Student and staff perceptions of Personal Development Planning (PDP) processes designed to support undergraduate dissertations


Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education           ISSN: 1759-667X 

Special Edition: Researching PDP Practice, November 2010 

 

 

An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as 
a Personal Development Planning (PDP) process to support 
learner development 
 

Dr Andrea Raiker 
University of Bedfordshire, UK 
 

 

Abstract 
 

The investigation discussed in this paper was motivated by a finding revealed through 

analysis of the dissertation grades of final year undergraduates on an education honours 

degree. A third of dissertations received grades equating to third class honours or fails and 

this was viewed by the Faculty as being unacceptable. As a Fellow of the University’s 

Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning with a focus on personal development, I 

was asked by the course leader to identify possible causes and suggest changes. My 

critical reflection on the dissertation suggested that its creation is predicated upon 

Personal Development Planning (PDP) processes practised through the mediation of the 

tutorial. I am investigating the effectiveness of the tutorial to support learner development 

over a two year period, contributing to an overarching action research project undertaken 

by the National Action Research Network (NARN). This paper presents the outcomes of 

the first cycle of my action research, involving the collection and analysis of quantitative 

and qualitative data from students and dissertation supervisors. At this stage it appears 

that the design of the dissertation meets the needs of some students but not all, 

particularly the lower third of the sample cohort. Furthermore some students, including a 

number of thirds and fails, do not perceive tutorial support as essential for the successful 

completion of their dissertations. Overall, it appears that the tutorial process requires 

review in order to support the autonomous and/or collaborative learning needed for 

effective learner development. 

 
Keywords: action research; learner development; PDP; tutorial; dissertation. 
 

 



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
Introduction 
 

Over the last decade various conceptions of Personal Development Planning (PDP) have 

been discussed in the literature (QAA, 2001; Brennan and Shah, 2003; Clegg and Bradley, 

2006; Bush and Bissell, 2008). In general, this debate has had a dual focus: PDP as 

product (the Progress File); and PDP as a process (Buckley, 2007). Various practical 

applications have arisen from this debate on how students’ academic studies should 

contain preparation for employment and the form this should take (Atlay, 2007). Atlay et 

al.’s (2009, p.1) perception of PDP as being ‘…a process embedded within the curriculum 

[that] should support students in facing these challenges and improving their skills’ in both 

academic and work-related spheres resonates with the Higher Education Academy’s 

definition: ‘…a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect 

upon their own learning, performance and or achievement and to plan for their personal, 

educational and career development’ (2009, p.1). Both definitions can be applied to the 

purpose of the tutorial in the production of undergraduate dissertations. They confirm this 

research’s aims of identifying the ‘challenges’ and ‘skills’ related to students’ difficulties 

with their final assignments in which syntheses of their prior learning is presented prior to 

employment. 

 

The range of problems experienced by undergraduates in completing their dissertations 

has been substantially documented. For example, Harrison and Whalley (2006, p.18) state 

that ‘students have difficulty with time management, the enormity of the exercise, 

balancing dissertation work with other studies, self motivation and knowing what is 

expected’. From a differing perspective, Hammick and Acker (1998) suggest a key 

determinant affecting interaction between supervisors and students is their differing 

concepts of knowledge and power. Rowley and Slack (2006) emphasise the need for 

increased professional development for supervisors. They debate students’ needs to 

understand the importance of the dissertation to their learning, and see this as a 

fundamental aspect of the supervisory role. Areas of potential difficulty are argued to be 

students’ management of theory-practice relationships, effective access/evaluation of 

online resources, and understanding of research methodologies and design.  Another 

perspective provided by Stefani et al. (1997, p.271) focuses on the divergence of 

supervisor and student perceptions about issues surrounding the dissertation. They 

suggest that, to increase the learning that students gain from the dissertation process, ‘…a 

climate of open dialogue… to share learning conceptions and to ensure that the 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 2



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
assessment of any learning task is commensurate with the aims, objectives and learning 

outcomes’ must be established. Socio-cultural theory (for example, that represented by 

Vygotsky, 1978) suggests that such a climate of collaboration is necessary to promote 

effective learner development. 

 

Learning development is to be understood as a holistic concept, embracing conceptual 

change arising out of transformational experiences embedded in context and perceived 

from the learner’s perspective. Transformational experiences occur when there is a 

paradigm shift from teaching to learning centrality (Biggs and Tang, 2007).  Meyer and 

Land (2006) postulate that there are some aspects of learning that form portals, the 

passage through which provides access to landscapes of understanding critical for 

students’ progress. The effect of these aspects is so profound that students’ perceptions of 

their courses, their disciplines or even their world views are transformed. They argue that 

these learning landscapes are bounded but capable of expansion at any point or points on 

that boundary at any time depending on the stimulus. For Mezirow (1997), such 

transformations result in increased autonomy of the individual. For those who see 

students’ self knowledge, understanding and problem-solving abilities as key to work and 

life (for example: Stefani et al., 2007; Kumar, 2008; Atlay et al., 2009), autonomy is a 

principal objective of PDP and hence learning development. 

 

This investigation was stimulated through analysis of dissertation grades awarded to final 

year education undergraduates over the five year period ending August 2008. A growing 

tail of underachievement was identified with an increasing number of students not 

achieving expected grades in their dissertations. The production of a dissertation explicitly 

involves PDP processes leading to greater autonomy through the mediation of the tutorial. 

Students are supervised, not taught. Supervisors gradually cede control to the students so 

that they become increasingly autonomous through the structure of the tutorial system. 

The Bedfordshire approach to the tutorial system is to make five hours of one-to-one 

supervisory time available at the students’ discretion. This can be face to face, or mediated 

electronically. Two research questions emerged from reflection on this underachievement 

and the autonomy required by the tutorial: 

 

• How effective was the tutorial system as a PDP process leading to greater 

autonomy?  

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 3



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 

• In which areas might PDP processes be developed to support the interface 

between the autonomous and collaborative learning required by the tutorial system? 

 

This paper presents the outcomes of the first cycle of collection and analysis of 

quantitative and qualitative data. The second cycle, occurring at the time of writing, will 

involve the evaluation of PDP interventions to support students in their dissertation work 

arising from, and compared with, the findings of the first cycle. This project was conceived 

as contributing to a larger action research project undertaken by the National Action 

Research Network (NARN, 2007). NARN is researching and evaluating PDP and e-

Portfolio practice at 17 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the UK. Therefore the 

approach of my contribution to this research was predetermined.  

 

 

Research design 
 

The approach of action research when applied to education is concerned with critical 

praxis, action informed by disciplined inquiry aimed at developing evidence-based 
knowledge and theory (Habermas, 1984; Elliott, 1991). It focuses on practical issues 

identified by practitioners as being problematic but capable of being changed (Eliott, 1991: 

Zuber-Skerritt, 1996). Action research involves ‘…changing individuals, on the one hand, 

and, on the other, the culture of the groups, institutions and societies to which they belong’ 

(Kemmis and McTaggart, 1992, p.16). Furthermore, action research is ‘…a form of 

collective self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to 
improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices…’ (Kemmis 

and McTaggart, 1992, p.5). Although I, an individual, am undertaking the research in the 

spirit of ‘teacher-as-researcher’ as advocated by Stenhouse (1975) and Whitehead (1985), 

and ‘researcher-as-participator’ (Weiskopf and Laske, 1996), colleagues have been, and 

will be, included throughout the research process. Altricher and Gsettner’s (1993) model of 

action research was adopted as being appropriate for the context. Their four steps of 

finding a starting point (the number of underachieving students), clarifying the situation 

(why they might be underachieving), developing action strategies (including PDP 

processes) and putting them into practice, and publicising the results, allows clarification 

and putting actions into practice to occur in parallel. This was ethically essential as, to 

maximise learner development, actions based on findings had to be put into practice when 

confirmed to increase effectiveness and hence student achievement.  

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 4



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
The research presented in this paper is focused on the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 cohorts 

of an education degree. There are two repeated cycles of data collection. The following 

refers to the first cycle. 157 tutorial records from 56 students submitted with their 

dissertations were collected. These provided information on the number of tutorials, when 

they occurred and what was discussed. Therefore I was able to analyse the tutorial 

records contained as appendices of approximately half of the 106 dissertations submitted. 

The records were read several times to obtain an overall sense of the content. Brenner et 

al.’s (1985) approach to content analysis was adopted. Codes were assigned to all 

utterances in the records according to their perceived meaning. Reliability was maximised 

by asking a colleague experienced in content analysis to moderate my perceptions. My 

colleague was provided with samples from the records and the related coded modules of 

meaning at various points in the process. This resulted in some codes and modules of 

meaning being amended or amalgamated with others as overlaps were identified. The 

categories were added to and amended following reflection on the data and the 

development of interpretations and meanings. They were eventually confirmed as valid by 

the same colleague involved in verifying the codes. The process was completed by 

categories being assigned to one of two themes, student-focused issues and supervisor-

focused issues. This again was confirmed by the external scrutiny of the colleague 

involved in the content analysis moderation.  

 

Rich data, subjected to discourse analysis (Parker, 1992), was collected through 

structured interviews of 6 dissertation students in a focus group and 6 supervisors during 

the summer term 2009. Also collected for discourse analysis were recordings from three 

sessions arranged as additional support to the tutorials. Discourse analysis is a generic 

methodology for analysing the choices of words and actions that members of a group use 

to engage with each other within and across time, action and activity. Difference between 

sub-methods can be determined by the type of analysis used. This research adopted the 

analytic approach advocated by Parker (1992) and Sfard (2001). They use no particular 

procedure of detailed analysis but look for patterns of language use that can be related to 

broader themes of social structure and ideological critical evaluation. 

 

The findings from content and discourse analysis were compared with and considered 

alongside in order to triangulate with quantitative data gathered from student grades, 

tutorial attendance and tutorial records. The outcomes of the analysed data were 

disseminated to colleagues in education and to the wider university community during the 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 5



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
autumn of 2009. Subsequently, recommendations based on the research findings were 

embedded into final year practice. These included changes to tutorial practice and the 

organisation of the dissertation module, and to the introduction of a four seminar series at 

the beginning of the final year to address issues revealed by data analysis.  

 

 

Analysis, discussion and findings 

The tutorial records and their timings 
It is a requirement of the dissertation process that tutorial records are included as an 

appendix in the submitted dissertation. Only 56 of the 106 dissertations under analysis 

contained tutorial records. However, the awarded grades of the sample of 56 dissertations 

containing tutorial records showed similar distribution to the total number of 106, though 

the sample showed a slightly higher percentage of A and B awards. A separate record was 

kept of dates when ethical approval was given. This data was added to that obtained from 

the tutorial records. 

 

Analysis showed that for all bands but the <D- band (fails), the average number of tutorials 

attended was three. The first of these tutorials would have been an informal introductory 

and scoping meeting, leaving an average of two tutorials per student available for 

supervisors to support the greater part of the dissertation process. For the <D- band, the 

number of tutorial visits was one. However, as tutorial records of only four students from 

this group were available for analysis this finding must be taken with caution. Also data 

from the interview analysis demonstrated that students may have collaborated with their 

supervisors by e-mail, MSN, telephone or in unrecorded meetings. However, it must be 

noted from the data available that, as at least one tutorial would have been informal, these 

students appeared to have had little or no formal/informal support during the rest of their 

dissertations. Therefore it appears that there is a possibility that some students do not 

perceive tutorial support as being essential for learning development in relation to their 

dissertations. 

 

As well as considering the number of tutorials attended by students, data on the time 

elapsing between tutorials in weeks was analysed. For all grade bands, the longest time 

was between first and second tutorials, being between 14 and 27 weeks. Subsequent 

tutorials occurred at more frequent intervals as the date of submission approached, 

particularly in March and April 2009. These were concerned particularly with data analysis 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 6



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
and writing up. Discourse analysis indicated that unresolved early difficulties and errors 

had become embedded in projects. Therefore  this research strongly suggests that the 

time elapsing between first and subsequent tutorials is too long to maximise learner 

development. Furthermore, I suggest that this mitigates against the establishment of 

Stefani et al.’s (1997, p.271) ‘…climate of open dialogue’. 

 

Student-focused issues 
There is clear evidence that students did not realise that a shift of responsibility for learner 

development from tutors to themselves comes with the dissertation. Supervisor Interview 

1’s (Sup/Int.1) comment summarised this perception: 

 

What is different is to the dissertation as a project is that they have to work much more on 

their own, they have to plan their own time.  There is guidance but a lot less of it, in a way, 

and some find it a lot easier than others.   

 

This is also evidenced by the lack of reading by some students prior to the first tutorial. 

These students come to the first tutorial with little idea of focus. ‘X has very broad ideas 

about what she wants to do’ (Tutorial Record 5: TR 5) and ‘brainstormed ideas’ (TR 15) 

are representative of this. Data from the supervisor interviews confirmed this, ‘… they don't 

appreciate how much reading they have to do, particularly through the background’ (TR 1), 

and is representative of all supervisors’ perceptions on an overall lack of preparatory 

reading. Interestingly, there is little difference in the incidence of students not reading, or 

not reading sufficiently at the time of the first tutorial, across all grade bands. All 

supervisors shared the view that more able students were able to catch up with the 

necessary reading during the course of their research but not the <C- (third class honours 

and fails) group. A finding of this research is that some form of focused PDP on project 
management of reading and recording reflective evaluations during the Easter Year 

3/October Year 4 period could have been beneficial for learner development, reflecting 

and extending Harrison and Whalley’s (2006) identification of time management as an 

issue, 

 

The <C- and A-< (first class honours) ranges showed a marked difference in the 

effectiveness of their project management. Project management was identified by 

combining work needing to be done and the date of the tutorial record. For example, the 

record of a <C- students dated 6th March 2009 (TR 7) reads ‘needs to collect the 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 7



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
research’. Another for the 23rd April states ‘first draft of analysis needs to be done’. It must 

be remembered that the dissertation submission date was 1st May 2009. Significantly, 

nothing in the tutorial records of the A-< students suggested project management was an 

issue and there were few incidences in the records of the C- to C+ (thirds) and B- to B+ 

(second class honours) ranges. Input on time but not project management was given by 

the module leader early in the students’ fourth year. A finding of this research is that more 

emphasis should be placed on developing project management skills. It is suggested that 

more sustained PDP support in this area is necessary, particularly for the potential <C- 

students. 

 

One in five students across all grade bands completed one or more of their tutorial records 

themselves. TR 13 recorded things to do: ‘for next time think about the research in terms 

of length, audiences for questionnaires etc. and strategies’. TR 11 wrote about how she 

felt: ‘discussion into passion lost with P.E. class….was more confident and focused on 

changing topics, could list key literature and link to theorists straight away’. These 

recordings indicate reflection. They do not indicate high quality formative feedback. It could 

be argued that the tutorial as PDP process should stimulate reflection. It may be that good 

formative feedback was given verbally during the tutorial but was not recorded. PDP may 

have been encouraged by e-mail, as part of a telephone conversation or during informal 

meetings. Analysis has raised the question of the purpose of the tutorial record. It appears 

to offer not structured, formative support but evidence that tutor and student have met. A 

finding of this research is that, resonating with Stefani et al’s (1997) work, collaborative 

enhancement of shared understanding and agreement of the purpose and place of the 

tutorial record is essential to establishing realistic, meaningful PDP to support learner 

development within the dissertation process.  

 

It was clear from analysis that the sequencing of the dissertation process was an issue for 

all grade bands apart from A-<, reflecting Rowley and Slack’s (2006) findings. Analysis 

suggested that supervisors advised students to begin their empirical research before their 

literature reviews. This is not effective academic practice as literature reviews inform 

choice of research questions, methods and analyses. An example is TR 5 whose 

supervisor writes on the 16th March, six weeks from the submission date, ‘future work: 

draft lit review for consideration by tutor’. This could be connected to the lack of reading 

prior to the first tutorial noted above. The priority appears to be for students to collect their 

data, whether or not they have read sufficiently to inform their choice of data collection and 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 8



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
appropriate methods of analysis. Content analysis suggests that this results in some 

students having no clear understanding of the sequencing of their research. This could 

impact on transition between chapters and the embedding of literature in the analysis 

chapter, issues that were identified in the student interview transcripts as mental blocks. 

More importantly, it impacts on learner development in understanding rigorous research 

practice, and deflates and devalues the relevance of the practitioner-as-researcher. This is 

not desirable at a time when teaching is being promoted as a Masters’ profession (DCSF, 

2008). 

 

When asked what their mental blocks were, Focus Interviewee 3 (Foc/Int.3) and Foc/Int.5 

said in unison ‘panic!’ to which the other four students in the focus group quickly 

concurred. ‘Panic’ in itself is not a mental block but is a state where mental blocks can 

arise. All students perceived the dissertation as being ‘scary’ (Foc/Int.3) in being 8,000 

words long. These students reported anxiety, confusion and inaction caused by panic 

which placed them in liminal space. This is a term coined by Meyer and Land (2006) to 

describe a mental state where students are trapped and unable to proceed with their 

learning.  

 

Analysis of focus group interview data demonstrated that these students had also 

personal mental blocks that were inhibiting learner development. Blocks were sometimes 
experienced by individuals, others were shared. For example, Foc/Int.4 said that for her, 

data analysis was a mental block: ‘I’ve got lots of stuff from the interviews and children too, 

but what do I do with it now? The analysis, that’s just looking at the results of your 

data…isn’t it?’. She was the only one of the focus group who cited analysis as an issue. 

However, four of the supervisors reported that they thought that data analysis issues 

affected dissertation quality. A mental block shared by the whole group was not knowing 

how to start writing. Foc/Int.1 commented: ‘getting started, getting the literature review 

under way. I’ve got my research as well. It’s just getting started’. Foc/Int.6 provided more 

detail: ‘I don’t know where you go, to actually structure your writing. Whenever I’ve carried 

out any sort of assignment task I know exactly what I’m doing at each stage, but here 

there are great areas’.                     

 

Other mental blocks identified by the focus group affecting learner development were 

principally concerned with inability to focus on a realistic research question, to organise the 

dissertation, to move from one chapter to another, a lack of understanding of the domain 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 9



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
specific language and difficulties in adopting an academic writing style, issues that 

resonate with those identified by Rowley and Slack (2006). It is suggested that these can 

be regarded as threshold concepts because, once they were surmounted, most students 

passed through Meyer and Land’s (2006) portal and accessed the dissertation landscape. 

Some students got over their mental blocks after collaboration with their tutors, evidence of 

Stefani et al.’s (1997) ‘climate of open dialogue’ being established to some degree. As 

Sup/Int.1 stated: 

 

I like the question about mental blocks because I have some big mental blocks!  

Just sitting here, doing something like this!  So, it yes, students go through the 

same sort of process, but again, some of them cope with it more than others.  I find 

that, overall, we chat about it on the phone, sometimes even an e-mail, and I give a 

suggestion, ‘Have you thought about…’. It's usually something quite straightforward, 

it's not complicated, it helps them get over them, over the mental blocks. 

 

Another finding significant in inhibiting learner development was students’ perceptions that 

they had not been given appropriate research skills earlier in the course. This contrasts 

with the supervisors’ perceptions, who maintained that skills had been taught, the issue 

being that students were not able to transfer their learning into the dissertation, reflecting a 

finding of Stefani et al.’s (1997, p.271) work. Furthermore, the inference is that students 

were unable to develop from being given research methods to use in a task by their 
tutors, to identifying for themselves which methods are applicable to their current 
research. In other words, they were unable to progress towards the independence and 

autonomy indicating transformational learning had occurred Mezirow (1997). A finding of 

this research is that the embedding and progression of research skills in earlier years 

should be reviewed. However, the interview data suggests that supervisors believe that 

effective independence is linked to ability, the implicit message being that this is fixed and 

that little development is possible.  

 

Two other categories of potential issues affecting learner development involved students 

who attended only one tutorial and students whose focus changed during Year 4. More A-

< students dropped out of the tutorial system than any other grade band. Any PDP support 

that they required appears to have been self-generated and addressed either 

autonomously or collaboratively with the support of their peers. However, supervisors gave 

mixed responses to the value of peer support. Overall, the supervisors did not see the 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 10



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
dissertation as being a collaborative activity. Data collection and analysis of students’ 

perceptions on the relative value of tutor and peer support is being included in the second 

cycle of this research. 

 

Approximately one in ten of the <C- students switched foci. Change of focus resulted from 

a variety of reasons including boredom, lack of support from schools for the original focus, 

and student perception that insufficient data would be generated from the original 

proposal. Two supervisors emphasised the lack of support from schools as an issue 

influencing the quality of dissertations. A finding of this research is that greater emphasis 

should be placed on schools supporting dissertation students during school mentor 

training. 

 

The highest incidence of changing foci came from the B- to B+ range with 1 in 5 students 

changing. One of these students (TR 36) changed her focus in February and achieved B-. 

So changing focus does not necessarily correlate with a low mark, but could affect 

students demonstrating their potential. It is suggested that more supervisor support and 

guidance early in the dissertation might help prevent students choosing inappropriate foci.  

Greater emphasis on supervisor development per se could be beneficial according to 
Rowley and Slack’s (2006) research. 

 

 

Supervisor-focused issues 
The principal issue revealed by content analysis affecting learner development was the 

varying engagement of supervisors with giving feedback and the generally poor quality of 

formative feedback. Most feedback took the form of recording what had already been 

done, or procedures to be followed. Examples of such feedback from the tutorial records 

are ‘good progress at this early stage. Identified focus and drafted some key research 

questions’ (TR 18) and ‘continue your literature research, speak to school to finalise 

arrangements for placement and complete proposal ready for next meeting’ (TR 9). The 

amount of feedback given was not indicative of its quality, or the student’s eventual 

achievement. Two <C- students (TR 2 and TR 3) received excellent formative feedback 

during their first tutorials but did not return for further tutorials. Content analysis revealed 

that the greatest incidence of poor formative feedback was given to students with grades 

above A-.  Excellent formative feedback was given to a <C- student (TR 14) in three 

tutorials. With this structured support, a good example of PDP, this student achieved D+. 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 11



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
Also helpful for learner development were incidences of weakness being identified, for 

example, the supervisor of TR 5 observed: ‘X has struggled to move forward re focus on 

enquiry’. This category only appeared in the tutorial records of the C-> group.  

 

Supervisors were aware of the issue of differing supervisor input. All mentioned the anxiety 

this created during their interviews but Sup/Int.4’s thoughts most vividly convey the anxiety 

this created and also a possible solution: 

 

… you think ‘Am I doing it right, am I being fair to the others, I just want them to do 

well’. But we don't talk about how we structure our tutorials. You just do it by habit.  

But there could be things that I am not asking them to do. And then I have this real 

worry that some tutors get their students to higher grades, and there's a hierarchy of 

key tutors. And then I think the students think ‘Well I've got uh-uh-uh, never mind, I 

got so-and-so!’ but that really does affect their dissertation, doesn't it? The level of 

tutoring. So that's my worry. 

 

This supports Rowley and Slack’s (2006) assertion that greater supervisor development is 

needed, a finding of this research. It also raises questions on the extent of supervisors 

own empirical knowledge of research skills and methods. The two supervisors interviewed 

who had recently completed their Masters, which included both literature review and 

empirical research, both commented on how much this learning experience and 

assignment outcomes had impacted on their practice. 

 

 

Conclusion 
 

The tutorial as used in the final year of the education course chosen as this research focus 

appears to be effective as a PDP process enabling learner development in meeting the 

needs of some students but not all, particularly the lower achieving students. Additionally, 

this research indicates that not all learners perceive tutorial support as being essential for 

the development necessary for successful completion of their dissertations. A major factor 

appears to be the lack of engagement of students with preliminary reading, resulting in 

students not being prepared for their first tutorial during which their ethics proposal form, 

containing their research design outline, is discussed. Furthermore, the time elapsing 

between first and subsequent tutorials is too long. More organised, knowledgeable 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 12



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
students appear to be able to cope and catch up; others cannot. Taking into account that 

students have other assignments, school experience to complete and personal and social 

issues to deal with during the dissertation period, the ability to manage their dissertation is 

of crucial importance. Although time management is taught during the dissertation period, 

this research has demonstrated that more emphasis needs to be placed on project 

management. Ideally project management skills should be initiated in Year 1 and 

developed in subsequent years. 

 

The dissertation is seen as an activity that demonstrates and encourages student 

independence and autonomy. This suggests that students need to be aware of the skills, 

particularly research skills they have already gained so that they can draw on them to 

support the making of informed choices on appropriate methodologies. This research has 

highlighted the fact that some students are unable to transfer the research skills they have 

obtained through tasks in earlier years to the dissertation. Learner development is inhibited 

as this inability encourages the formation of mental blocks and throws students into Meyer 

and Land’s (2006) liminal space. Their motivation to act independently is affected. As a 

consequence their tutorial time is not used effectively to develop collaborative learning. 

Also, analysis suggests that some students are not secure in their knowledge of research 

methods and analysis techniques, particularly qualitative analysis. 

 

It is suggested that learner development could be enhanced through supervisor 
development. The university’s research communities of practice would be appropriate fora 

for this, being directed at encouraging and supporting activities to promote enquiry and 

evidence based pedagogies. It is proposed such pedagogies should include resources and 

activities, possibly hosted on e-Portfolio software, related to the practice of and reflection 

on research skills acquired over the four years of the degree. These records and 

reflections would be a useful resource for informing methodological choices for the 

dissertation and as bases for discussion at tutorials. A finding of the research is that both 

supervisors and students regarded the dissertations a solitary activity, despite the fact that 

the tutorial is a collaborative practice. It is also evident that students talked with each 

other. Therefore, it is proposed that effective supervisor and learner development could 

include encouragement of the use of wikis, blogs, e-mail, discussion fora within learning 

platforms, social networking websites, MSN and the telephone/mobile as collaboration 

tools, as well as the tutorial, to extend the range of means of peer, student-supervisor and 

supervisor-supervisor support. 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 13



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
The number of students who complete their own tutorial records has called into question 

the purpose of the tutorial record and quality of supervision. Whether the tutorial record is 

to be the principal vehicle of formative feedback completed by the supervisor, or to be a 

record of student reflection attracting credit, it needs to be of an agreed and shared 

standard and fit for purpose. This process could lead into activities with students that 

precede the tutorials, the aim being to match and build relationships between supervisor 

and students within a ‘climate of open dialogue’ to facilitate learner development. 

 

The design of the undergraduate dissertation demands that ensuring effective learner 

development is a responsibility of both student and supervisor, reflecting autonomous 

(Mezirow, 1999) and collaborative (Vygotsky, 1987) learning mediated through the tutorial. 

This research clearly demonstrates that for effective learner development for the 

dissertation, review was needed of its content and organisation, of the tutorial  processes 

within it, and of the responsibilities of supervisor and student in their engagement. 

Following the completion of the first cycle, some changes were made. The content of the 

module was increased in that four introductory sessions were timetabled at the beginning 

of the final year. These focused on revising ethics, research methods, searching for 

appropriate literature, dissertation structure and sequencing of its various parts. No 

changes were made to the tutorial itself, though students were encouraged to meet their 

supervisors on a monthly basis. Supervisors were advised that they must complete the 

tutorial records themselves and give detailed feedback. However, no supervisor 

development was organised, neither has any guidance or support been given on 

establishing collaboration outside the tutorial, face-to-face or online. It is too early to be 

able to provide findings of the second cycle. The research reported here is small-scale and 

is not yet complete. At the moment its findings can only be applied with confidence to the 

cohort researched. The purpose of analysing the second cycle of data is to identify specific 

PDP interventions for supervisor and student consideration, aimed at improving learner 

development during the dissertation process. 

 

 

Acknowledgement 
 

This paper is an outcome of the National Action Research Network on researching and 

evaluating Personal Development Planning and e-Portfolio practice project (2007-2010). 

The project was led by the University of Bolton in association with the University of 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 14



Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
Worcester and Centre for Recording Achievement, and in national collaboration with the 

University of Bedfordshire, Bournemouth University and University of Bradford. The project 

was funded by the Higher Education Academy, National Teaching Fellowship Project 

strand. More details about the project can be found at: 

http://www.recordingachievement.org/research/narn-tree.html. 

 

 

References 
 

Altricher, H. and Gsettner, P. (1993) ‘Action research: a closed chapter in the history of 

German social science?’, Educational Action Research, 1(3), pp. 329-360. 

 

Atlay, M. T. (2007) ‘Embedding PDP practice in the Curriculum’, in Centre for Recording 

Achievement: Personal Development Planning and Employability. York: Higher 

Education Academy. 

 

Atlay, M.T., Petrova, P. and Ujma, D. (2009) To embed or not to embed? The embedding 

of PDP in the curriculum. Available at: 

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/case_studies/ujma.pdf 

(Accessed: 14 September 2009). 

 

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for quality learning at university. 3rd edn. 

Buckingham: Open University Press. 

 

Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2003) Report on the implementation of Progress Files.  

http://oro.open.ac.uk/324/1/ProgressFiles.pdf  (Accessed: 21 September 2010). 

 

Brenner, M., Brown, J. and Canter, D. (eds.) (1985) The research interview: uses and 

approaches. London: Academic Press. 

 

Buckley, C. (2007) ‘Walking the PDP line: negotiating connections and boundaries in 

Higher Education’, On Reflection, 14, pp. 4-6. 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 15

http://www.recordingachievement.org/research/narn-tree.html
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/case_studies/ujma.pdf
http://oro.open.ac.uk/324/1/ProgressFiles.pdf


Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
Bush, H. and Bissell, V. (2008) ‘The evaluation of an approach to reflective learning in the 

undergraduate dental curriculum, European Journal of Dental Education, 12, 

pp.103-110. 

 

Clegg, S. and Bradley, S. (2006) ‘The implementation of progress files in higher education: 

reflection as national policy’, Higher Education, 51, pp. 465-486. 

 

Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) New Masters qualification to boost 

teaching. Available at: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2008_0044 

(Accessed: 3 July 2010). 

 

Elliott, J. (1991) Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University 

Press. 

 

Habermas, J. (1984) The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: reason and the 

rationalisation of society. Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press. 

 

Hammick, M. and Acker, S. (1998) ‘Undergraduate research supervision: a gender 

analysis’, Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), pp. 335 – 347. 
 

Harrison, M.E. and Whalley, W.B. (2006) Combining student independent learning and 

peer advice to improve the quality of undergraduate dissertations. Available at: 

http://www.gees.ac.uk/planet/p16/mh.pdf (Accessed: 31 August 2009).   

 

Higher Education Academy (2009) Personal Development Planning. Available at: 

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/learning/pdp (Accessed: 26 February 2009). 

 

Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (eds.) (1992) The action research planner. 3rd edn). 

Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. 

 

Kumar, A. (2008) Personal, academic and career development in higher education. 

London: Routledge. 

 

Meyer, J. and Land, R. (eds.) (2006) Overcoming barriers to student understanding. 

London: Routledge. 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 16

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2008_0044
http://www.gees.ac.uk/planet/p16/mh.pdf
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/learning/pdp


Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
Mezirow, J. (1997) ‘Transformative learning: from theory to practice’, New Directions for 

Adult and Continuing Education, 74, pp. 5–12. 

 

National Action Research Network (2007) Researching and evaluating Personal 

Development Planning (PDP) and e-Portfolio. Available at: 

http://www.recordingachievement.org/research/narn-tree.html (Accessed: 11 May 

2010). 

 

Parker, I. (1992) Discourse dynamics: critical analysis for social and individual psychology. 

London: Routledge. 

 

Rowley, J. and Slack, F. (2006) What is the future for undergraduate dissertations? 

http://digitalcommons.shu.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=ccrc_pa

pers (Accessed: 11 September 2009). 

 

QAA (2001) Guidelines for HE progress files. Available at: 

www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressfiles/guidelines/progfile2001.pdf 

(Accessed: 1 April 2009). 

 

Sfard, A. (2001) ‘There is more to discourse than meets the ears: learning from 

mathematical things we have not known before’, Education Studies in Mathematics, 

46(1/3), pp. 13-57. 

 

Stefani, L.A.J., Tariq, V-N., Heylings, D.J.A. and Butcher, C. (1997) ’A comparison of tutor 

and student conceptions of undergraduate research project work’, Assessment and 

Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(3), pp. 271 – 288. 
 

Stefani, L., Mason, R. and Pegler, C. (2007) The educational potential of e-Portfolios. 

London: Routledge.   

 

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: 

Heinemann. 

 

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes. 

Harvard MA: Harvard University Press. 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 17

http://www.recordingachievement.org/research/narn-tree.html
http://digitalcommons.shu.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=ccrc_papers
http://digitalcommons.shu.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=ccrc_papers
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressfiles/guidelines/progfile2001.pdf


Raiker An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a PDP process to support learner development 
 
Weiskopf, R. and Laske, S. (1996) ‘Emancipatory action research: a critical alternative to 

personal development or a new way of patronising people?’, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. 

(ed.) New directions in action research. London: Falmer, pp. 173-182. 

 

Whitehead, J. (1985) ‘An analysis of an individual's educational development: the basis for 

personally orientated action research’, in Shipman, M. (ed.) Educational research: 

principles, policies and practices. Lewes: Falmer, pp. 97-108. 

 

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996) ‘Introduction’, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.) New directions in action 

research. London: Falmer, pp. 3-9. 

 

 

Author details 
 

Dr Andrea Raiker is based in the Directorate of Teaching and Learning at the University of 

Bedfordshire where she works on curriculum development. Her research interests 

are focused on the exploration of processes affecting student achievement, in 

particular, the role of language and technology in these processes. 

 

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition: November 2010 18


	An investigation into the undergraduate dissertation tutorial as a Personal Development Planning (PDP) process to support learner development
	Abstract
	Introduction
	Research design
	Analysis, discussion and findings
	The tutorial records and their timings
	Student-focused issues
	Supervisor-focused issues

	Conclusion
	Acknowledgement
	References
	Author details