Scott Tindal
In her influential work Thomas (2006) argues that personal tutors fulfill multiple roles for students: to foster a sense of belonging to the institution; academic and professional socialisation; guide development; help with institutional processes and procedures; refer to further information and specialist support; and attend to students’ wellbeing and personal development. For those enrolled in professional degrees, such as nursing and medicine, personal tutors may also have an additional clinical/professional role in which they may be partially responsible for assessing fitness for clinical practical and/or formation of professional identity (Braine & Parnell, 2011; Holder, 2020; Ross et al, 2014). Therefore, the goal of personal tutors is to develop a mentoring and advisory relationship that supports students’ academic, and/or professional socialisation and development, as well as their mental and emotional wellbeing.
Within the United Kingdom (UK) the concept of ‘personal tutoring’ originated as loco parentis; a tutor to educate, guide, and care for those under their tutelage. In the contemporary context of a mass, marketised, and consumer-driven higher education sector, remnants of this relationship remain but are increasingly multifaceted; combining several roles simultaneously.
Personal tutoring forms the foundation of most British universities’ student support systems (Brain and Parnell, 2011; Chadha et al, 2021); the ‘anchor’ to which most student support systems are tethered (Wheeler and Birtle, 1993); the ‘human face’ of the university; the manifest representative of the organisations, and the ‘conduit between the student and the institution’ (Wootton, 2006: 118). Successful cultivation of that support system can help successful socialisation of new students into the culture and processes of the university and its community, fostering a sense of belonging and developing self-reflective independent learners, and improving outcomes such as self-efficacy, motivation, progression, retention, wellbeing, and student satisfaction (Thomas, 2006; Braine & Parnell, 2011; Roldán-Merino et al., 2019; Wakelin, 2021; Watts, 2011; Yale, 2019). Some of these measures, such as retention, progression, and student satisfaction, are particularly important because they are metrics by which the UK Government judges universities’ ‘excellence’,and are measured and reported as part of the National Student Survey (NSS) and the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (Holder, 2020; Yale, 2019, 2020).
Much is said regarding personal tutoring, with many reports, book chapters, and reflections on the subject, yet several scholars have recently observed that there is still remarkably little empirical work in the area (Holder, 2020; Wakelin, 2021; Yale, 2019). McIntosh et al (2020) argues that ‘advising in the United Kingdom has been under-resourced, under-researched, and removed from mainstream narratives of teaching and learning’ (p. 4). This is despite personal tutoring being linked to the aforementioned strategically important issues for universities. More interestingly, empirical work typically represents the views of personal tutors and other stakeholders, and less is reported from the perspectives of the students.
It is in this context that I, working with colleagues at the University of Greenwich School of Business, am in the process of completing a Systematic Literature Review (SLR). SLRs offer the capacity to provide a rigorous, transparent, and replicable search of empirical research; following strict protocols for the primary selection criteria for inclusion and exclusion (Jesson et al, 2011). SLRs provide a method of research that identifies all relevant articles which meet the inclusion criteria, rather than the best-known and most cited (Bearman et al, 2012), enabling us to identify the evidence basis on what is known, as well as the limitations and gaps within the evidence base and therefore offering areas for further research.
Our work seeks to identify all peer-reviewed empirical academic articles from UK higher education in which students’ voices and views (qualitative or quantitative) of their personal tutor and personal tutoring are presented. Our ongoing analysis of the articles identified so far reveals two tensions.
The first is the nature of the ‘personal’ within personal tutoring. The relationship between the tutor and tutee is situated within a wider societal context of intersecting power relations in which the personal tutor is emotionally and intellectually invested in the students’ development competes with an increasingly transactional, marketised, and commodified higher education system. What emerges are tensions between the idealised and experienced realities of personal tutoring; the personal tutor should be an affable, accessible, caring, and engaged loco parentis, but who is situated within a neoliberal higher education system characterised by depersonalised massification and commodification. The personal tutoring relationship is individually-managed and there is strong evidence that students vary in the degree of effort they make in establishing and maintaining that relationship, and, from their perspective, likewise their tutor. It is clear that the individual personality, experiences, and socio-demographic characteristics of the personal tutor and tutee influence this relationship.
Second, the nature of ‘tutoring’ involves overlapping, sometimes competing, roles: a teacher guiding intellectual development, an administrator enforcing policy compliance, a judge marking or reviewing students’ work, and a pastor involved in the emotional and psychological development and wellbeing of the student. Some of these roles may be complementary, while others may be competing. Moreover, there is strong evidence pointing to a lack of students’ understanding of the personal tutoring role, and its limits. This includes providing counselling, mental health support, and offering one-to-one academic tuition. Students with expectations beyond the remit and skills of the personal tutor may become frustrated, even angry, and disengage when those expectations are unmet (Hayman et al., 2020; Prowse et al., 2021; Wakelin, 2021; Webb & Cotton, 2018; Yale, 2019). Navigating these tensions is individually managed and depending on both the relationship built between the tutor and tutee, and the institutional context in which they operate.
Based on the evidence of the SLR, there are several policy and practice recommendations for practitioners, including personal tutors, and university administrators. First, students value affable and personable personal tutors. While not all tutors will naturally possess this disposition, as with other professions such as nursing and medicine, it is possible to train tutors in interpersonal communication to establish and maintain positive relations with tutees. Second, students value continuity and reliability. Second, students want personal tutors who see them as individuals with their own desires, experiences, needs, and vulnerabilities. Students also equate the speed of their tutors’ responses and the time spend with them as signifiers of care. Personal tutors should have their time resourced and the number of personal tutees limited to ensure that they come to learn and respond to personal tutees a individuals. Third, as far as possible students should remain with their personal tutor for the duration of their studies. Fractures in this relationship can damage their view of their (former and new) personal tutor. Finally, students need role clarity. Students often do not understand the role of the personal tutor, and its limits. This can create expectations beyond the remit and skills of the personal tutor, causing frustration when they are unmet. Early in enrolment students should have clear guidance on what they can and cannot expect from their personal tutor.
References
Bearman, M., Smith, C. D., Carbone, A., Slade, S., Baik, C., Hughes-Warrington, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2012). Systematic review methodology in higher education. In Higher Education Research and
Development, 31(5), 625–640.
Braine, M. E., & Parnell, J. (2011). Exploring student’s perceptions and experience of personal tutors. Nurse Education Today, 31(8), 904–910.
Chadha, D., Kogelbauer, A., Campbell, J., Hellgardt, K., Maraj, M., Shah, U., Brechtelsbauer, C., & Hale, C. (2021). Are the kids alright? Exploring students’ experiences of support mechanisms to enhance wellbeing on an engineering programme in the UK. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(5), 662–677.
Hayman, R., Coyles, A., Wharton, K., & Mellor, A. (2020). The role of personal tutoring in supporting the transition to university: experiences and views of widening participation sport students: Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education 18.
Holder, H. (2020). Student nurse perceptions and experience of the personal tutor on an undergraduate nursing course – a pilot project. Practice, 2(1), 86–102.
McIntosh, E., Steele, G., & Grey, D. (2020). Academic Tutors/Advisors and Students Working in Partnership: Negotiating and Co-creating in “The Third Space.” Frontiers in Education, 5.
Prowse, A., Ruiz Vargas, V., & Powell, S. (2021). Design considerations for personalised supported learning: implications for higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(4), 497–510.
Roldán-Merino, J., Miguel-Ruiz, D., Roca-Capara, N., & Rodrigo-Pedrosa, O. (2019). Personal tutoring in nursing studies: A supportive relationship experience aimed at integrating, curricular theory and professional practice. Nurse Education in Practice, 37, 81–87.
Ross, J., Head, K., King, L., Perry, P. M., & Smith, S. (2014). The personal development tutor role: An exploration of student and lecturer experiences and perceptions of that relationship. Nurse Education Today, 34(9), 1207–1213.
Thomas, L. (2006). Widening participation and the increased need for personal tutoring. In Personal tutoring in higher education (pp. 21–31). Trentham Books: London.
Wakelin, E. (2021). Personal Tutoring in Higher Education: an action research project on how improve personal tutoring for both staff and students. Educational Action Research. Early Access
Watts, T. E. (2011). Supporting undergraduate nursing students through structured personal tutoring: Some reflections. Nurse Education Today, 31(2), 214–218.
Webb, O. J., & Cotton, D. R. E. (2018). Early withdrawal from higher education: a focus on academic experiences. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(7), 835–852.
Wheeler, S., & Birtle, J. (1993). A handbook for personal tutors. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Wootton, S. (2006). Changing practice in tutorial provision within post-compulsory education. Personal Tutoring in Higher Education, 115–125.
Yale, A. T. (2019). The personal tutor–student relationship: student expectations and experiences of personal tutoring in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(4), 533–544.
Dr Scott Tindal (S.R.Tindal@greenwich.ac.uk) is a Senior Lecturer in Human Resources and Organisational Behaviour at the University of Greenwich School of Business. He is a member of the Centre for Research on Employment and Work (CREW), and has published research in employment, work, and higher education.
Twitter handle: @DrScottTindal; LinkedIn