- Email: [email protected]
The potential benefits and challenges of personalising UK higher education
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste
Practice Papers
The potential benefits and challenges of personalising UK higher education Nina Becket , Maureen Brookes Department of Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism Management, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords: Student learning experience Student engagement Student satisfaction
abstract The aim of personalisation is to ‘‘promote personal development through self-realisation, self-enhancement and self-development’’ in the learner (Leadbeater, 2004, p. 16). The aim of this study was to investigate personalisation in UK higher education from the perspectives of both academics and students in two universities that offered hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism (HLST) degrees. The findings identified potential benefits such as enhanced student motivation, satisfaction and achievement. However, it also identified a number of challenges, including the attitudes of staff and students, which must be overcome if potential benefits are to be achieved. Crown Copyright & 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Widening participation initiatives within the UK have resulted in increased student numbers and greater student diversity in many higher education institutions (HEIs) (JM Consulting, 2008; Knox & Wyper, 2008). As a result, HEIs are faced with the challenge of dealing with large heterogeneous cohorts of students with fewer resources. In response, many institutions have implemented standardised and centralised policies in order to ensure that accountability and efficiency targets are met. Against this background, the National Student Forum (NSF) Annual Report (2009) revealed that students expect to be an ‘‘active partner’’ in the design and management of their education and have their learning ‘personalised’ to their needs. Furthermore, Little, Locke, Scesa, and Williams (2009, p. 3) reported that the UK government is also seeking ‘‘to amplify the student voice’’ in higher education (HE), thus personalisation is becoming an increasingly important part of the HE agenda. Personalised education in the UK is ‘‘y part of the wider government agenda to put more power in the hands of the consumer’’ (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011a). The recently published White Paper, Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System, stated that ‘‘The overall goal is higher education that is more responsive to student choice, that provides a better student experience and that helps improve social mobility’’ (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011b, p. 8). Whilst there has been considerable activity and research regarding personalisation within schools and further education, empirical research is limited within HE. One of the few published studies identifies academic perceptions of the benefits and challenges to personalisation within Scottish HE (Knox & Wyper, 2008). Given the potential importance of this area of investigation, it is argued that future research is warranted. This paper reports the findings of research supported by the HLST Network that built upon the Scottish study by investigating academic and student perceptions of the benefits and challenges of personalisation within hospitality, leisure, sport, and tourism (HLST) degrees. After a brief
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Becket), [email protected] (M. Brookes). 1473-8376/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.02.004
22
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
introduction to the definition of personalisation, the design of the study is discussed and the research findings and implications presented. 2. Personalisation: definitions, benefits and challenges 2.1. Personalisation defined The concept of personalised learning within education had its origins in the United States and has been common parlance there for quite some time. In contrast within Europe personalisation of education, and in HE specifically is still in its infancy (Knox & Wyper, 2008). In the UK personalisation in education is part of a vision for public sector reform that aims that services will become more responsive and tailored to the needs of individuals (Merton, 2006). A key element of such reform is that service users are considered to be co-designers and co-producers and so have more say in how the services are designed and delivered (Leadbeater, 2004). In 2005 the UK Government House of Commons Education and Skills Committee Paper on education in schools, Higher Standards—Better Choice for All, stated that personalisation ‘‘y means a tailored education for every child and young person, that gives them strength in the basics, stretches their aspirations, and builds their life chances. It will create opportunity for every child, regardless of their background’’ (2005, p. 45). Similarly, the then Department for Education and Skills in their consultation on personalising further education stated that personalisation ‘y brings together a range of hitherto disparate practices into a single, unified and powerful approach’ and that this approach has the potential to ‘become more than the sum of the parts’ (DfES, 2006, p. 7). The DfES (2006) reported that personalisation could yield benefits to individuals, including improved student retention rates and achievement, and to society through a more highly skilled workforce, more expert independent learners, greater social inclusion and economic productivity. Despite various policy initiatives there is still debate around what is meant by personalisation in education (Bird, 2006). The National Student Forum (2009) reported that students now expect to have their learning personalised to their needs, where assessment and feedback is used to aid learning, and courses are flexible. The National Union of Students (NUS, 2006) defines personalisation as ‘‘working in partnership with the learner – to tailor their learning experience in pathways, according to their needs and personal objectives – in a way which delivers success’’ (p. 2). The NUS (2006) recommended that personalisation should respond to the needs of the whole learner, raise their ambitions, and encourage them to take responsibility to become independent and effective learners and citizens. In other words, personalisation efforts go beyond ‘choice and voice’, and should consider the scale of support provided to students and the degree of student interactivity and self-expression. Ward and Richardson (2007) advised that personalised learning should therefore provide a means for ‘‘purposeful dialogue between the tutor and the learner’’ (p. 1). Research was undertaken to investigate academics’ perceptions of the meaning of personalisation and its relevance to the first year experience of HE students in Scotland (Knox & Wyper, 2008). The findings suggested that academics considered the focus of personalisation to be ‘‘y on the student as an individual, as a person, and as a member of a learning community’’ (p. 11). However, some respondents were adamant that within HE, personalisation could not be achieved on a one-to-one basis and that more resource efficient approaches were required. 2.2. The benefits of personalisation The potential benefits of personalisation are reported to be wide reaching. Leadbeater (2004) contended that it is a powerful tool for promoting learning. Ward and Richardson (2007) explained that the process of personalised learning has the potential to enhance students’ motivation and confidence and enable them to have a sense of ownership of their learning and improve their decision-making skills. Knox and Wyper (2008) reported that academics believed that personalisation helped to:
engage and empower students; take account of individual learning styles; manage their transition into HE; counter the effects of large class sizes; exploit new technologies; maximise the benefits of personal development planning.
Research undertaken on student engagement indicates that students’ perception of time spent with tutors on a personal level increasingly underpins their engagement, retention and satisfaction (DeShields, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005; Rowley, 2003). Helgesen and Nesset (2007) identified a positive relationship between student satisfaction and student loyalty. The researchers also suggested that loyal students positively influence teaching quality through active participation and thus they are more engaged. Furthermore, loyal students are reported to become good advocates who make positive recommendations to future students (Dawson, Burnett, & O’Donohue, 2006) and therefore effectively contribute to recruitment efforts. Loyal students are also more likely to return to HEIs for professional development
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
23
purposes (Dawson et al., 2006; Rowley, 2003), therefore individual programmes and HEIs may also benefit from personalisation efforts. The benefits of personalisation can therefore be realised for students and for HEIs. While the extant literature does not address any disadvantages of personalising learning, it does suggest that there are a number of current challenges to overcome and these are now discussed.
2.3. The challenges in personalising HE Within education three key challenges to achieve personalisation have been identified as meeting the demand that universal services should have a personal focus; combining flexibility with accountability and pursuing excellence and equality simultaneously (Milliband, 2006). The first challenge arguably applies to UK HE. Widening participation initiatives, growing student numbers, and a greater heterogeneity of student populations have put pressure on HEIs and the quality of the learning experience they offer (Gilbert, 2008). Attwood (2009) further advises that the intimate learning and teaching relationship between students and academics, a distinctive feature of the student experience in UK universities, is under threat. More specifically, Gilbert (2008) questions how it is possible to personalise student learning experiences in the face of the burgeoning staff to student ratios and increasing resource pressures. By definition, personalisation requires a degree of flexibility to be responsive to individual student needs (NUS, 2006). However, in many HEIs quality assurance procedures result in courses, their mode of delivery, learning outcomes, contact hours and assessment methods being determined in advance of students’ enrolment. In other words, current accountability procedures can serve to restrict flexibility, creating a challenge to personalisation. A recent report by JM Consulting (2008) identifies that there are growing concerns within the UK, that the ‘‘ability to ensure the quality and fitness for purpose of higher education is coming under severe strain’’ (p. 41). Unsurprisingly therefore, a challenge is faced in pursuing excellence while ensuring equality of learning experiences for all HE students. Recognising a need for change (Gilbert, 2008; Knox & Wyper, 2008) personalisation initiatives are now being introduced within some HEIs in the UK. Given the limited research undertaken to date, whether the quality of student learning experiences can be enhanced through personalisation initiatives, or indeed whether personalisation can be achieved in the face of these challenges, is not yet certain. This paper therefore reports the findings from a study that sought to identify academic and student perceptions of the potential of personalisation in HE.
3. Research design The study was designed around three key objectives:
to identify academics’ and students’ understanding of personalisation within an HE context; to identify academic and student perspectives of the potential benefits of personalisation; to identify academic perceptions of the challenges faced in personalisation. A qualitative and inductive approach was adopted for the study reflecting a social perspective on learning (Clerehan, 2007), where learning is considered to be about experiences of those involved (Wenger, 1998). This approach was also considered the most appropriate to gain richer data (Moore, Birtwistle, & Hurt, 2004) on participant beliefs and experiences of personalisation, given the limited research undertaken to date. The research was conducted within two HEIs that offered the range of HLST subjects. The HEIs agreed to participate on the basis that they would receive a report of the findings and that confidentiality regarding their participation would be respected in subsequent publications. Data were collected through focus groups held separately with academics and students at each institution. Each focus group session was scheduled to last for one hour and was run by one of the two researchers. In order to build on previous studies, the focus groups were structured around three core themes; definitions and potential benefits with academics and students, and also perceived challenges of personalisation with academics across the whole of the student life cycle, from pre-enrolment to graduation. A standardised series of questions as listed in Table 1 were asked in the sessions and participants were given scope to pursue areas of particular interest as appropriate within this structure. In total 6 focus groups were held with 21 academics and 24 students participating in the study. Student participants were predominantly studying at undergraduate level. The focus groups were audio-recorded for accuracy and transcribed in full. The transcripts were reviewed independently by each researcher utilising a heuristic strategy to code common themes appearing in the data and then jointly to ‘‘determine commonalities, differences and similarities’’ (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 461). The following section presents the findings. While this study is designed to contribute to understanding of the potential for personalisation within HE, it is recognised that the small number of focus group participants, drawn from only two HEIs, is likely to limit the generalisability of the findings.
24
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
Table 1 Focus group questions. Student participants What do you understand by the term personalisation in education? What activities have you experienced during your time at university that have helped to personalise your learning experience? When did these activities take place (e.g. at induction, during final year)? Which activities did you find most beneficial and why? Which activities did you find least beneficial and why? What types of activities would help to personalise your learning experience? Academic participants What do you understand by the term personalisation in education? What do you think are the potential benefits? Do you have a university or departmental strategy for personalisation? What activities have been implemented to enhance personalisation? What activities have been most effective in achieving personalisation? What are the obstacles that limit the potential benefits of personalisation? What activities would you like to see introduced?
4. Findings The findings are presented below according to the definitions and interpretations of personalisation, its perceived benefits and the current challenges faced. 4.1. Definitions of personalisation There was a limited degree of familiarity with the term ‘personalisation’ amongst both staff and student participants. Academic participants were willing to offer their interpretations of personalisation, whereas students required more encouragement to explain their opinions. Academics recognised that personalisation was an important part of their role however some felt that it was ‘something that happens rather thany a conscious thing’. At the broadest level, it was suggested that personalisation is a ‘buzzword’ that captures ‘engagement’ and ‘student centeredness’ and therefore ‘something that we all encounter every day with students’. There was a good deal of agreement amongst participants that personalisation involved ‘tailoring’ student learning experiences to ‘meet their needs’ and giving students ‘choice’ in shaping their degree. Hence the importance of students taking ‘responsibility’ for ‘ownership of’ their learning was also recognised. Staff referred to and interpreted the idea of ‘ultimate’ or ‘genuine’ personalisation as empowering students ‘to design course content as well as delivery’. However, academics generally considered this degree of personalisation to be inappropriate as they had a key role to play in personalisation. They considered that it was ‘the academics’ job to provide the ‘scaffolding’ to student learning as they have an ‘understanding of what students need to know’. Many respondents felt that content was something academics should keep control of ‘because we are the experts’, but ‘what we could personalise more is the result of the learning’. Students also recognised the central role academics played in personalising their learning experiences. Participants commented that personalisation had ‘to do with one-on-one interaction’, where someone can ‘help me make the choices that I need to make that will help me with my future’. Other students felt that personalisation required staff and students to ‘work together more closely’ so that they had an experience that was ‘not standardised’ but ‘tailored to your needs’. In addition, students also reported that they wanted to be ‘known by name’. Like academics, students also felt that personalised learning ‘should have its limits’, otherwise ‘it might be spoon feeding’. These interpretations highlight the relevance of ‘relationships’ between academics and students in personalising student learning experiences. As academics commented, you had to have ‘a rapport with students’, and ‘get to know them as individuals’ and understand any ‘baggage attached’ to students to help them to ‘make sound choices’. Students had a similar perspective. As one student participant suggested, ‘it makes it nice if you talk a little bit about your personal life and if you know that you can laugh with the person and that is good’. Another added that tutors then ‘ykind of start figuring out what that person is about, what their character is like, because I’m not just another name on a paper’. In contrast, one participant suggested that ‘if people do not know us, it makes students feel angryy.because it is not like school where we have to go. We pay for the privilege.’ 4.2. Perceived Benefits of personalisation Academics and students perceived there to be potential benefits of personalising student learning experiences. Academics identified benefits for students, for themselves and for their institutions or programmes of study. Students however, reported benefits that related only to themselves. Academics reported that students were likely to be more ‘motivated’ through personalisation efforts, and ‘if they are more motivated, they should be more engaged and the outcome should be that they get a better degree potentially’.
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
25
Furthermore, academics considered that students were more likely to ‘achieve their full potential’ as a learner and thus be more likely to achieve their ‘career aspirations’ and be more satisfied as a result, particularly when ‘it makes them feel that somebody cares about them, knows who they are, and what they are doing.’ Academics suggested that they were also more likely to be satisfied if they felt they contributed to individual student development. For the same reasons, they felt it to be ‘embarrassing if someone comes up to you and you don’t know who they are’. From a programme or institutional perspective, academics considered that personalisation initiatives helped them ‘selling the course’ to prospective students. Additionally, relationships developed with students through personalisation efforts continued post-graduation and alumni were reported to be more likely to contribute to programmes for example through guest lectures, field trips or placement opportunities. Student participants felt that personalisation helped ‘to bring out the best in people’ so that it ‘enhanced your abilities and improved your employability and career progression’. They reported that this was a result of staff that helped ‘identify students’ weaknesses’ and could therefore offer better advice. Students also suggested that the interaction with staff made them feel ‘more comfortable’ and therefore ‘more motivated to do their best.’ 4.3. Perceived challenges of personalisation As well as the potential benefits, participants identified a number of challenges. The challenges reported by academics related to students, academics, resources and institutional procedures. Students identified access to academics and the nature of relationships between staff and students. Academics suggested that student attitudes were often a challenge as some students were ‘not interested’ in developing relationships with staff but rather want academics to ‘just give me the grade’. This was exacerbated when students ‘view themselves as customers’. Others felt that students needed to engage to achieve the benefits of personalisation and often it was perceived ‘to be cool to be seen not engaging’. Academics further reported that some students enter HE without the ability to make informed decisions or ‘handle choice’. As a result, for some, ‘the more personalised it is, the more difficult they find it, because it creates more challenges’. One participant explained that, ‘students at the bottom may actively rebel against personalisation’. Participants suggested it was necessary to break down ‘societal barriers’, and that students needed to ‘learn how to work within the HE system as adults’ so that they understand ‘what the product and the experience is’ before it can be personalised. In contrast, other participants considered that students might be ‘lulled’ into a comfort zone through personalisation initiatives and they might prefer to stick to modules or ‘what they know’ in an effort to achieve higher grades. As a result, ‘actually challenging students to help them to achieve more would then become more difficult.’ Academics felt that the sheer size and diversity of student cohorts challenged personalisation efforts. As one participant commented, ‘when you are teaching big cohorts, they [students] quite easily pass through the net’. An inherent danger was perceived to be ‘not working with the most able students’, although other participants suggested, ‘sometimes the students who are capable students, who are motivated, are not well served by the current system’. In other words, a disproportionate amount of time was spent with students who required or demanded more support. Regardless of which type of student benefits the most, one participant commented that ‘without streaming and polarising people’, it was virtually impossible to personalise learning for individual students in the current HE environment. Staff attitudes were also considered a potential challenge to personalisation. Academic participants reported that some staffy‘just don’t get itywhy they have to engage with students’. In some instances, it is a case of student attitudes and lack of motivation rubbing off on academics, so that lack of motivation or willingness to engage ‘becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy’. In other cases, it is institutional reward and recognition systems that prioritise research over teaching. Although student satisfaction scores are important, participants suggested that ‘those who spend too much time with students get penalised’. Nonetheless, participants also reported that ‘much progress in relation to personalisation was a result of the initiatives of individual members of staff’, rather than centralised procedures at departmental or institutional level. Centralised institutional procedures were viewed as an impediment to personalisation as they could hamper relationships developed between individual staff and students. As one participant identified, ‘there are central mechanisms that stop us interacting with them [students]y.we sometimes find that central services work against us’. These procedures were reported to have an impact throughout the student life cycle from initial student enquiry and application through to alumni engagement. Others felt that personalisation initiatives were often ‘high risk stuff’, and that current centralised systems ‘often penalise risk taking’. One participant suggested that these systems were leading to ‘deskilled teaching’ which impacted negatively on personalisation and therefore there was a need to ‘reprofessionalise’ the role of academics within HE. Resource implications associated with personalisation were also reported. Participants suggested that personalisation efforts ‘do make for a bit more work’ and that ‘those options come at a cost’. Academics felt that increasingly there were ‘time pressures’ where they rarely got the opportunity to talk with students. Physical resources were also seen to be a potential challenge, in particular for ‘space to go sit privately with a student when required’ or ‘physical considerations that restrict access to academic members of staff.’ Student participants suggested that access to academic members of staff was a major challenge to personalisation, particularly in relation to dissertation supervision. As one student suggested, ‘our tutors have got so many commitments outside of uni, so it makes it hard to get appointments’. Similarly, when it came to part time staff, students felt it hard ‘to build up any sort of relationship’.
26
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
Students also reported a perception of ‘favouritism’ when staff and student relationships are built unevenly across departments or programmes. However, they also recognised that this might be partially due to the behaviour of students themselves as ‘some students aren’t as committed’. As such, they perhaps are not engaged or willing to build relationships, and some students felt that even in the latter stages of their programmes, ‘some people still aren’t pulling their weight’. Students suggested there was further ‘resentment’ when these students who do ‘not attend formal teaching sessionsythen take up academic time trying to catch up and/or seek advice.’ 5. Discussion This research has shown that although there was recognition of the nature of student engagement and student centeredness, personalisation is not a term readily used or understood by academics or students. Nonetheless, there was a good degree of similarity in the interpretations of personalisation offered by staff and students that related to tailoring programmes of study to student needs. It was also recognised that both academics and students have a role to play within personalisation and this study reveals that relationships between the two parties are fundamental so that student learning experiences might be appropriately tailored. Fig. 1 provides an overview of the key findings from the focus groups. Results showed that greater student motivation, engagement and achievement are considered key benefits of personalisation by both academics and students. This is consistent with the findings of previous research undertaken by Knox and Wyper (2008) and Ward and Richardson (2007). The study also builds on previous research findings by identifying that personalisation initiatives also benefit academic motivation and satisfaction levels when students achieve their full potential (Knox & Wyper, 2008). In addition, students in this study perceived there to be a relationship between personalisation and their satisfaction with their programme. The study also identified that academics perceived a potential positive relationship between personalisation and future recruitment efforts and programme support by graduates, therefore suggesting potential benefits of personalisation to programmes and HEIs as suggested by previous researchers in relation to student engagement (Dawson et al., 2006; Rowley, 2003). In line with previous research (Knox & Wyper, 2008), the study revealed a number of challenges in implementing personalisation within HE. Academics have previously argued that resource constraints in the face of growing student
Personalisation is concerned with: Student centeredness student engagement tailoring student learning experiences student choice students taking responsibility the academic role in scaffolding student learning And relies on important relationship building between academic staff and students a positive attitude amongst staff and students to engagement
Potential Benefits
Current Challenges
Students: Motivation Engagement Achievement of potential Satisfaction Career progression
• Staff and student attitudes • Students as consumers /customers • Scale and heterogeneous nature of student cohorts
Academic staff: Satisfaction Institutions: Attractive feature of the course Useful in building long term relationships Effective use of resources
• Institutional centralised administrative and recognition systems • Resource constraints
Fig. 1. Personalisation in higher education.
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
27
numbers undermine personalisation efforts (Attwood, 2009; Clerehan, 2007; Gilbert, 2008) and the findings from this study supported these concerns. Physical resources in relation to campus design and layout could also serve to limit staff and student interaction, a finding consistent with arguments presented by Attwood (2009). This study also suggested that in the face of funding constraints and widening participation, academics expressed concern that not all students had a consistent experience, although there was disagreement as to whether more time was spent with the ‘more’ or ‘less’ able students. From a student perspective, this inequality was tantamount to favouritism. As such, the study supports the argument presented by Milliband (2006) that key challenges of personalisation within education are providing a personal focus within a universal service and equality and excellence simultaneously. An important challenge identified through this study, and not previously reported, relates to the attitudes of both academics and students. These attitudes appear to influence both parties’ willingness to engage with the other, thereby potentially undermining any personalisation initiatives or relationships built. Furthermore the findings suggest that centralised HEI procedures may exacerbate attitudes, particularly those of academics, and their willingness to engage in personalisation activities. Nonetheless, the research revealed that the benefits of personalisation were deemed to potentially outweigh these challenges. However, neither academics nor students considered personalisation in its fullest sense to be feasible due to the potential limitations. 6. Conclusion This study sought to provide an insight into the potential of personalisation within HE by examining academic and student perspectives of its definitions, benefits and challenges within a UK context. Whilst the term personalisation was not in common parlance clear links were seen with current considerations concerning student engagement. The study identified that there are a number of challenges to overcome before the benefits of personalisation might be fully realised. The study also identified that the benefits are perceived to outweigh the challenges currently faced, but there are limitations to ‘pure’ personalisation where students may become co-producers or co-designers of their learning (Leadbeater, 2004). However, given the small number of participants and HEIs in the study, the findings may not be generalisable to other institutions. Given the recent publication of the government white paper, Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System (2011), personalisation is likely to become more important in UK HEI agendas. Meanwhile HEIs are likely to continue to operate in ‘‘a permanent era of constraint’’ (Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2004, p. 270). Thus understanding how to overcome challenges to personalisation is paramount to achieving the potential benefits. HEIs and academics need to determine how to deploy resources most effectively to engage and motivate students and maximise use of scarce resources. When considering this engagement, the potential attitudes of academic staff and students must be taken into account. In addition, consideration should be given to how relationships between staff and students are most effectively developed through systems such as personal tutoring.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the staff and students that participated in this study. References Attwood, R. (2009). The personal touch. Times Higher Education. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from /http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stroy.asp? storycode=406424S. Bird, R. (2006). Personalisation: What does it really mean? Secondary Headship November. Clerehan, R. (2007). Designs for supporting international education. International Journal of Learning, 13(9), 187–193. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Dawson, S., Burnett, B., & O’Donohue, M. (2006). Learning communities: An untapped sustainable competitive advantage for higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 127–139. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2011a). Putting students at the heart of higher education June 28. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from /www.bis. gov.uk/news/topstories/2011/Jun/he-white-paper-students-at-the-heart-of-the-systemS. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2011b). Higher education: Students at the heart of the system, June. Department for Education and Skills. (2006). Personalising further education: Developing a vision. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from /www.dfes.gov.uk/ consultations/downloadableDocs/DfES%20PersonalisationS. DeShields, O., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg’s twofactor theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128–139. Gilbert, A. (2008). Our overloaded system needs radical revision to cater for the masses. Times Higher Education. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from /http://www. timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=400785S. Helgesen, O., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126–143. House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. (2005). Higher standards, better schools for all. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from /http://www. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski/633/633.pdfS. JM Consulting. (2008). The sustainability of learning and teaching in English higher education—A report prepared for the Financial Sustainability Strategy Group, December. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from /http://www.hefce.ac.uk/finance/fundinghe/trac/fssg/S.
28
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
Knox, H., & Wyper, J. (2008). Quality enhancement themes: The first year experience. Gloucester, England: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Leadbeater, C. (2004). Personalisation through participation: A new script for public services. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from /www.demos.co.uk/files/ PersonalisationThroughParticipationS. Little, B., Locke, W., Scesa, A., & Williams, R. (2009). Report to HEFCE on student engagement. Centre for Higher Education Research and Information. London: The Open University. Merton, A. (2006). What’s new about personalisation? Adults Learning. October 7. Milliband, D. (2006). Choice and voice in personalised learning. OECD schooling for tomorrow personalising education. Paris: OECD Publications. Moore, C., Birtwistle, G., & Hurt, S. (2004). Channel power, conflict and conflict resolution in international fashion retailing. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 749–769. National Student Forum. (2009). National student forum annual report 2009. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from /http://www.nationalstudentforum.com/S. National Union of Students. (2006). Response to DfES consultation ‘‘Personalising further education: Developing a vision’’. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from /http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/media/resource/National%20Union%20of%20Students.docS. Rowley, J. (2003). Retention: Rhetoric and realistic agendas for the future of higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(6), 248–253. Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2004). A synthesis of a quality management model for education in universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 266–279. Ward, R., & Richardson, H. (2007). Personalised learning plans in Lifelong Learning Networks report to HEFCE. Wigan, England: Centre for Recording Achievement. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nina Becket is a Senior Lecturer in the Business School at Oxford Brookes University. Her research interests focus on enhancing the student learning experience.
Maureen Brookes is Principal Lecturer in Marketing and Business Futures Coordinator at Oxford Brookes. She sits on the Board of Directors for Eurochrie and on the Executive Committee for CHME. She was also the Hospitality Liaison Officer for the HLST Network.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste
Practice Papers
The potential benefits and challenges of personalising UK higher education Nina Becket , Maureen Brookes Department of Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism Management, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords: Student learning experience Student engagement Student satisfaction
abstract The aim of personalisation is to ‘‘promote personal development through self-realisation, self-enhancement and self-development’’ in the learner (Leadbeater, 2004, p. 16). The aim of this study was to investigate personalisation in UK higher education from the perspectives of both academics and students in two universities that offered hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism (HLST) degrees. The findings identified potential benefits such as enhanced student motivation, satisfaction and achievement. However, it also identified a number of challenges, including the attitudes of staff and students, which must be overcome if potential benefits are to be achieved. Crown Copyright & 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Widening participation initiatives within the UK have resulted in increased student numbers and greater student diversity in many higher education institutions (HEIs) (JM Consulting, 2008; Knox & Wyper, 2008). As a result, HEIs are faced with the challenge of dealing with large heterogeneous cohorts of students with fewer resources. In response, many institutions have implemented standardised and centralised policies in order to ensure that accountability and efficiency targets are met. Against this background, the National Student Forum (NSF) Annual Report (2009) revealed that students expect to be an ‘‘active partner’’ in the design and management of their education and have their learning ‘personalised’ to their needs. Furthermore, Little, Locke, Scesa, and Williams (2009, p. 3) reported that the UK government is also seeking ‘‘to amplify the student voice’’ in higher education (HE), thus personalisation is becoming an increasingly important part of the HE agenda. Personalised education in the UK is ‘‘y part of the wider government agenda to put more power in the hands of the consumer’’ (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011a). The recently published White Paper, Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System, stated that ‘‘The overall goal is higher education that is more responsive to student choice, that provides a better student experience and that helps improve social mobility’’ (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2011b, p. 8). Whilst there has been considerable activity and research regarding personalisation within schools and further education, empirical research is limited within HE. One of the few published studies identifies academic perceptions of the benefits and challenges to personalisation within Scottish HE (Knox & Wyper, 2008). Given the potential importance of this area of investigation, it is argued that future research is warranted. This paper reports the findings of research supported by the HLST Network that built upon the Scottish study by investigating academic and student perceptions of the benefits and challenges of personalisation within hospitality, leisure, sport, and tourism (HLST) degrees. After a brief
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Becket), [email protected] (M. Brookes). 1473-8376/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhlste.2012.02.004
22
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
introduction to the definition of personalisation, the design of the study is discussed and the research findings and implications presented. 2. Personalisation: definitions, benefits and challenges 2.1. Personalisation defined The concept of personalised learning within education had its origins in the United States and has been common parlance there for quite some time. In contrast within Europe personalisation of education, and in HE specifically is still in its infancy (Knox & Wyper, 2008). In the UK personalisation in education is part of a vision for public sector reform that aims that services will become more responsive and tailored to the needs of individuals (Merton, 2006). A key element of such reform is that service users are considered to be co-designers and co-producers and so have more say in how the services are designed and delivered (Leadbeater, 2004). In 2005 the UK Government House of Commons Education and Skills Committee Paper on education in schools, Higher Standards—Better Choice for All, stated that personalisation ‘‘y means a tailored education for every child and young person, that gives them strength in the basics, stretches their aspirations, and builds their life chances. It will create opportunity for every child, regardless of their background’’ (2005, p. 45). Similarly, the then Department for Education and Skills in their consultation on personalising further education stated that personalisation ‘y brings together a range of hitherto disparate practices into a single, unified and powerful approach’ and that this approach has the potential to ‘become more than the sum of the parts’ (DfES, 2006, p. 7). The DfES (2006) reported that personalisation could yield benefits to individuals, including improved student retention rates and achievement, and to society through a more highly skilled workforce, more expert independent learners, greater social inclusion and economic productivity. Despite various policy initiatives there is still debate around what is meant by personalisation in education (Bird, 2006). The National Student Forum (2009) reported that students now expect to have their learning personalised to their needs, where assessment and feedback is used to aid learning, and courses are flexible. The National Union of Students (NUS, 2006) defines personalisation as ‘‘working in partnership with the learner – to tailor their learning experience in pathways, according to their needs and personal objectives – in a way which delivers success’’ (p. 2). The NUS (2006) recommended that personalisation should respond to the needs of the whole learner, raise their ambitions, and encourage them to take responsibility to become independent and effective learners and citizens. In other words, personalisation efforts go beyond ‘choice and voice’, and should consider the scale of support provided to students and the degree of student interactivity and self-expression. Ward and Richardson (2007) advised that personalised learning should therefore provide a means for ‘‘purposeful dialogue between the tutor and the learner’’ (p. 1). Research was undertaken to investigate academics’ perceptions of the meaning of personalisation and its relevance to the first year experience of HE students in Scotland (Knox & Wyper, 2008). The findings suggested that academics considered the focus of personalisation to be ‘‘y on the student as an individual, as a person, and as a member of a learning community’’ (p. 11). However, some respondents were adamant that within HE, personalisation could not be achieved on a one-to-one basis and that more resource efficient approaches were required. 2.2. The benefits of personalisation The potential benefits of personalisation are reported to be wide reaching. Leadbeater (2004) contended that it is a powerful tool for promoting learning. Ward and Richardson (2007) explained that the process of personalised learning has the potential to enhance students’ motivation and confidence and enable them to have a sense of ownership of their learning and improve their decision-making skills. Knox and Wyper (2008) reported that academics believed that personalisation helped to:
engage and empower students; take account of individual learning styles; manage their transition into HE; counter the effects of large class sizes; exploit new technologies; maximise the benefits of personal development planning.
Research undertaken on student engagement indicates that students’ perception of time spent with tutors on a personal level increasingly underpins their engagement, retention and satisfaction (DeShields, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005; Rowley, 2003). Helgesen and Nesset (2007) identified a positive relationship between student satisfaction and student loyalty. The researchers also suggested that loyal students positively influence teaching quality through active participation and thus they are more engaged. Furthermore, loyal students are reported to become good advocates who make positive recommendations to future students (Dawson, Burnett, & O’Donohue, 2006) and therefore effectively contribute to recruitment efforts. Loyal students are also more likely to return to HEIs for professional development
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
23
purposes (Dawson et al., 2006; Rowley, 2003), therefore individual programmes and HEIs may also benefit from personalisation efforts. The benefits of personalisation can therefore be realised for students and for HEIs. While the extant literature does not address any disadvantages of personalising learning, it does suggest that there are a number of current challenges to overcome and these are now discussed.
2.3. The challenges in personalising HE Within education three key challenges to achieve personalisation have been identified as meeting the demand that universal services should have a personal focus; combining flexibility with accountability and pursuing excellence and equality simultaneously (Milliband, 2006). The first challenge arguably applies to UK HE. Widening participation initiatives, growing student numbers, and a greater heterogeneity of student populations have put pressure on HEIs and the quality of the learning experience they offer (Gilbert, 2008). Attwood (2009) further advises that the intimate learning and teaching relationship between students and academics, a distinctive feature of the student experience in UK universities, is under threat. More specifically, Gilbert (2008) questions how it is possible to personalise student learning experiences in the face of the burgeoning staff to student ratios and increasing resource pressures. By definition, personalisation requires a degree of flexibility to be responsive to individual student needs (NUS, 2006). However, in many HEIs quality assurance procedures result in courses, their mode of delivery, learning outcomes, contact hours and assessment methods being determined in advance of students’ enrolment. In other words, current accountability procedures can serve to restrict flexibility, creating a challenge to personalisation. A recent report by JM Consulting (2008) identifies that there are growing concerns within the UK, that the ‘‘ability to ensure the quality and fitness for purpose of higher education is coming under severe strain’’ (p. 41). Unsurprisingly therefore, a challenge is faced in pursuing excellence while ensuring equality of learning experiences for all HE students. Recognising a need for change (Gilbert, 2008; Knox & Wyper, 2008) personalisation initiatives are now being introduced within some HEIs in the UK. Given the limited research undertaken to date, whether the quality of student learning experiences can be enhanced through personalisation initiatives, or indeed whether personalisation can be achieved in the face of these challenges, is not yet certain. This paper therefore reports the findings from a study that sought to identify academic and student perceptions of the potential of personalisation in HE.
3. Research design The study was designed around three key objectives:
to identify academics’ and students’ understanding of personalisation within an HE context; to identify academic and student perspectives of the potential benefits of personalisation; to identify academic perceptions of the challenges faced in personalisation. A qualitative and inductive approach was adopted for the study reflecting a social perspective on learning (Clerehan, 2007), where learning is considered to be about experiences of those involved (Wenger, 1998). This approach was also considered the most appropriate to gain richer data (Moore, Birtwistle, & Hurt, 2004) on participant beliefs and experiences of personalisation, given the limited research undertaken to date. The research was conducted within two HEIs that offered the range of HLST subjects. The HEIs agreed to participate on the basis that they would receive a report of the findings and that confidentiality regarding their participation would be respected in subsequent publications. Data were collected through focus groups held separately with academics and students at each institution. Each focus group session was scheduled to last for one hour and was run by one of the two researchers. In order to build on previous studies, the focus groups were structured around three core themes; definitions and potential benefits with academics and students, and also perceived challenges of personalisation with academics across the whole of the student life cycle, from pre-enrolment to graduation. A standardised series of questions as listed in Table 1 were asked in the sessions and participants were given scope to pursue areas of particular interest as appropriate within this structure. In total 6 focus groups were held with 21 academics and 24 students participating in the study. Student participants were predominantly studying at undergraduate level. The focus groups were audio-recorded for accuracy and transcribed in full. The transcripts were reviewed independently by each researcher utilising a heuristic strategy to code common themes appearing in the data and then jointly to ‘‘determine commonalities, differences and similarities’’ (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 461). The following section presents the findings. While this study is designed to contribute to understanding of the potential for personalisation within HE, it is recognised that the small number of focus group participants, drawn from only two HEIs, is likely to limit the generalisability of the findings.
24
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
Table 1 Focus group questions. Student participants What do you understand by the term personalisation in education? What activities have you experienced during your time at university that have helped to personalise your learning experience? When did these activities take place (e.g. at induction, during final year)? Which activities did you find most beneficial and why? Which activities did you find least beneficial and why? What types of activities would help to personalise your learning experience? Academic participants What do you understand by the term personalisation in education? What do you think are the potential benefits? Do you have a university or departmental strategy for personalisation? What activities have been implemented to enhance personalisation? What activities have been most effective in achieving personalisation? What are the obstacles that limit the potential benefits of personalisation? What activities would you like to see introduced?
4. Findings The findings are presented below according to the definitions and interpretations of personalisation, its perceived benefits and the current challenges faced. 4.1. Definitions of personalisation There was a limited degree of familiarity with the term ‘personalisation’ amongst both staff and student participants. Academic participants were willing to offer their interpretations of personalisation, whereas students required more encouragement to explain their opinions. Academics recognised that personalisation was an important part of their role however some felt that it was ‘something that happens rather thany a conscious thing’. At the broadest level, it was suggested that personalisation is a ‘buzzword’ that captures ‘engagement’ and ‘student centeredness’ and therefore ‘something that we all encounter every day with students’. There was a good deal of agreement amongst participants that personalisation involved ‘tailoring’ student learning experiences to ‘meet their needs’ and giving students ‘choice’ in shaping their degree. Hence the importance of students taking ‘responsibility’ for ‘ownership of’ their learning was also recognised. Staff referred to and interpreted the idea of ‘ultimate’ or ‘genuine’ personalisation as empowering students ‘to design course content as well as delivery’. However, academics generally considered this degree of personalisation to be inappropriate as they had a key role to play in personalisation. They considered that it was ‘the academics’ job to provide the ‘scaffolding’ to student learning as they have an ‘understanding of what students need to know’. Many respondents felt that content was something academics should keep control of ‘because we are the experts’, but ‘what we could personalise more is the result of the learning’. Students also recognised the central role academics played in personalising their learning experiences. Participants commented that personalisation had ‘to do with one-on-one interaction’, where someone can ‘help me make the choices that I need to make that will help me with my future’. Other students felt that personalisation required staff and students to ‘work together more closely’ so that they had an experience that was ‘not standardised’ but ‘tailored to your needs’. In addition, students also reported that they wanted to be ‘known by name’. Like academics, students also felt that personalised learning ‘should have its limits’, otherwise ‘it might be spoon feeding’. These interpretations highlight the relevance of ‘relationships’ between academics and students in personalising student learning experiences. As academics commented, you had to have ‘a rapport with students’, and ‘get to know them as individuals’ and understand any ‘baggage attached’ to students to help them to ‘make sound choices’. Students had a similar perspective. As one student participant suggested, ‘it makes it nice if you talk a little bit about your personal life and if you know that you can laugh with the person and that is good’. Another added that tutors then ‘ykind of start figuring out what that person is about, what their character is like, because I’m not just another name on a paper’. In contrast, one participant suggested that ‘if people do not know us, it makes students feel angryy.because it is not like school where we have to go. We pay for the privilege.’ 4.2. Perceived Benefits of personalisation Academics and students perceived there to be potential benefits of personalising student learning experiences. Academics identified benefits for students, for themselves and for their institutions or programmes of study. Students however, reported benefits that related only to themselves. Academics reported that students were likely to be more ‘motivated’ through personalisation efforts, and ‘if they are more motivated, they should be more engaged and the outcome should be that they get a better degree potentially’.
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
25
Furthermore, academics considered that students were more likely to ‘achieve their full potential’ as a learner and thus be more likely to achieve their ‘career aspirations’ and be more satisfied as a result, particularly when ‘it makes them feel that somebody cares about them, knows who they are, and what they are doing.’ Academics suggested that they were also more likely to be satisfied if they felt they contributed to individual student development. For the same reasons, they felt it to be ‘embarrassing if someone comes up to you and you don’t know who they are’. From a programme or institutional perspective, academics considered that personalisation initiatives helped them ‘selling the course’ to prospective students. Additionally, relationships developed with students through personalisation efforts continued post-graduation and alumni were reported to be more likely to contribute to programmes for example through guest lectures, field trips or placement opportunities. Student participants felt that personalisation helped ‘to bring out the best in people’ so that it ‘enhanced your abilities and improved your employability and career progression’. They reported that this was a result of staff that helped ‘identify students’ weaknesses’ and could therefore offer better advice. Students also suggested that the interaction with staff made them feel ‘more comfortable’ and therefore ‘more motivated to do their best.’ 4.3. Perceived challenges of personalisation As well as the potential benefits, participants identified a number of challenges. The challenges reported by academics related to students, academics, resources and institutional procedures. Students identified access to academics and the nature of relationships between staff and students. Academics suggested that student attitudes were often a challenge as some students were ‘not interested’ in developing relationships with staff but rather want academics to ‘just give me the grade’. This was exacerbated when students ‘view themselves as customers’. Others felt that students needed to engage to achieve the benefits of personalisation and often it was perceived ‘to be cool to be seen not engaging’. Academics further reported that some students enter HE without the ability to make informed decisions or ‘handle choice’. As a result, for some, ‘the more personalised it is, the more difficult they find it, because it creates more challenges’. One participant explained that, ‘students at the bottom may actively rebel against personalisation’. Participants suggested it was necessary to break down ‘societal barriers’, and that students needed to ‘learn how to work within the HE system as adults’ so that they understand ‘what the product and the experience is’ before it can be personalised. In contrast, other participants considered that students might be ‘lulled’ into a comfort zone through personalisation initiatives and they might prefer to stick to modules or ‘what they know’ in an effort to achieve higher grades. As a result, ‘actually challenging students to help them to achieve more would then become more difficult.’ Academics felt that the sheer size and diversity of student cohorts challenged personalisation efforts. As one participant commented, ‘when you are teaching big cohorts, they [students] quite easily pass through the net’. An inherent danger was perceived to be ‘not working with the most able students’, although other participants suggested, ‘sometimes the students who are capable students, who are motivated, are not well served by the current system’. In other words, a disproportionate amount of time was spent with students who required or demanded more support. Regardless of which type of student benefits the most, one participant commented that ‘without streaming and polarising people’, it was virtually impossible to personalise learning for individual students in the current HE environment. Staff attitudes were also considered a potential challenge to personalisation. Academic participants reported that some staffy‘just don’t get itywhy they have to engage with students’. In some instances, it is a case of student attitudes and lack of motivation rubbing off on academics, so that lack of motivation or willingness to engage ‘becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy’. In other cases, it is institutional reward and recognition systems that prioritise research over teaching. Although student satisfaction scores are important, participants suggested that ‘those who spend too much time with students get penalised’. Nonetheless, participants also reported that ‘much progress in relation to personalisation was a result of the initiatives of individual members of staff’, rather than centralised procedures at departmental or institutional level. Centralised institutional procedures were viewed as an impediment to personalisation as they could hamper relationships developed between individual staff and students. As one participant identified, ‘there are central mechanisms that stop us interacting with them [students]y.we sometimes find that central services work against us’. These procedures were reported to have an impact throughout the student life cycle from initial student enquiry and application through to alumni engagement. Others felt that personalisation initiatives were often ‘high risk stuff’, and that current centralised systems ‘often penalise risk taking’. One participant suggested that these systems were leading to ‘deskilled teaching’ which impacted negatively on personalisation and therefore there was a need to ‘reprofessionalise’ the role of academics within HE. Resource implications associated with personalisation were also reported. Participants suggested that personalisation efforts ‘do make for a bit more work’ and that ‘those options come at a cost’. Academics felt that increasingly there were ‘time pressures’ where they rarely got the opportunity to talk with students. Physical resources were also seen to be a potential challenge, in particular for ‘space to go sit privately with a student when required’ or ‘physical considerations that restrict access to academic members of staff.’ Student participants suggested that access to academic members of staff was a major challenge to personalisation, particularly in relation to dissertation supervision. As one student suggested, ‘our tutors have got so many commitments outside of uni, so it makes it hard to get appointments’. Similarly, when it came to part time staff, students felt it hard ‘to build up any sort of relationship’.
26
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
Students also reported a perception of ‘favouritism’ when staff and student relationships are built unevenly across departments or programmes. However, they also recognised that this might be partially due to the behaviour of students themselves as ‘some students aren’t as committed’. As such, they perhaps are not engaged or willing to build relationships, and some students felt that even in the latter stages of their programmes, ‘some people still aren’t pulling their weight’. Students suggested there was further ‘resentment’ when these students who do ‘not attend formal teaching sessionsythen take up academic time trying to catch up and/or seek advice.’ 5. Discussion This research has shown that although there was recognition of the nature of student engagement and student centeredness, personalisation is not a term readily used or understood by academics or students. Nonetheless, there was a good degree of similarity in the interpretations of personalisation offered by staff and students that related to tailoring programmes of study to student needs. It was also recognised that both academics and students have a role to play within personalisation and this study reveals that relationships between the two parties are fundamental so that student learning experiences might be appropriately tailored. Fig. 1 provides an overview of the key findings from the focus groups. Results showed that greater student motivation, engagement and achievement are considered key benefits of personalisation by both academics and students. This is consistent with the findings of previous research undertaken by Knox and Wyper (2008) and Ward and Richardson (2007). The study also builds on previous research findings by identifying that personalisation initiatives also benefit academic motivation and satisfaction levels when students achieve their full potential (Knox & Wyper, 2008). In addition, students in this study perceived there to be a relationship between personalisation and their satisfaction with their programme. The study also identified that academics perceived a potential positive relationship between personalisation and future recruitment efforts and programme support by graduates, therefore suggesting potential benefits of personalisation to programmes and HEIs as suggested by previous researchers in relation to student engagement (Dawson et al., 2006; Rowley, 2003). In line with previous research (Knox & Wyper, 2008), the study revealed a number of challenges in implementing personalisation within HE. Academics have previously argued that resource constraints in the face of growing student
Personalisation is concerned with: Student centeredness student engagement tailoring student learning experiences student choice students taking responsibility the academic role in scaffolding student learning And relies on important relationship building between academic staff and students a positive attitude amongst staff and students to engagement
Potential Benefits
Current Challenges
Students: Motivation Engagement Achievement of potential Satisfaction Career progression
• Staff and student attitudes • Students as consumers /customers • Scale and heterogeneous nature of student cohorts
Academic staff: Satisfaction Institutions: Attractive feature of the course Useful in building long term relationships Effective use of resources
• Institutional centralised administrative and recognition systems • Resource constraints
Fig. 1. Personalisation in higher education.
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
27
numbers undermine personalisation efforts (Attwood, 2009; Clerehan, 2007; Gilbert, 2008) and the findings from this study supported these concerns. Physical resources in relation to campus design and layout could also serve to limit staff and student interaction, a finding consistent with arguments presented by Attwood (2009). This study also suggested that in the face of funding constraints and widening participation, academics expressed concern that not all students had a consistent experience, although there was disagreement as to whether more time was spent with the ‘more’ or ‘less’ able students. From a student perspective, this inequality was tantamount to favouritism. As such, the study supports the argument presented by Milliband (2006) that key challenges of personalisation within education are providing a personal focus within a universal service and equality and excellence simultaneously. An important challenge identified through this study, and not previously reported, relates to the attitudes of both academics and students. These attitudes appear to influence both parties’ willingness to engage with the other, thereby potentially undermining any personalisation initiatives or relationships built. Furthermore the findings suggest that centralised HEI procedures may exacerbate attitudes, particularly those of academics, and their willingness to engage in personalisation activities. Nonetheless, the research revealed that the benefits of personalisation were deemed to potentially outweigh these challenges. However, neither academics nor students considered personalisation in its fullest sense to be feasible due to the potential limitations. 6. Conclusion This study sought to provide an insight into the potential of personalisation within HE by examining academic and student perspectives of its definitions, benefits and challenges within a UK context. Whilst the term personalisation was not in common parlance clear links were seen with current considerations concerning student engagement. The study identified that there are a number of challenges to overcome before the benefits of personalisation might be fully realised. The study also identified that the benefits are perceived to outweigh the challenges currently faced, but there are limitations to ‘pure’ personalisation where students may become co-producers or co-designers of their learning (Leadbeater, 2004). However, given the small number of participants and HEIs in the study, the findings may not be generalisable to other institutions. Given the recent publication of the government white paper, Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System (2011), personalisation is likely to become more important in UK HEI agendas. Meanwhile HEIs are likely to continue to operate in ‘‘a permanent era of constraint’’ (Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2004, p. 270). Thus understanding how to overcome challenges to personalisation is paramount to achieving the potential benefits. HEIs and academics need to determine how to deploy resources most effectively to engage and motivate students and maximise use of scarce resources. When considering this engagement, the potential attitudes of academic staff and students must be taken into account. In addition, consideration should be given to how relationships between staff and students are most effectively developed through systems such as personal tutoring.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the staff and students that participated in this study. References Attwood, R. (2009). The personal touch. Times Higher Education. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from /http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stroy.asp? storycode=406424S. Bird, R. (2006). Personalisation: What does it really mean? Secondary Headship November. Clerehan, R. (2007). Designs for supporting international education. International Journal of Learning, 13(9), 187–193. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Dawson, S., Burnett, B., & O’Donohue, M. (2006). Learning communities: An untapped sustainable competitive advantage for higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 127–139. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2011a). Putting students at the heart of higher education June 28. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from /www.bis. gov.uk/news/topstories/2011/Jun/he-white-paper-students-at-the-heart-of-the-systemS. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2011b). Higher education: Students at the heart of the system, June. Department for Education and Skills. (2006). Personalising further education: Developing a vision. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from /www.dfes.gov.uk/ consultations/downloadableDocs/DfES%20PersonalisationS. DeShields, O., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg’s twofactor theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 128–139. Gilbert, A. (2008). Our overloaded system needs radical revision to cater for the masses. Times Higher Education. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from /http://www. timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=400785S. Helgesen, O., & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126–143. House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. (2005). Higher standards, better schools for all. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from /http://www. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeduski/633/633.pdfS. JM Consulting. (2008). The sustainability of learning and teaching in English higher education—A report prepared for the Financial Sustainability Strategy Group, December. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from /http://www.hefce.ac.uk/finance/fundinghe/trac/fssg/S.
28
N. Becket, M. Brookes / Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 11 (2012) 21–28
Knox, H., & Wyper, J. (2008). Quality enhancement themes: The first year experience. Gloucester, England: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Leadbeater, C. (2004). Personalisation through participation: A new script for public services. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from /www.demos.co.uk/files/ PersonalisationThroughParticipationS. Little, B., Locke, W., Scesa, A., & Williams, R. (2009). Report to HEFCE on student engagement. Centre for Higher Education Research and Information. London: The Open University. Merton, A. (2006). What’s new about personalisation? Adults Learning. October 7. Milliband, D. (2006). Choice and voice in personalised learning. OECD schooling for tomorrow personalising education. Paris: OECD Publications. Moore, C., Birtwistle, G., & Hurt, S. (2004). Channel power, conflict and conflict resolution in international fashion retailing. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 749–769. National Student Forum. (2009). National student forum annual report 2009. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from /http://www.nationalstudentforum.com/S. National Union of Students. (2006). Response to DfES consultation ‘‘Personalising further education: Developing a vision’’. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from /http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/media/resource/National%20Union%20of%20Students.docS. Rowley, J. (2003). Retention: Rhetoric and realistic agendas for the future of higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(6), 248–253. Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2004). A synthesis of a quality management model for education in universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 266–279. Ward, R., & Richardson, H. (2007). Personalised learning plans in Lifelong Learning Networks report to HEFCE. Wigan, England: Centre for Recording Achievement. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nina Becket is a Senior Lecturer in the Business School at Oxford Brookes University. Her research interests focus on enhancing the student learning experience.
Maureen Brookes is Principal Lecturer in Marketing and Business Futures Coordinator at Oxford Brookes. She sits on the Board of Directors for Eurochrie and on the Executive Committee for CHME. She was also the Hospitality Liaison Officer for the HLST Network.