« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
PERSONAL LEARNING PLAN PROGRAMME: 2002-2004
EVALUATION REPORT
6 CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The PLP programme was launched two years ago with a commitment to exploratory activity, supporting schools in realising a vision of personal development which, although established in academic literature, was largely new to practice in Scottish schools. It is important therefore to recognise the relatively early stage of development. In this new area, absolute prescription may be neither possible nor desirable. With considerable support from Learning and Teaching Scotland, pilot projects have been encouraged to bring their own ideas to designing, developing and piloting PLP activities. This has led to richness of practice and, for many participants, a sense of ownership and enhanced personal development. Feedback and discussion of early experience from the first phase helped to inform the subsequent ' Skills for Living' templates.
The programme itself, sitting within the context of the wider Assessment is for Learning Project, draws on concepts and policies that have grown in prominence in recent decades. Personal profiling and planning approaches have featured in policy initiatives in UK secondary education and beyond over the last 25 years. In England and Wales the National Record of Achievement (1991) was intended to provide a single recognised framework for recording achievements to support the transition from schooling to training and employment. In Scotland in the 1980s, the Technical, Vocation and Education Initiative (TVEI) brought with it Records of Achievement; and more recently the Progress File has encouraged young people to document their achievement and plan for further development. Important notions of differentiating approaches to meet the needs of all pupils are central elements of the 5-14 Programme, Standard Grade and Higher Still initiatives. Most recently, the New Community Schools Programme and its successor, The Integrated Schools Programme, have emphasised the importance of personal planning in addressing the needs and raising the attainment of all pupils.
A range of factors drives these policy initiatives. These include:
- increasing understanding of variation in achievement for different groups of young people according, for example, to gender, ethnicity and social and economic forces; and accompanying concerns about inequity in access to further or higher education
- increased requirements for schools to address issues of improvement and pupil achievement generally
- a growing emphasis on the importance of personal development and citizenship along with a greater need for education to compensate for perceived diminishing influences of church and home in providing values-based, social education
- accruing research and model-building around concepts of learning and learning styles - for example, emphases on experiential learning and reflective learning; transferable skills and metacognition
- growing recognition that models and cultures of learning based on traditional disciplines do not fit well with the demands of current society.
A policy emphasis on individualised learning programmes, within an agreed, modern curriculum framework, can therefore be seen as a natural outcome. Personal learning planning may require a significant shift in emphasis from the traditional curriculum to all aspects of the developing young person. In turn, such a shift may necessitate change in school organisation and learning approaches.
In their critique of Personal Development Planning (Gough et al, 2003) provide a useful review of literature. Although largely concerned with activities in the Higher Education sector, their summary of influences that galvanise personal development approaches provides a useful theoretical context for the Scottish PLP programme and a partial frame of reference for the findings of this evaluation. The resonances with the PLP programme are apparent, most particularly, the references to the importance of self-evaluation and reflection in bringing about learning. Increasingly educators are encouraged to be reflective and it can be argued that PDP is 'both a logical development of good teaching practice and that PDP can only happen if supported by reflective practitioners.' (Houghton cited in Gough et al, 2003)
This last comment brings PLPs firmly into the embrace of practice for effective learning, which is, in turn, the central concern of the Assessment is for Learning programme. All of its ten projects aim to incorporate general principles of effective learning into specific school-based functions such as reporting to parents. The Assessment is for Learning programme, making use of the increasingly prominent work of Black, William and colleagues, focuses on the fundamental use of assessment to promote learning. Such assessment includes feedback to be used by both teachers and pupils and is part of the daily interaction of teacher and learner, occurring informally and sometimes formally. For teachers it leads to adaptive practice, accommodating learners' needs in terms of content, pace and style. For learners it encourages increasing self-awareness and self-direction.
There are two unifying principles behind the impetus for PLPs. Firstly, the PLP process is built on the precepts and principles of formative assessment. These provide a secure conceptual frame of reference. Secondly, education for today requires a broad curriculum with increasing emphases on specific and transferable skills, personal attributes and attitudes.
The Content of PLPs
Schools involved in PLP development as part of the AifL programme were intended to focus either on the content of PLPs or on their management. In developing practice, however, schools had to focus on both aspects to ensure realistic testing of models. Therefore messages about content and management emerged equally from both groups.
Throughout the development of the PLP programme and in the course of the evaluation, there has been debate about the current and potential purposes of the personal planning process; and about appropriate mechanisms. Initially, many schools used their involvement largely to develop individualised target-setting, involving pupils in reviewing their progress against curriculum-based learning outcomes and in negotiating next steps. The balance between curriculum targets and personal development targets has been variable. There were rare instances of personal learning planning that did not have some element of curriculum-based review. The majority of plans devised in phase one included elements of the formal curriculum, varying in extent from core subjects to comprehensive coverage. It is interesting also to note that the evaluation questionnaire analysis suggested that target setting was perhaps one of the strongest features of projects in the phase where schools devised their own models. Many of the most positively rated items tend to cluster around related concepts such as reviewing progress and building upon prior learning.
Before the introduction (in the programme's second phase) of a skills-based model, several schools had developed strategies which combined review of progress across the curriculum with wider approaches, embracing well-being and activities out of school. A number of schools had also addressed the incorporation of core skills.
Schools' own models of PLP were largely tailored to the curriculum stage of their pupils participating in the development project. This constitutes a major difference between phase one and phase two of the development project. The Skills for Living model, while differentiating somewhat between middle primary, upper primary and secondary stages, consists of a comprehensive template of skills and sub skills. This created challenges for almost all participating schools.
There was a general theoretical welcome for a skills-based model of PLP from local authority staff and some school managers. Such an approach was perceived as more streamlined than models which detailed learning outcomes across the traditional subject curriculum. However, from the outset and most keenly at the implementation stage, school managers and teachers were concerned about the level of detail in each of the divisions of the skill sets. Thirty-seven sub skills are further broken down into sub-divisions. (For example, personal and learning skills breaks down into over 20 sub-divisions.) The comprehensive nature of this approach created difficulty for teachers attempting to use the plan. In a number of primary schools, for example, teachers had carried out mapping exercises, matching subject-based learning outcomes to the skills. Many teachers argued that this was essential for both teachers and young people. Teachers needed to see the relationship between what they were teaching and the generic skills identified in the Skills for Living model. Pupils themselves could only fully understand the generic skills when they were placed in a specific learning context, whether curriculum or home/community based.
To be successful, it is probable that a skills-based model requires to provide inherent articulation with curriculum-based outcomes that make sense to teachers and pupils in respect of their daily experience in school. It is unlikely that the Scottish curriculum will change from a subject to a skills base in the near future. If a skills-based approach for PLP is adopted, intermediary levels, mapping learning outcomes against skills, will be required. This will enable teachers to integrate personal learning goals with their short and mid-term formal planning.
Diaries and learning logs also needed to be based on specific outcomes, rather than on generic skills, so that pupils could self-evaluate with some accuracy and confidence. Understanding of learning outcomes was needed for meaningful evaluation of the achievement of skills. There is strong evidence about this in the evaluation which suggests that future approaches, whether skills or subject-based, need to incorporate self-evaluation against specific outcomes.
Additionally, many teachers and managers suggested that the Skills for Living approach would have been improved by further differentiation into levels associated with particular 5-14 stages. The statements needed to be incremental and progressive. Where preparatory work had modified the Skills for Living approach in this manner, it was again perceived to have far more potential for success.
Personal Learning Planning and Formative Assessment - the Process
Young people undoubtedly valued the discussion of their achievement and progress with their teachers that took place as part of the personal review process. Generally they professed greater confidence about the direction of their work and about their strengths and weaknesses. This was evident both in primary and secondary schools. It seemed that the combination of setting themselves goals within the subject-based curriculum and the accompanying negotiation with teachers was particularly valued. In one secondary school, young people from S3 illuminated their argument by saying that they would have much benefited from a PLP approach in years 1 and 2. This kind of evidence contrasts with that found by Wikely (2001) who reported that young people seem to have little awareness of the progression that the PLP approach could make evident when used from year to year.
From the evaluative evidence, it is possible to argue that the quality of discussion with young people was higher in the Skills for Living stage. There are interesting examples of rich discussion with pupils in the primary sector where both teachers' and pupils' understanding of the meaning and relevance of particular skills were enhanced. Where this degree of preparation took place, both teachers' and pupils' views were more positive, than in schools where the Skills for Living model was used without substantial modification.
Balancing Process and Procedure
It was noticeable in both primary and secondary school evidence that there was an inverse relationship between the range of curriculum coverage and the amount of dialogue built into the overall PLP strategy. Where curriculum coverage was comprehensive, the amount of discussion was proportionately reduced. This is an important point for the future. The Skills for Living approach was designed partly to counter this situation. However, that model itself is so detailed that many pilot staff were highly selective in choosing areas where pupils would self-evaluate and plan for progress.
Teachers, like their pupils, found the process of discussion and negotiation with pupils valuable. They spoke of the worth of knowing pupils better, both personally and in terms of their learning. Much of their comment resonates with findings from the evaluation of Project 1 in the AifL programme (Support for Professional Practice in Formative Assessment). In this project a number of schools implemented principles of formative assessment in their daily teaching routines. Many found significant professional benefit, considering that their teaching had become more focused and structured; that the sharing of learning outcomes with pupils was mutually beneficial and that teaching was more targeted on the specific needs of pupils. These were also benefits reported as emerging from the PLP pilot work.
Lower-attaining Pupils
Teachers reported that formative processes involving individualised discussion benefited lower-achieving pupils, at least as much as other pupils. This finding is derived mainly from the perceptions of teachers involved in small-scale piloting in primary schools. There was little opportunity in the evaluation to take specific account of the views of lower-attaining pupils themselves. This is an important area which requires further investigation. Informal evidence from a number of secondary schools in particular suggests that lower-achieving pupils have not fully participated in the pilot programmes. Teachers were also concerned that procedures, such as transcribing learning outcomes for lower-attaining pupils, were disproportionately time-consuming, detracting from opportunity available for more meaningful activities.
However, in a few primary schools particularly, attention had been paid to this issue. In one school in the Skills for Living pilot where a group of children with specific difficulties had been selected, the process of personal learning planning had worked reasonably well with the involvement of learning support specialist and careful individualised preparation. The process had been of benefit for these children. Difficulties, however, remained in relation to the further differentiation of skills and their related learning outcomes to make them appropriate for the children's needs.
Although teachers were able to identify initial benefits in enthusiasm and motivation of most pupils, most felt it was too early to make any valid comment on changes in attainment.
Language Levels
As it stands, the Skills for Living model is perceived as too sophisticated for primary and early secondary-aged pupils. This is the general view of both teachers and pupils. As with other aspects of the model, where success was perceived, teachers had explained and modified both the approach and the language.
Personal, Social and Health Components
The initial predominance of the subject-based curriculum has perhaps prevented sufficient emphasis on personal, social and health aspects. There was considerable comment in both phases about a perceived under-emphasis on health education and development. Creative and aesthetic awareness and skills were also seen to be underplayed. Questionnaire responses also highlighted these areas as less well-developed.
Aspects of personal development can be particularly sensitive and may need specialist handling.
Personal development will, on occasion, concern sensitive social and health aspects of young people's lives For example, in a specific illustrative context policy-makers and planners would have to consider whether PLPs should incorporate personal development goals in relation to drug abuse. This may lead to negotiation with young people of how and when they might stop smoking cannabis and drinking alcohol. This hypothetical example flags up one particularly sensitive area that may require the involvement of specialist staff. In general, it may be useful to clarify whether a separation is needed between personal learning and sensitive aspects of personal development.
Several schools tended to approach sensitive issues indirectly. For example, where it did not seem feasible to address personal issues, they used group strategies to identify issues of concern to young people and planned the personal and social curriculum accordingly. This was seen as a careful compromise for such sensitive areas. This type of strategy, however, avoids the direct addressing of important issues in the lives of some individual young people, who may possibly be the most vulnerable.
Throughout the evaluation, there was a perceptible shift in pupil views with age. While some primary pupils were happy to talk about personal issues with their teachers, older pupils more prevalently thought that life outside school was quite separate from that inside.
Confidentiality and Audience
While the first audience for personal learning plans is the pupil, teachers are also significant contributors to, and users of, the process and products generated. Therefore, while it can be argued that the principal owner of the PLP is the pupil, it is logical also to maintain that teachers should have access to the information which is useful in planning learning programmes and activities. Where the plan is based on the formal curriculum and relates to the development of associated knowledge and skills, this argument would seem relatively unproblematic. In relation to the taught curriculum therefore, it is perhaps helpful to see the connotation of 'personal' as 'individualised,' rather than 'private.' Personal learning plans, as seen in a number of primary schools, have the potential to be powerful vehicles for parental involvement. Parents, too, therefore need to be able to contribute to and access the children's plans. The review and monitoring of progress and definition of next steps, while person-centred, is a joint activity, enhanced by discussion and negotiation.
However, where sensitive personal development goals are concerned, there are very significant issues of privacy and confidentiality. One secondary school attempted to overcome these by holding master copies of the developing plans in a single, secure base under the control of the PSE department. Young people transcribed formal curriculum-based information and what they regarded as unproblematic personal information into a concise copy of the plan incorporated into their homework diaries.
Should an approach be adopted where young people are encouraged to identify goals in relation to their personal lives, much deeper consideration needs to be given to acceptable procedures and the appropriate involvement of trained, adult mentors.
The Role of IT
Generally, teachers and young people were supportive of the increasing use of IT in the PLP area. Largely, the evaluation suggested a fairly elementary use of IT, based on word processing. This enabled children to have a permanent electronic record and multiple copies of their plan. Teachers were also able to enter information in consultation with young people, reducing the procedural burden on those with less well-developed language skills.
In allowing legitimately shared access to PLPs, IT can make a considerable contribution. Where several teachers require access to PLPs, particularly in secondary schools, files can be networked and administrators can provide proper password protection. This security would be particularly important in the more sensitive area of personal development planning.
It is, however, in the field of PLP structure, as opposed to procedure, that IT may offer the greatest benefits and these were explored in a preliminary way by a small number of schools. The evaluation evidenced substantial demand for structures of PLP, whether skill or subject based, to be tailored to each stage of the curriculum. Database approaches have the potential to offer hierarchies of learning outcomes, specific and generic skills that can be used flexibly to produce individualised programmes for each pupil. They also offer the potential for strengths and weaknesses to be automatically identified and collated; for teacher, pupil and joint views to be recorded; for areas of the curriculum omitted to be identified; for reviews to be completed; for reports to be produced; and for monitoring and recording to take place. Reports for parents can also be included.
Several school managers wanted a rationalisation of all information systems within their schools, hoping that PLPs might ultimately become one part of a comprehensive school MIS. At this early stage of development, it may be argued that the individualised nature of the PLP process would be best served by retaining a free-standing, dedicated approach. It is important to preserve the pupil-centred nature of the PLP. Existing, established systems have very different purposes and audiences.
Planning in the PLP Context
As might be expected in a relatively short development project, most effort in schools went into setting up the programme and implementing the early stages of joint review, negotiation of current levels of achievement and the setting of targets. In phase one, where schools were successful in continuing work over several terms, many noted a diminution in enthusiasm from pupils and parents. Many young people commented on the repetitive nature of the planning process, mentioning the large amount of copying of information by hand from one source to another. This limitation was particularly marked for pupils with written language difficulties.
To ensure that the planning process receives due weight, sustained high quality of dialogue between teacher and pupil is essential; accompanied by a reduction of repetitive procedures. In the Skills for Living phase, lasting only several months, it was not feasible to evaluate the effectiveness of the ongoing planning stages of the proposed model.
Preparing Staff and Pupils
At the heart of the PLP process lie the principles of formative assessment. Personal learning planning itself can be seen as a formalisation and systematisation of these concepts. Therefore, there is a need for staff to be trained in appropriate learning and teaching theory and practice as a precursor to PLP involvement. This case was strongly argued by school managers and teachers. The evaluation suggests that where schools had more readily adopted PLP approaches, there was often existing awareness and implementation of general ideas and specific techniques relating to formative assessment. This process had often been supported by membership of the overarching AifL programme and particular encouragement, advice and resourcing (largely in the form of literature) by the PLP project development officers.
Furthermore, training in the specific processes and procedures related to PLP itself may also be of benefit. Teachers may gain also from an enhancement of their skills in negotiation with pupils and parents; and in refreshment of their techniques of neutral and open questioning. Finally, specific staff development might be provided in expanding teachers' range of techniques for supporting pupil self-evaluation.
In several schools pupils enjoyed and valued dialogue with their teachers and peers, particularly in primary schools in the Skills for Living phase. Generally, young people, too, need appropriate preparation for their involvement in the personal learning planning process. Schools variably use self-assessment and self-evaluation approaches and techniques, such as peer assessment. Where these are employed, young people need clear and specific guidance about what they should be looking for in themselves and in their peers; and training in how to provide feedback that is both supportive and critical.
Seen within this wider context of process, the PLP itself takes on a less dominating position and can be seen as a record of ongoing formative activity.
Workload
All schools commented on the serious workload implications of involvement in the PLP development work. While it is recognised that development is time-consuming, this could have been offset by the small scale of the PLP pilot. All schools were apprehensive, however, about any implementation with large numbers. For the development work, additional cover was deployed in most schools and parts of the existing curriculum were sometimes sacrificed.
In secondary schools in both phases 1 and 2, the collection and collation of subject information from a range of departments was laborious. The gathering and collation of skills-based information from subject specialists in the Skills for Living phase was yet more problematic.
Current school restructuring, in relation both to the curriculum and the pastoral role, may provide an opportunity for the more streamlined incorporation of PLP processes. It may be that teaching assistants could have a greater role to play in supporting aspects of the PLP process, for example, in the recording and collation of information. Appropriate IT strategies will likely also have a significant role here. While the increased and efficient use of IT would undoubtedly help with workload problems, one of the main concerns was how the crucial and time-consuming process of dialogue with pupils could be sustained beyond the pilot exercise.
Parents
Where parents had been involved in the PLP pilots, their comment had been largely favourable. Many welcomed the addition of prospective information about their children's school activities, seeing that this gave them an opportunity to provide additional home support. They were also positive about a level of reporting detail greater than in the usual parent report. There were very few examples of negotiation with parents about planning for children's learning. There was a nursery school example where negotiation with parents led to refreshed home/school relationships and enhanced knowledge of children. One primary school where parents had initially had been given a major role in deciding goals for their children later modified its strategy to reduce their influence on curriculum-related choice.
If parents are to be part of a three-way negotiation amongst teacher, parent and child, it may be that further consideration needs to be given to procedures and the training of teachers in negotiation with adults.
Conclusion
Because of its diversity, the Personal Learning Plan programme has been notably challenging to implement and evaluate. Key aspects have been outlined above and are illuminated by the detail in the body of this report. Involvement in the PLP projects has allowed schools a depth of understanding about what is effective in both the process and management of PLPs. Analysis of their diverse experience suggests a set of general principles. These have the potential to contribute towards the formulation of clear guidelines for good practice.
« Previous | Contents | Next »