Personal Tutoring: a comparative analysis of practice and experiences across three Schools

1. 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

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

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

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

5. 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: • Provide support and guidance to students • 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

6. 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)

7. Personal Tutoring Schemes in the 3 Schools

8. 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

9. 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

10. Awareness of School policy • 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) • 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)

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Pastoral role • 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 • 75-90% of PTs across all three schools believed that their tutees could talk • to them in confidence

15. PT training • 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%

16. General comments about PT at CU Positive comments: ‘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) 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)

17. 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?