Personal Tutoring in HE: where now and where next?

1. Personal Tutoring in HE:where now and where next? Mike Laycock Independent HE Consultant

2. the session • issues in personal tutoring from literature review • the ‘case study’ of a new university and changes proposed (2006) • recommendations for change in the light of NSS and TEF

3. literature review: some issues • models • wideningparticipation • retention • the first year experience • PDP • resources • staffdevelopment

4. models of personal tutoring (Earwaker 1992) Pastoral Model ‘Come up and see me sometime’ Reactive, ‘deficit’, remedial approach. Difficult to monitor (assurance/accountability/cost) Curriculum Model Incorporated within an accredited course/programme/module. Developmental rather than remedial. Professional Model referred immediately to student services. In US, professional ‘Academic Adviser’

5. student access, retention and progression

6. widening participation • student body diverse in age, background, nationality and ethnicity; • some personal difficulties and problems require more specialised knowledge than ‘amateur’ personal tutor knows. • suggested cultural dysjunction between the ‘habitus’ of the so-called‘non-traditional’ student and the ‘institutional habitus’. Student is problematised - assumed that she/he must adapt and change in order to fit in with the institution and PT ameliorates this‘deficit’ • but cultural shifts for international students

7. widening participation and the internationalisation of HE ‘Unless you conduct yourselves with more restraint and moderation towards them [international students], they will be driven into abandoning their studies and leaving the country, which we by no means desire’, King Henry III in Cambridge, 1231

8. retention – concerns of the past • It is important for institutions to have a clear strategic commitment to retaining students that all staff understand and buy into, so that they can see how commitment to high levels of retention should affect the way they work. (NAO 2007) • Increasing student numbers could result in bigger, more impersonal university environments. Tutoring and pastoral support systems therefore require appropriate resourcing by universities, especially in terms of staff time. (PAC 2008)

9. Retention • ‘academic preparedness’ Yorke, 1997, Lago and Shipton, 1999) • the ‘academic experience’ Yorke and Thomas, 2003 • ‘commitment to institution’ (USA) • relationships between staff and students NAO, 2002, Thomas, 2002 • socio-economic factors Yorke and Thomas 2003 • financial issues: Yorke, 1999, Callender and Kemp, 2000 • academic and social integration, Tinto, 1975, 1993, 1997 (interaction) Smith and Todd 2005, (group-focused activities) Wilcox et al 2005, (social support) There is emerging evidence in the UK that personal tutoring is directly related to improved student retention and enhanced student experience. We need (to develop) personal tutoring systems which meet the needs of our students and can be delivered within the resources available Hixenbaugh (2006:24) Cf TEF metric: Drop-out rates

10. projected outcomes of degree completion (HESA 15/16)

11. Student life-cycle (Beatty-Guenter, 1994) 5 transforming the institution (policy/cultural change, staff development) 1 supporting (financial help, child care) 4 transforming students (skills, active learning, engagement ) 2 sorting: pre-entry and‘threshold strategies’ (attendance, at risk etc) 3 connecting (PTs, peer support etc)

12. HEA retention framework audit diagnostic tool helping universities to determine where they are towards successfully embedding this ‘core priority’. ‘Teaching for Student Retention’ workshop in March 2018.

13. first year experience • across UK HEIs approximately 10% of students leave their programme of full-time study within twelve months of enrolling (Yorke, 2002). • it falls to the (HEI) to manage the students‘transition into higher education as effectively as possible’. (Yorke & Longdon 2008) • Whittaker R (2007) argues that ‘A proactive personal tutoring system can provide a positive route to this support, as can student mentoring.’ • Gutteridge, R. (2001) identified the first six weeks as quite clearly the most difficult period for new students. • Trotter (2003) and Parmar and Trotter (2005) - programmes with higher retention rates provide comprehensive pre-entry information, orientate induction around helping students to settle in, make friends and get to know others on their programme and provide strong student support and monitoring of the system.

14. non-continuation of FT degree students (UK) after yr 1(HESA)

15. PDP • Peperall (2005) suggests that PDP is a means of rejuvenating the personal tutor role. • Stevenson N (2006) discusses an initiative at the University of Westminster in the School of Architecture and the Built Environment in which personal tutoring is integrated into the curriculum and linked to the PDP process. • at Exeter, each student attends 3 personal tutorials per year, at least one of which is devoted to a formally-structured, web-based, student self-appraisal, as a mandatory part of the University's PDP initiative. Dunne (2006) • Strivens (2005), University of Liverpool – from personal tutors to personal development tutors (also Napier)

16. resourcing personal tutoring • Yorke and Longdon (2004) estimated that the total cost of student attrition in the UK was around £110 million per year. • Lea and Farbus (2000) found that both staff and students ‘felt that the amount of time budgeted for student support in terms of workload is insufficient’ • Mager (2003) estimated that ‘tele-counselling’ resulted in an increase in retention of 4% at an overall cost in wages, phone charges and other costs of US$345,000 which brought in additional tuition revenue of around US$2.25m. This gave a return on investment of around 650% or a surplus to the institution of US$1.9m. (see also Simpson (2005) at OU)

17. staff development • most lecturers are not clear about the role(s) of personal tutors (Owen 2002) • University of Hertfordshire Counselling Service devised a course to support tutors. Simmonds (2006) Personal Tutoring and Academic Advising: A joint CRA and SEDA Professional Development Award

18. the case study ‘new university’

19. current situation • 2hrs/student/year • inconsistent approach • ‘a number of Schools have begun to engage with (these) issues of sustainability and expectation, sometimes driven here, too, by concern about the financial impact of high attrition rates amongst first year UGs. This has produced a variety of pilot schemes, partial reviews and structural changes in relation to student support at School level’. Funding Application 2007/8

20. FROM: differing School approaches ‘pastoral’ model reactive system (‘available to meet’) individual tutorials with Personal Tutor ‘as needed’ responsibility and accountability systems not altogether clear hidden costs TO: whole-university approach combination of ‘curriculum’ and ‘professional’ model proactive (timetabled meetings) timetabled task-oriented group tutorials with ‘Personal Development Tutor’ responsibility and accountability systems clear transparent costs proposed change in orientation

21. 7 major recommendations • a strategic and comprehensive approach • a proactive personal tutoring system • a programme of group tutorials • from Personal Tutor to Personal Development Tutor (developing, monitoring and evaluating personal, academic ad professional development – inc PDP) • Student Support Co-ordinators • staff development and reward programme • Student support system: PAL

22. a whole institutional approach I’ve noticed a real striving to be professional…I’ve seen it in many areas of the university but while you are striving, the others need to know that this is going on… there is no coherence, there is no consistency in what we do, so one School may be doing something and another one will be doing something else. University SU President

23. ‘The resources follow on from changes implemented this academic year to the university’s personal tutoring policy which gives more autonomy to departments and now focuses on providing guidance rather than requirements. It allows departments to determine the best model for their students and identify the most effective ways to communicate the process to their students’ (2017)

24. transforming the institution

25. a common and consistent framework: the business case • student retention: savings on fees and further recruitment costs • all withdrawal is problematic and key influence on general student academic success is student involvement fostered by student/staff and student/student interaction (Astin, 1997). • declaring and marketing a robust and comprehensive approach to student support may contribute to increased recruitment and the upward standard of students. • ensuring ‘academic and social integration’ in increasingly fragmented student experience nationally

26. from a reactive, deficit model to a proactive, structured approach • ‘We went to (students on) our first year modules and we just asked them… to say what they would like to improve and what they really wanted from the personal tutoring system... And what came up was they wanted more structure, more formal meetings and they wanted things like more input for the first year.’(Business School)

27. Recommendation: from ‘Personal Tutor’ to ‘Personal Development Tutor (PDT)’ • to signal a change towards a proactive approach to helping students to develop, monitor and evaluate their overall personal, academic and professional development; • PDT to meet with their tutees in a group (ideally not more than 12 per group) or groups at least three times per semester for one hour to engage in discipline-based, task-oriented tutorials (skills/employability/ research) and discuss academic progress; • PDT refers students on to School Student Support Coordinator; • organised and resourced either: • through an extant ‘delivery’ module (a compulsory module); or • through a specifically designed ‘professional development’ module (employability?)

28. Financial aid Upgrade Study Advice Service Counselling Careers and Employment Centre provides support to develop tutorial material coordinates (with PDTs) intervention measures Student Support Co-ordinator Personal Development Tutor Personal Development Tutor Personal Development Tutor Personal Development Tutor Task- oriented tutorials with tutees

29. intervention programme by SSCs • conduct, by SSCs, a rigorous intervention programme to support students at risk of withdrawal • use model already developed in one School where, of 21 supported students from 2006-7: • 13 progressed into Stage 2 (and none have failed any modules since). • 7 continued in Stage 1, of whom 2 were allowed to continue on appeal/special case basis. • 1 student took ‘Approved Time Out’

30. staff development • that the (L&T Centre), in conjunction with other appropriate Support Services (and including SU advice centre) establishes a staff development and continuing professional development programme for SSCs and Personal Development Tutors.

31. review of PDP • further review of operation of PDP • voluntary basis of PDP questioned • value of PDP also questioned by some • major concerns raised about on-line tool

32. FROM: current system supports a notional 2 hours/student/ year. If discontinue then notional saving of £350k (in 2007) for current first year. TO: Student Support Coordinator in each School. Approx £300k (2007) PDT meetings now within module resource envelope so resource neutral potential savings on retention/recruitment costs develop ‘trademark’ costs/benefits of change

33. whose responsibility is it? ‘In the first week every student is assigned a personal tutor. It is then the responsibility of the student to ensure that they meet with their tutor at key points during the year’. (2017) Even if you are not experiencing any major difficulties, it is still important that you maintain regular contact with your Tutor’. (2017)

34. how long has there been a lack of transparency about personal tutoring? ‘The creation of the guides are in response to feedback from staff and students about a lack of resources detailing what personal tutoring provision entails. It also feeds into making objective one of (our) personalised student support, a reality’ (2017)

35. What are we really bothered about? We are mindful that no student can be easily categorised and that all students require greater or lesser support to integrate, participate and make the most of their time at X. In particular, we want to focus over the next five years on expanding our support for academic writing for all students and to ensure that we support students to integrate well from the start.(2017)

36. NSS and Personal Tutoring?

38. NSS categories where improvements could be made through group Personal/Professional Development Tutorials Learning community • I feel part of a community of staff and students. • I have had the right opportunities to work with other students as part of my course Student voice • I have had the right opportunities to provide feedback on my course. • Staff value students’ views and opinions about the course. • It is clear how students’ feedback on the course has been acted on. • The students’ union (association or guild) effectively represents students’ academic interests.

41. University of Portsmouth ‘The University credits its success to offering a distinctive student experience, outstanding support for its students, and embedding innovative technology in courses designed to prepare students for successful careers.’

42. TEF review of Portsmouth’s metrics (June 2017) • optimum levels of student engagement and commitment to learning being secured through excellent and integrated teaching and assessment practices • a strategic and inclusive approach that supports student learning, achievement and welfare effectively throughout the student life cycle • a clearly defined approach to induction and support arrangements for new students and for student transitions, with targeted support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and care leavers

43. Portsmouth’s role definition and meeting expectations • Providing academic support and guidance. • Providing personal support and guidance. • Providing students with sources of further support and advice. • Level 4 - eight group and two individual meetings. • Level 5 - four group and two individual meetings. • Level 6 - two group and two individual meetings. • Levels 7 and 8 - two group and two individual meetings

44. many theoretical models • John Dewey (1938) • Kolb and Fry (1975) • Argyris and Schon (1978) • Gibbs (1988) • Johns (1995) • Brookfield (1998)

45. Gibbs (1995)

46. And finally….Personal and Professional Development: the importance of reflection on practice

47. Thank You Mike Laycock