Personal Development Planning of the UK Students: Implementation Models

The aim of the article is to show the ways of the UK students’ personal development as one of the higher school answers to the challenges of the complex world of today, whose only certainty is constant change. The programme of personal development is aimed at preparing students for their future life and profession, ensuring their adaptation to the constantly changing conditions. On the basis of the analysis and comparison of the experience of three different British universities, three main implementation models of students’ personal development plans are defined. They are characterized by the type of the dominant orientation: professional, employment or academic. The professional model type was strongly influenced by the requirements of professional bodies such as health care professional bodies, and statutory bodies. The second model type, which is focused on employment, included a general orientation to graduate employment as well as specific work placement during the process of study. This model was associated with such areas as: management and business, sport and leisure, as well as those areas of applied science and engineering where the course focus was mainly towards employment rather than the discipline itself. The third – academic – model was focused on the student’s academic development. Its realization facilitated the development of metacognitive skills and the skills related to the specific subject discipline. The models presented in the article may serve as an instrument for the analysis of higher education individualization practices, and for the designing of flexible learning programmes, which take into account students’ individual abilities and learning needs.

1. Shaposhnikova, N.Yu. (2015). Individual Educational Paths in the Universities of Russia and Great Britain: Theoretical Aspects. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta = MGIMO Review of International Affairs. No. 1 (40), pp. 243-248. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

2. Shaposhnikova, N.Yu. (2018). Experience of Portfolio Introduction for Estimations of Achievements and Development of Students of UK Universities. Otechestvennaya i Zarubezhnaya Pedagogika [National Pedagogy and Abroad]. Vol. 1, no. 1 (46), pp. 94-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24411/2224-0772-2018-00001 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

3. Clegg, S., Bradley, S. (2006). Models of Personal Development Planning: Practice and Processes. British Educational Research Journal. Vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 57-76.

4. Clegg, S., Hudson, A., Steel, J. (2003). The Emperor’s New Clothes: Globalisation and E-Learning. British Journal of Sociology of Education. Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 40-53.

5. Clegg, S., Bradley, S. (2006). The Implementation of Progress Files in Higher Education: Reflection as National Policy. Higher Education. Vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 465-486.

6. Haigh, J. (2008). Integrating Progress Files into the Academic Process. A Review of Case Studies. Active Learning in Higher Education. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 57-71.

7. Pee, B., Woodman, T., Fry, H., Davenport, E.S. (2000). Practice-Based Learning: Views on the Development of a Reflective Learning Tool. Medical Education. Vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 754-761.

8. Fry, H., Davenport, E.S., Woodman, T., Pee, B. (2002). Developing Progress Files: A Case Study. Teaching in Higher Education. Vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 97-111.

9. East, R. (2005). A Progress Report on Progress Files: The Experience of One Higher Education Institution. Active Learning in Higher Education. Vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 160-171.

10. Holmes, L. (2001). Reconsidering Graduate Employability: The “Graduate Identity” Approach. Quality in Higher Education. Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 111-119.

11. Kneale, P. (2002). Developing and Embedding Reflective Portfolios in Geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. Vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 81-94.

12. Broadfoot, P. (1998). Quality Standards and Control in Higher Education: What Price Life-Long Learning? International Studies in Sociology of Education. Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 155-180.