Personal Tutoring: a comparative analysis of practice and experiences across three Schools Andrea Collins (CPLAN), Will Davies (PSYCH) and Sarah McCormack (ARCHI) PCUTL Project Presentation 14 September 2011

Overview of Presentation 1.Why we did it? 2.Overview of Personal Tutoring models in UK Higher Ed 3.Governance of Personal Tutoring at Cardiff University 4.Brief overview of PT Schemes in the 3 Schools 5.Research Methodology 6.Key Research Findings 7.Conclusions and Discussion

Why we did it? 1.A key theme in PCUTL programme 2.New to the role or likely to become a Personal Tutor 3.To understand strengths/limitations of existing PT Schemes within each School 4.To identify opportunities for shared learning across Schools and the University.

Personal Tutoring models in UK Higher Education Regular contact “ideal” model PT provide support on a range of professional/academic/personal issues difficult if large numbers of students Pastoral Model Professional/Academic Model PT provide support on professional/academic issues only Disconnects academic and personal issues Regular, but referral to specialist for wider personal issues Academic/personal boundaries unclear at times Curriculum Model Highly structured Regular scheduled meetings PT provides support on professional and personal development issues E.g. PDP

Governance of Personal Tutoring at Cardiff University Senate Regulation on Governing Personal Tutors All students on taught programmes of study are allocated a PT at the start of their programme Role of the PT is twofold: 1.Provide support and guidance to students 2.Provide support to students whose programmes of study support PDP Schools responsible for implementing a PT System which is: – ‘best suited to the interests of their students’ – provide Personal Support and PDP

Research Methodology Semi-structured interviews with School Senior PT (or equiv) Survey questionnaire developed around 5 key themes: – Experience, practice, policy and training, support, and attitudes towards PT Launched online (BoS) mid May-June (4 week period)

Personal Tutoring Schemes in the 3 Schools Comparative IndicatorsPSYCHCPLANARCHI 1. Taught degree programmes 3: 2 UGT (1 incl professional placement) and 1 PGT 10: 2 UGT (1 incl professional placement & 8 PGT) 6: 1 UGT & 5PGT 2. Student intakeUGT: 200 PGT: 30 UGT: 70 UGT: 200 UGT: UGT: Academic/research staff170 (PTs: 34)44 (PTs: 32)56 (PTs: 19) 4. Personal Tutee: staff ratio Personal Tutor model‘Academic’ model Part of Tutorial System PT provide academic and pastoral support ‘Pastoral’ model PT’s provide professional and pastoral support Academic support provided by ML/YT or CD ‘Pastoral’ model Year Heads and Professional Tutors provide pastoral support. Professional Tutors and Year Tutor provide Academic/Professional support. 6. Monitoring of SchemeChair of Board of Studies and School Manager Senior Personal TutorNo named individual 7. Personal TutorsProfessors, Readers, Senior Lecturers, Lecturers, Research Fellows and Professional Tutors

Responses Caveats with questionnaire data Overall response rate: 56% (63% ARCHI, 53% CPLAN, 56% PSYCH) Responses across a cross-section of positions: ARCHI: 1 Deputy Head of School, 1 Senior Lecturer, 6 Lecturers, 1 Fellow, 3 Professional Tutors CPLAN: 3 Readers, 5 Senior Lecturers, 7 Lecturers, 2 Professional Tutors PSYCH: 10 Professors, 6 Senior Lecturers, 3 Lecturers Between-school difference in the length of PT service at Cardiff University: ARCHI & CPLAN ~37% of respondents had 0-4yrs experience at Cardiff, ~5% in PSYCH ARCHI & CPLAN ~25% of respondents had >10yrs experience at Cardiff, 50% in PSYCH

Key Research Findings Awareness of University policy >90% respondents aware of University policy on PT but 30-40% hadn’t read it; results consistent across schools Most PTs (60-75%) across all three schools agreed that there was sufficient advice from the University re PT

More respondents in ARCHI and CPLAN were unaware of school policy on PT than in PSYCH (60-65% vs. 40%) and a greater proportion of PTs in PSYCH had read the school policy ~80% of respondents from PSYCH agreed there was adequate school advice re PT; in ARCHI and CPLAN these figures were much lower (~25% and ~45% respectively) Awareness of School policy In ARCHI, ~60% of respondents reported being informed by the school as to their PT role; in CPLAN and PSYCH this figure was >90% In ARCHI and PSYCH, PTs had difficulty naming Senior Personal Tutor ‘very little support or guidance offered at school level’ (ARCHI) ‘I don’t think the process is structured enough… there should be a more formal system’ (CPLAN)

Current PT system within all three schools regarded as effective Perceived effectiveness of PT in Schools

Composition of PT sessions Time spent on PT approximately equivalent across schools (~15%) PT in CPLAN tends to be more reactive than in the other two schools; PT in PSYCH is more weighted towards academic matters

Importance of PT and PDP 70-95% PTs across all three schools agreed PT was important/very important for academic and pastoral matters 65-90% PTs across all three schools agreed PT was important/very important for professional matters PT was viewed as being more important for academic/professional matters in ARCHI and PSYCH, and for pastoral matters in CPLAN Consistent with this, 45% of PTs in PSYCH viewed PDP as being important/very important, compared to just 15% in CPLAN

65-80% of PTs across all three schools referred students to support services 1-5 times per academic year; the main issues referred were similar across the three schools and included: mental health problems (notably stress) financial problems disability issues (e.g. dyslexia) assistance for international students (e.g. VISA) bereavement accommodation issues academic/time management difficulties drug/alcohol problems family issues Pastoral role 75-90% of PTs across all three schools believed that their tutees could talk to them in confidence

More individuals in CPLAN had attended a University training course on PT (~45%) than in ARCHI or PSYCH (~15%); of the trainees from CPLAN ~50% had attended the course recently (in the past 5 years) Of all the individuals who had attended this training course, the majority found it of some use, useful or very useful >65% of PTs in CPLAN and PSYCH were aware of University training/student support services; in ARCHI this figure was <50% PT training

‘constant close contact with students ensures they know they can approach us’ (ARCHI) ‘system works reasonably well as a first port-of-call for students who need support’ (CPLAN) ‘helps staff identify and help with any problems students may have in a concerted manner’ (CPLAN) ‘might help deal with problems that might not get attention otherwise’ (PSYCH) Positive comments: Negative comments: ‘difficulty dealing with highly personal issues that don’t affect academic performance’ (ARCHI) ‘PDP too time-consuming for all undergrads on an individual basis’ (CPLAN) ‘PT role should be taken into account for promotion decisions etc.’ (PSYCH) ‘PT system of some importance, but flawed – current PDP materials not sufficiently flexible for students whose career plans change’ (PSYCH) ‘lack of support for students during placements’ (PSYCH) General comments about PT at CU

Conclusions and Discussion Substantial differences in the PT systems employed within the three schools; probably due to relative school sizes and discipline-specific considerations PT systems currently employed in the three schools are effective from POV of PTs; how about from students’ POV? Need to ensure that PTs are aware of their roles, of whom they should seek advice if required, and of the availability of support services Should participation on the short PT course run by the University be encouraged/mandatory, particularly for new PTs? Optimal method for dissemination of best practice for PT within and between Schools?