified by tutors as skills that students appeared to be finding increasingly challenging. In addition, given the perceived decline in employment opportunities within the planning profession, the team wished to emphasise the benefits for tutees of engaging with the developmental opportunities being offered by the university's Careers Service. A close link has been developed, therefore, between the structured scheme and the career planning programme that is provided for all Planning students. As the schedule in Appendix 1 illustrates, this has been designed to encourage students to reflect on the development of their employability and work-related skills and experiences, to facilitate consideration of a range of employment options and to assist students to learn how to communicate their overall experience to employers and other parties. Included within the career development options for undergraduates is the opportunity for the accreditation of significant, student driven extracurricular experiences through the university's Degree Plus programme (Queen's University Belfast 2012). By drawing on and embedding wider university expertise within the PDP/PT system it was intended that the burden on busy academics would be seen as minimal. It was also expected that tutors’ fears of being expected to be counsellors and careers advisors would be allayed. Ultimately it was hoped that tutors and tutees would feel more engaged with the PT system if they saw a direct link between it and the process of giving and receiving feedback.

Summary

The system with its focus on feedback has been designed to encourage developmental, ‘active learning’ in the widest sense (Fry et al. 1999). It is for this reason that we refer to it as ‘holistic’. It was hoped that it would encourage tutees to see it as relevant to them and not just for those students with ‘problems’. For example, developing employability has gone on to become an increasingly strong theme at Level Two and students are encouraged to see the link between PDP/PT and CPD mentoring in the Planning profession and processes of workplace appraisal. This approach is supported by Kneale’s (2007) study which showed that where PDP was linked to workplace experiences students were more likely to understand the purpose of the process and take a more proactive approach to development planning. The concept of feedback, therefore, underpins and runs through the system at every stage. The Environmental Planning model has, as a result, found interest at international conferences (Gallagher et al. 2010). For as Ottewill (2005, p2) notes, for a system to work: ‘It must speak directly to the course/subject that the student is taking as this is where the student's interest/identity is situated’

This section has provided the background, rationale and context to the development and implementation of the Environmental Planning structured system of PDP/PT. This paper now draws on research findings focused on Level One personal tutors' experience of the system at the end of the first year of its implementation.

Research Objectives and Methodological Approach

This paper presents the findings of data gathered with personal tutors in the 2010/11 academic year after the new system had been running for a year. The team wanted to evaluate how the system was working and some research assistance from within the School was provided to assist with this (see Patton 2002 regarding evaluation methods). The objectives of the research with personal tutors were to, firstly, identify how personal tutors perceive and approach their role within the new system and, secondly, to consider the different ways in which personal tutors approach their role of providing holistic feedback to their tutees. This was in line with what Robson (2002) refers to as real world research.

In-depth individual interviews were conducted by the Level One co-ordinator during the summer of 2011. Eight members of academic staff out of a possible eleven who act as personal tutors were interviewed, mostly in their offices. In order to garner the most honest responses, anonymity was assured. A semi-structured interview schedule was implemented which sets out general themes for discussion (see Ritchie & Lewis 2006). This facilitated an iterative process which encouraged new themes to be added and discussed as the interviews progressed (see Strauss & Corbin 1998, Mason 2002). The interviews were insightful and provided useful and valuable confidential data on the personal views of tutors. The interviews revealed the tutors' knowledge, views and engagement with the PDP/PT system in a safe, non-judgmental atmosphere outside of the norms of official appraisals; their perception of their role; their approach to tutoring; the format of meetings and the evolution of their and students’ approaches to the topic of holistic feedback over the course of the year. Each interview was recorded to aid transcription and initial analysis by the Level One co-ordinator. The interview data are now drawn on and integrated anonymously into this paper.

Development of Model and Implementation Findings

The findings are presented under the two broad themes of how tutors perceive and approach their role within the new system and the provision of holistic feedback.

The new system - perceptions of and approaches to the personal tutor role

All of the tutors interviewed were clear and in broad agreement about the role of the personal tutor in Environmental Planning. Generally speaking they see their role as that of providing both academic and pastoral support to students. They are all aware that this support relates to certain (PDP) activities embedded in the curriculum and is complemented by group events delivered by Planning staff, the Learning Development Service and practitioners. Tutors usefully describe the role as that of a ‘safety net’, ‘friendly face’, ‘mentor’ and ‘bridge between the student and the School’.

The tutees noted that they had utilised the ‘Guide for Personal Tutors’ developed for Environmental Planning staff. Five tutors noted that they used this as a prompt to begin a conversation with students in meetings but then allowed the discussion to diverge according to the students' specific needs as; “it helps us to get started with discussions, but then conversations flow freely after that” (interviewee eight). Other tutors followed it closely throughout their meetings. Two interviewees had experience of the PT system at other universities and commented positively on the more structured approach developed in Planning believing that “it is better to have the structure and purpose rather than just to have a meeting” (interviewee four).

The purpose of the personal tutor role

All interviewees agreed in theory about the usefulness and value of Personal Tutoring (PT); however the overwhelming majority feel that there are problems with the perceived practice and/or delivery of PT in general. Two key areas of concern were noted. Firstly, a general worry among staff about creating a culture of ‘nannying' which may affect the students' ability to learn independently. As interviewee one noted, “it is not good for the students to see this as a nannying role, after all, we are trying to encourage independence, this can be confusing for staff and students”. Secondly, a very poor record of attendance at meetings with tutors was often noted from the 2010/2011 Level One cohort. Interviewee one noting, for example, that “in the first meeting there was a fifty percent attendance but by the last meeting of the year there were no students attending the meetings”. All interviewees acknowledged that when the tutor/tutee relationship is functional, which is perceived by tutors as involving three or more meetings across the academic year, it has the potential to be a fulfilling and useful feedback opportunity for students and that “there is a better and more personal relationship with students who have attended say three times during the year” (interviewee four). Most tutors have had this experience at least once during the last three years. Unfortunately seven out of eight tutors felt that their engagement with their tutees in 2010/11 lacked success mainly due to tutee lack of attendance stating that “if students attend then even the shortest meetings feel useful” (interviewee three).

The expectations of a successful tutor/tutee relationship did differ amongst the tutors. For example, some had minimal expectation of the relationship at Level One but were confident that in Levels Two and Three that the students’ understanding of PDP and PT would have developed to a deeper level because “if they have come to meetings in Level One then by Levels Two and Three we have moved on to talk about more complex issues” (interviewee seven). For others, it was considered a failure if there was little engagement by students in Level One, interviewee three spoke of feelings of disappointment and guilt if students did not attend meetings. More than half of the interviewees expressed an interest in finding out how other staff members approach their PT role as “it would be really good to share experiences between us – reassuring too” (interviewee two). One interviewee, who had previously been Advisor of Studies, noted an absence of feedback from tutors about their experiences of PT. It is hoped that this paper will be useful for them, therefore, and for tutors with similar reflections in other universities.

Clearly there are differing beliefs amongst tutors, often working in isolation, regarding the nature of what makes a successful system. For example, the findings reinforce that many believe that the future success of personal tutoring is largely dependent on increasing the students' perception of its value. All of the tutors agreed that there was no advantage for either party in making PT meetings mandatory as it was felt that, “surely the role cannot work if it is another compulsory session which students must come to” (interviewee one). The tutors were unanimous in their view that for the tutor/tutee relationship to work best it should be friendly and as informal as possible, with both parties making an equal effort to organise regular meetings because “if anything I think the system would be improved by an even more informal approach, one wonders how the tutees perceive us” (interviewee two).

The initial meeting and the ongoing relationship with tutees

The necessity of having a positive introductory meeting during Level One induction, however, was felt to be particularly important to four tutors. As interviewee eight indicates, “although the first meeting was short and tutees were extremely quiet it was more important to introduce ourselves”. These interviewees felt that the introductory meeting should be as informal as possible and be either a group or individual meeting, whatever the tutor decided upon. Developing positive communication and establishing a friendly and informal tone for the future was felt to be important. In reality, tutors such as interviewee seven often describe the introductory meeting as ‘one-way’, with a notable lack of interaction from students “as someone who doesn't teach on the undergraduate course it was more important to say who we are and leave it until the later meetings to talk more deeply”. Interviewee four also recognised the usefulness of the semester one marks profile in being able to offer specific advice.

As being a tutor is a necessary role ascribed to academic staff, one interviewee raised an interesting query over the absence of some external expression/recording of the tutor/tutee relationship: “everything else that we do in Queen's has some form of external face, whether it is a set of minutes or an evaluation of some kind or a report… but these tutorials fall outside that” (interviewee two).

In this case it was suggested that both students and staff may value PT less because of the lack of formalisation. Four of the tutors feel that the personal tutor's role, when set within the context of roles and responsibilities in Planning, may be a little unclear for students and that confusion may exist over whom best to approach with either academic or personal issues. On a positive note, however, this could be seen as an outcome of positive student/staff relations generally, along with accessibly to staff and a favourable staff/student teaching ratio.

The interviews do demonstrate, however, that attendance by Level One students at PT meetings was poor. Three staff reported a 65–70% attendance at the introductory meeting during Welcome Week/Induction; others estimated only 50% attendance. However, it should be noted that at this point Level One students are having intensive and regular contact with staff. At the next scheduled meeting, during week four, only five tutors report holding meetings with their tutees and that attendance was less than 50% of their tutee cohort. Attendance appears to dip further in semester two with only four tutors reporting any tutees turning up at all. As interviewee two states, “we had a few good sessions in semester one but then they seemed to withdraw from attending”. However, it would be interesting to follow up the study with Level Two and Three tutees. We may often assume that students are ‘ok’ at this point. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the more independent learning style and less intensive contact time from Level Two onwards is often something of a shock to students. Alongside students sometimes questioning their enjoyment of and perceived value of the course with regards to careers, it might be expected, therefore, that Level One tutees do not necessary feel the ‘need’ for additional personal tutor support.

Clarity of the personal tutor role within the PDP/PT system

The links from and to the overarching PDP/PT system, as outlined in the first section of the paper, are clearly confusing to some tutors. Therefore, tutors do value the email prompt provided by the PDP/PT co-ordinator and noted that this acts both as a trigger to invite students for meetings and as a reminder of what should/could be discussed during meetings because “the reality is that if there was no prompt I may well miss the timing of PT meetings” (interviewee seven). Most tutors follow the same invitation format by sending an email to tutees with the offer of a specific date and time. Only two tutors did not offer specific meeting times and all of those interviewed had offered alternative times when asked to do so by tutees. However, seven out of eight did not follow up on students who failed to attend, with the frequent comment that students are not chased if they do not turn up.

Summary

So, the extent to which tutors value the structured system of PDP/PT is varied. Many tutors feel that those students who attend are not the students for whom help is really needed “‘in practice we are preaching to the choir, the people who really need help I haven't met” (interviewee four). The majority of meetings which took place with tutees were felt to be with the motivated and conscientious students. As noted above, however, there are multiple opportunities for students to engage informally with staff, so ‘duplication’ may deter tutees from attending. Given that Planning staff have good, regular and positive contact with students it could be expected that a lack of clarity exists in relation to the personal tutor role and, for example, that of module and/or year co-ordinator roles. Many tutors felt, however, that it was useful to have the additional ‘safety net’ of the PDP/PT system in Level One but have concerns about the usefulness of the role in Levels Two and Three.

The benefits of holistic feedback

As has been discussed in the first section of the paper, the newly developed structured system of PDP/PT is formulated around the theme of feedback operating at multiple levels with embedding opportunities at various points and times in the PDP/PT cycle. The system aims to facilitate student reflections on their studies, learning types and wider social and professional development both in and outside of university. Signposting tutees to developmental and support services within the university, therefore, is felt to be part and parcel of providing ‘holistic’ feedback. Tutors do indicate that as the tutor/tutee relationships develop, tutees will reveal perceived study weaknesses, and/or personal issues. For example, tutors indicated that whilst the ‘prompts’ for meetings from the PDP/PT co-ordinator were initially useful to ‘break the ice’, conversation then flowed naturally as confidence grew and the conversation became more informal. Interviewee four usefully notes that, “soon we began to discuss other concerns such as how to prioritise their time and organise themselves”. The development of ‘trust’, therefore, clearly takes time. Students appear to raise issues either as a result of an informal general discussion between tutor and tutee or as a response to specific questions from the tutor because “as time went on tutees were asking me for individual targeted advice outside the structured guide” (interviewee four). Such discussions may initially be focused by academic performance, but lead into more personal reflections on learning styles and personal issues impacting on an ability to study effectively.

In two cases, for example, tutors indicated that they were able, during general discussions with tutees, to uncover a serious issue requiring significant support from Disability Services. In both cases it is unlikely that normal teaching delivery and assessment would have revealed these concerns. This highlights the value, as noted in interview five, of the relationship and of being there when needed “half way through the year my tutee told me about having dyslexia, she hadn't wanted to make a fuss and the university didn't know so hadn't been able to support her up until this point”.

One tutor also believes that the most useful approach to providing feedback in PT meetings is via 'individual targeted advice' focused on current modules:

the first meeting was good and helped get them over the awkwardness of meeting me and knowing who I am, after that I found it more useful to ask them specific questions about how their modules are going, almost like a coaching role. I was able to explain issues to do with my own module, like the overall learning objectives for instance, so the meetings became developmental in nature (interviewee four).

Another example of the benefit of holistic feedback operating at a range of levels is in responses to the development documents, such as the Independent Learning Plan and learning preferences questionnaire (SALPI) that tutees complete in their Level One, semester one Research Skills module and then share with their tutor. Three tutors indicated that they found the SALPI document useful during meetings. Most found that it helped them to get to know their students and that they were able to use it as a prompt for discussions which were then student-led. “It gets them thinking about how they learn and what they feel confident about or not” (interviewee six). It seems likely that SALPI results are most valuable as a prompt to individual student reflection which can inform the student prior to their individual personal tutor meeting, thus facilitating discussion of a plan of action. However, tutors clearly found the Independent Learning Plan (ILP) to be a more useful tool for leading discussion. This may be because the information is presented in a narrative form rather than as a set of tables and figures. Tutors also appear to be more comfortable in responding to information in this discursive and reflective format, and were able to provide relevant holistic feedback pertaining to individual modules, the course, student preferences and available support. As interviewee eight notes, “the ILP is really useful because it really engages the student in terms of reflection; they have to think about how they are getting on in the broadest sense”.

Academic issues emerging

Such ‘embedded’ documents, therefore, clearly appear to be useful in moving forward the tutor/tutee relationship and focusing the encounters. During the exchanges on feedback the tutors noted the following issues arose most frequently as challenging for students, a) referencing b) timetabling c) academic writing skills d) uncertainly of staff expectations e) personal issues f) time-management and g) using the library/virtual learning environment. This is interesting, because staff often despair at students' difficulty in engaging with these issues. Therefore, it is clear that the system is revealing that tutors and tutees are both concerned about the same issues. The data presented here, clearly highlights the opportunity for tutor/tutee collision of interests, focused by the overarching theme of holistic feedback during meetings. Subsequent assistance with PDP can be seen to derive from these mutual concerns.

All of the interviewees noted a shift in the types of issues raised from the early meetings in September to the late November/late January meetings. As the semester progressed, more practical feedback was requested in relation to academic skills, this was in contrast to the pastoral and more personal and reassurance types of feedback required in September:

By the time we came to the mid-semester one meeting they were panicking about submissions and exams and really needed practical help about how to manage their time. I found myself flagging red lights about deadlines and juggling submission requirements. (interviewee four).

The tutors note that they believe that this personal and timely feedback is highly valued by their tutees because “often they need someone to take a broader and analytical view of what their issues are” (interviewee six). Tutors consider the feedback is valued as it can be pitched to suit the individual and their specific query or need; also tutors can ensure if it has been understood before the meeting has ended and issues can be discussed in greater depth as the situation allows. It also provides a 'safe' environment for the student to reveal the areas that they feel require further focus or work. In several cases tutors noted that the personal tutor meeting allowed students to 'open up' about their fears and concerns “they may feel they have serious problems with certain aspects of modules but quite often you'll find it is something specific like essay-writing which is easy enough to solve if identified”.

In most cases the data indicates feedback was formulated around the following categories:

• reassurance about staff expectations

• advice on time-management

• explanation about modules and

• information about academic skills such as essay-writing.

Four tutors also supported verbal feedback with suggestions i.e. ‘signposting’ of other resources and support mechanisms which the student could access in their own time, for example:

• Online resources both within and outside the university, these provide information and guidance in relation to academic skills.

• The Study Skills Handbook, supplied to all incoming Level One students during Induction.

• Information and courses organised by the Learning Development Service. All students are already familiar with this service as a result of Induction activities.

• Pastoral and personal support services accessed by the university's Student Guidance Centre.

In all cases tutors noted that students appeared reassured and happy with the feedback and advice received during meetings. As interviewee two noted, “I have used a variety of resources to help, online, Student Guidance Centre, Study Skills Handbook, they always say they have got something to take away and work on”. Two tutors also noted an increase in tutee confidence during the course of their meetings, with interviewee five noting, “I have seen an increase in confidence by the third meeting”.The development of such confidence can only be positive.

Summary

The interview findings with personal tutors have provided valuable data on the operationalisation of the structured system of PDP/PT focused on the concept of holistic ‘feedback’ as experienced by the tutors. This enables reflections on the ongoing development of the system. Conclusions and recommendations, therefore, are now provided.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The research has generated extremely useful data on the development and implementation of the new PDP/PT system and tutors' reactions to it. This can now be considered and utilised to inform practice. It is clear that for much of the time academics as personal tutors are working alone, often having little opportunity to discuss their practice with their colleagues. What this paper highlights is that personal tutors are keen to reflect on their practice. Thus the findings advance the concept of ‘feedback’ to not only that experienced by tutees but also to how tutors can reflect on their own practice in relation to providing holistic feedback. This includes encouraging students to not only think about assessment within their degree but also their personal development and achievements, both inside and outside university. The findings suggest that facilitating such reflection on feedback in its wider sense, which can be embedded in a student-led portfolio over the three years of the degree, might be an exciting and simplified way forward. Terms and acronyms can be confusing and not particularly useful. As the findings reinforce, however, the idea is simple. It involves tutors and tutees reflecting, acting, planning and learning. Here, we call it the ‘structured system of PDP/PT’ because the means of facilitating the system are embedded in the personal tutor system, teaching and support activities. Ultimately we suggest that the student steps back at each point of their degree journey, that this journey is structured by us, and that they consider their learning, their development and their aspirations.

The importance of the friendly face approach

Firstly, it is felt to be crucial that tutors develop and maintain the ‘friendly face’ approach. Tutors do not formally mark student work within our structured system and we feel that this is important. Retaining an informal, friendly approach is shown to be the preference of the majority of tutors. Trust and rapport is likely to develop over the three years and it is important that tutors be there to be called on when ‘needed’. It is likely that tutors will be called on as tutees progress through their course. Providing the opportunity for students to take up meetings is felt to be all that can be achieved and that berating students for poor attendance at meetings would be counter-productive. Personal tutors are also lecturers and hold other roles, reassuring the tutee of the confidential, friendly nature of the role, sitting outside of staff's other roles is felt to be important. Further in Environmental Planning it is likely that at Level One, given the high rate of contact with students, that tutees may struggle to see the point of meetings. Again, rather than berating and chasing students, having good relationships with our students should be seen as a positive aspect. ‘Being there’ can provide a reassuring presence for students over the three years and it will be interesting to monitor this.

The value of holistic feedback

The second key finding of this research is that tutors are clearly providing generic feedback regarding progress through the course, individual development and signposting to support services when required. Having this holistic, non-threatening overview is clearly useful for the students. Tutors acknowledge, for example, that anxiety and stress often manifest in poor student performance and time management. Reassuring tutees that this is normal is seen as a valuable aspect of the role. Clearly tutors and tutees are both concerned about academic skills levels. For tutees, having the opportunity to discuss feedback on individual modules is useful and aids understanding of key terms. Tutors might assist students, therefore, in reflecting on variety in types of module feedback and the language used. This is likely to assist tutors in reflecting on tutees' concerns at divergence of types, usefulness and timing of module feedback that students may be unwilling or unable to reveal through more formal mechanisms. Tutors and tutees are utilising the system – i.e. students ‘are’ accessing and appreciate being reminded of wider support services.

The usefulness of the Independent Learning Plan: development of portfolio

Whilst the Independent Learning Plan was intended to be a document/e-folio that could be developed by the tutees over the duration of their course, their value has been shown to be in aiding tutors in getting to know their students. Assessing it in Level One was not felt to be successful and that time is needed for students to engage with and reflect on the range of skills they encounter and need as they progress through the degree. Therefore, following discussion of these findings with tutors, a portfolio has now been introduced in Level One and engagement structured at Level Two/Three. It is intended that this will incorporate module results, skills development, careers guidance, work experience, degree plus etc. to be developed as a student-led portfolio. This will to be developed and built on over three years, thus replacing the Independent Learning Plan. It is anticipated, therefore, that personal tutor meetings will discuss feedback holistically within development of the student portfolio.

Overall, what has been shown here, is that the focusing of the PDP/PT system around the theme of feedback is a positive move. However, achieving tutor ‘buy in’ and continually reflecting on how it is operating is crucial. Often, it may appear complicated, with multiple components and confusing terminology. As has been said, however, the idea is simple, and the team will continue to develop and refine the system.