Tutoring in European Higher Education Area ...

Vol. II (LXIV) No. 2/2012

63 - 71

Tutoring in European Higher Education Area: essential points for an integral model Ernesto López Gómezab* a

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Juan del Rosal 14, Madrid-28040, España b Centro Universitario Villanueva, Costa Brava 2. Madrid-28034, España

Abstract The university is involved in a process of deep change. According to the arrival of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) there are many issues to reconsider in university, such as: the introduction of concept competence in the university curriculum, as well as the protagonism of the students (from teaching to learning). In this article, we suggest that university tutoring is a possible action, as a way to respond to the challenges of the EHEA, but it needs an integral tutoring model, whose basic lines we venture to trace. Keywords: Tutoring, university; European Higher Education Area

1. Introduction The European university is facing a major reform, which affects not only the study plans, but also their sociopolitical structure and new ways of university governance (Marginson & Van Der Wende, 2007; Eurydice, 2008). This structural and functional reform is being carried out from the recent European Higher Education Area – hereinafter, EHEA– (Sorbonne Declaration, 1998, Bologna Declaration, 1999). This new university environment is also having outcomes in the relationships between professors and students. Following this process of change we are still in, the university that has come to light in the third millennium must confront numerous challenges that affect its identity as a community, constructed from its origin in medieval times (Ruiz Corbella & Harris, 2012; López, 2012). In this regard, the educational relationship established among professors and students is the core of the university as a community. Therefore, the present paper tries to be a pedagogical contribution on the educational relationship between professors and students (university tutoring) in the current context of the EHEA. 2. Regarding the idea of university: integration of knowledge, wisdom and disciplines The university has been investigated over centuries. It is perhaps the formative institution that has changed the most, since its medieval origins. There are many authors who have studied the university, as a research topic, trying to respond to its purpose, mission and meaning. Two interesting examples are Ortega y Gasset and Karl Jaspers. Thus, for Ortega y Gasset (1983) the mission of any university is oriented on three areas: education for training professionals, scientific-humanistic research and dissemination of culture, providing the last one with a special value. Ortega y Gasset states that students are the focus of university. In his opinion university teaching is above its scientific activity.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 E-mail address: [email protected]

Ernesto López Gómez /Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology

This position contrasts with the idea of his contemporary Jaspers, for whom the fundamental task of university is research (Jaspers, 1960, Horn, 1993; Thornhill, 2011). In this regard, Jaspers defines the idea of university as: “the University is the corporate realization of man’s basic determination to know” (1960, 20). The idea should be to teach science, and make it. Nowadays professor Ronald Barnett (2011), Institute of Education-London, notes that there is a plurality within the university, which means that there are many different classifications: scientific, metaphysical, ecological, bureaucratic, business university, etc. This diversity, within the same staging, is a consequence of the fragmentation of knowledge and the various purposes that universities seem to have to achieve. The development of knowledge and huge scientific specialization are not projected enough in various fields of human wisdom. It has drawn a university ethos governed by scientific rationality and market criteria, ignoring the humanistic education due to their low efficiency measured in economic terms. Moreover, a recent work written by an authorized American voice suggests: “not for profit. Why do democracies need the humanities?”(Nussbaum, 2010). Perhaps it is a fundamental challenge: give a renewed courage to the humanities in the social field and specifically in the university. Two main prospects for university must be assumed. First, the university must be based on a humanistic approach, able to take the necessary continuous search for the most valuable human being, finding at the same time achievements, progress and developments on various fields of knowledge; in short, a university places the human excellence in the center of its ideals. This main idea should allow, secondly, the necessary contribution of the university to the organization, maintenance or change of the precise requirements of the social system in a specific historical and cultural context (Medina Rubio, 2005). We are committed to recover the concept, which has distinguished the university: intellectual excellence (Newman, 1996; Readings, 1996; MacIntyre, 2009). An excellence does not only take into account the scientific and applied knowledge transferable to technology. Ultimately, an excellence that is primarily related with the cultivation –culture– of global perspectives, integrated and interdisciplinary, between approaches and areas and among humanities disciplines with natural and social sciences. 3. Towards a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) In the current European context, the university is in a period of change. With Budapest-Vienna Declaration (2010), officially, the new order known as EHEA started. Over the last decade, the introduction of the European project has been promoted from previous initiatives,. Thus, the main precedent is the Sorbonne Declaration (1998) in which the ministers of France, Britain, Italy and Germany were committed in the difficult task of harmonizing European higher education. The word harmonization –adjust or accommodate– just one year later, in the Bologna Declaration (1999), was reduced to a convergence –common end point arrival–. The communications of Prague (2001), Berlin (2003), Bergen (2005), London (2007), Leuven (2009) and the last one held in April in Bucharest (2012) have been very productive. All of these have gradually changed and consolidated the current reality of the European higher education. A synthesis is shown in Table 1:

64


Table 1. Objectives and purposes of European declarations around EHEA

Bologna (1999)

Promotion of the competitiveness of the EHEA and its attractiveness to the other countries of the world. It is intended explicitly ask universities for seminars to explore further the key points of EHEA. It underscores the accreditation and the quality assurance of qualifications and universities.

Bucharest (2012)

Leuven (2009)

London (2007)

Bergen (2005)

Berlin (2003)

Prague (2001)

Objectives / Purposes Creation of a common framework of qualifications. Generalization of a structured system: degree, master and doctoral levels. Generalization of a common European credit system. The strengthening of the assurance and the accreditation of quality in a European dimension.

Define the roles that networks and agencies of assessing the quality in the EHEA have to play Development of quality systems, actions and programs to strengthen the assessment, accreditation and certification of studies, institutions and degrees (2005). The existence of relationships to participate and cooperate internationally (2005). Strengthens two cycles of university studies: Degree and Master. Progress is being made in the quality assurance of higher education through the introduction of internal mechanisms in universities directly linked to external mechanisms. Promotes recognition of studies between different countries. Assume standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the EHEA developed by ENQA and other partners. To promote the creation of the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education. Commitment to implement national qualifications frameworks accredited by the general model of the EHEA qualifications framework. Insist, among other aspects, on improving the recognition of previous learning. Importance of encouraging mobility of students. Ensure equal access to university studies. Refer the need to strengthen and improve the employability of doctoral students. Enhance social participation in higher education (2010-2020). Improve the employability of graduates from curricula and through advisory services (2010-2020). Enhance the mobility of students and teachers (2010-2020). To increase the number of doctors (2010-2020). Improve the information systems for greater transparency in the quality assurance (2010-2020). Necessity of flexible formative pathways that combine study and work Importance of further reforms aimed at developing curricular learning outcomes. Foster the conditions that encourage student-centered learning (2012-2015). Promote innovative teaching methods and the learning environment suitable (2012-2015) Allow the agencies registered in EQAR to develop their activities across the EHEA long as they meet with national legislation (2012-2015). To improve employability, lifelong learning, problem solving and entrepreneurial competences through cooperation with employers (2012-2015). To ensure qualifications frameworks and the implementation of ECTS and the Diploma Supplement are based on learning outcomes (2012-2015). To promote knowledge partnerships based on research and technology (2012-2015).

Throughout the whole political process the idea of a university for Europe has been defined. The main requirements that each country has committed to deal with, creating a unique and common system, easily understandable and comparable, the principal purpose being to promote employability and international competitiveness of the EHEA. For this purpose a common system of qualifications, taking as a basic unit the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) has been established. This formative system allows a common curriculum development while providing extensive organizational parameters for student mobility, without forgetting also, the mobility of teachers and administrative staff. This context has made necessary the establishment of quality assurance systems to guide the implementation process (Van Der Wende y Westerheijden, 2001; Haug, 2003; ENQA, 2005), as well as the urge to interinstitutional cooperation from programs promoted in the continental environment. The major difficulty and also the most important challenge of the EHEA, with respect to universities and the different countries involved, is that the construction of the EHEA does not cease to be a sum of different interpretations of the same process. Indeed, the identity of each country’s university has different conditions that make it hard to assume common requirements, hence the difficulty in achieving a genuine harmonization of the European university system.

65


4. Formative implications of the EHEA: competence and protagonism of the students 4.1. Competences in university The formative model focused on competences shows that what matters above all is the contextual and transfer of learning; to be competent does not only dominate current situations, but also faces new realities. In short, “the design of training content is based more on the employment than in the development of knowledge about the validity of learning itself” (García & Gavari, 2009, 122). The implication of this curriculum change has been heavily criticized. However, this paradigm has become the backbone of the national and transnational education policies. Thus, the design of the curriculum has to be a reasonable response to the subjects studied in each degree and the period of time each of them has to be taught. Establishing a curriculum for every degree is especially controversial at the academic level, and it is related with the relative importance of the different areas of knowledge. Also, it is complex from the point of the university management, because it involves university departments (to its high / low percentage of subjects in the degree, which implies high / low “power” in the faculty). That discussion has to clarify that the organizational dimension may never be more important than the educational horizon, stressing that the current and new competencies approach has much to do with the transmission of various kinds of knowledge that enable the undergraduate to mobilize the broad set of elements of the character to achieve full development. Basically, acquire competences means designing teaching in such a way that students are able to apply the knowledge to respond the questions of the life (Ibañez-Martín, 2009). 4.2. The shift from teaching to learning The second change is the shift from teaching to learning (Barr & Tagg, 1995). In the Spanish case, so far, the amount of time each subject involved in the curriculum was organized from credits. Each credit meant ten hours of class, which were used by the professors for teaching in a masterful way (Traditional). Currently, the subjects are organized around ECTS, whose educational value is equivalent to 25-30 hours of student involvement. This time includes attendance to sessions, autonomous work, completing tasks, tutoring, seminars, assessments, among other possible studentcentered methodologies (De Miguel, 2006). Consequently, the academic organization has undergone a shift, now not only assuming as reference the teaching time but rather the time students have to work –learning–. In short, from teaching to learning. The competences and their curricular meaning as well as the new change in the learning-oriented university teaching demand new methodologies and ways of working for university professors. The university tutoring can be a relevant resource for professors, with a formative impact on the development of the student. Tutoring is presented as the best possible response to train by competences and the best choice for the student formative support. This is the central idea that justifies this work and it will try to further develop. Then we developed an integral model of university tutoring. Firstly we have identified tutoring as a genuine support-relationship, and subsequently we point the dimensions of the model and its temporal specificity. 5. Tutoring in university: essential points for an integral model 5.1. University tutoring as a formative key Tutoring in university is not something new; since its origins the students have been seeking in their professors the most valuable guidance. Thus, it is not certain that the

66


task of the university professors, in their relationship with students, ends with the curriculum to be taught, but with the opening of the formative horizon referred to as the subject taught. The professors, in their mission, must be able to provide an integral orientation to university student, in coherence with the current paradigm of lifelong learning that reveals us the education-formation as a vital unfinished process. In addition, the tutorial action, as a personalized guidance, has to place in the center of its purposes the student, such as human in formation, able to project their vital, genuine and personal path, based on the growth that comes with formative processes. The university professors, as professionals of education, should feel committed and perform their tutorial work lucidly. Tutoring will have a variety of purposes, methods and actions, but it always finds its strongest foundation in the commitment to provide a relevant help-support. 5.2. Tutoring as a help-support relationship The tutor, in the university context, is responsible for advising, guiding or orienting the student in the various formative stages of their trajectory. The tutor is an authentic guide for learning processes, as it wants to provide meaningful help to the whole student body. Therefore, we can introduce tutoring as a helping-supporting relationship that we characterize in the following diagram (Figure 1):

STUDENTS

UNIVERSITY

PROFESSORS

TUTORING NEED FOR GUIDANCE

KNOW (What and Who)

Willingness, openness, suppleness

wanting to help know help

Help-support

commitment - cooperation responsibility - demanding Self-education: autonomy Integral formation Guidance for life

professional development (TUTORING)

Fig 1. Tutoring as a help-support relationship

The conditions and framework for university tutoring are defined for being a helpsupport relationship. Let us explain the proposal. The tutorial process implies that there must be a real need, and to be aware of who wants to offer help or support (tutor). For this reason, the student who needs help must really want to freely receive or accept the invitation of the tutor, because the tutor knows what the need is. The basic attitudes of professors and students are: commitment and cooperation as well as responsibility and demand. The tutorial action is geared towards selfeducation, an integral growth and orientation for life. It equally has benefits in the professional development of the professors because tutoring is a fruitful task, which is deeply rooted in teaching identity. The tutoring is an ideal space to the professional; it

67


allows enjoying the benefits, knowing that orientation has helped students in their formative process. The professor will lucidly hold their tutorial work, insofar as waiting to offer help to students, and also must know how. Therefore, the professor as a tutor should have a broad knowledge of the real needs of the whole student body he works with. It must be emphasized that tutoring is a two-way interaction, an orientation or guidance process by the student and the offering of the professor, in brief a process of giving and receiving help-support. The professor has to offer each student the personalized integral orientation to the best prospects as possible. 5.3. Dimensions of the integral model The professors should understand the tutoring as a chance, for an authentic orientation process in which, according to their action plan, to provide a significant support to the student in two dimensions: personal-social and academic-professional aspects, starting from a project for an integral development (López & Bocciolesi, 2012). Indeed, the proposal identifies two essential dimensions reached by university tutorials, namely, personal-social and academic-professional dimensions. Considerations on each of them are shown below. The academic-professional dimension is related with two key aspects in the university: the “cultivation” of intelligence and the preparation as a future professional in a particular area of knowledge. So, the professor conducts his tutorial action, mainly, from their teaching tasks, closely linked to the subject taught. From this tutorial function in teaching, the professor tries to advise on academic aspects of their subject. It is a curricular tutoring, to accompany learning (López, 2012). The goal is to stimulate the intellectual-cognitive student. Tutoring is also very representative in research in which the teacher is the supervisor of the student in their research training (Hall & Burns, 2009) and, in this, there is a great influence on the doctoral student´s professional identity in training (Baker & Lattuca, 2010). Moreover, the professional dimension is closely tied to strengthening of the student’s identity, as a future professional, helping them to choose and design their professional project, to each student, within the different options. In this regard, the itinerary of training, the initiation in practice for the student, its connection with the workplace, developing practices in university departments are really important. In summary, it is to guide the student towards a personalized professional style. The personal-social dimension relates to larger purposes, it is intended to educate students beyond the purely academic and professional aspect. Indeed, one may ask: Is it possible to train a professional, forgetting that the professional is a person? It is clear that the university, in the actual context, is orientated to instructional approaches rather than a formative global prospect. Thus, university education is projected, first, to the theoretical training (academic) and secondly, to technical and practical training (professionalizing). But, education cannot be forgotten. Tutoring, as an action which implies help-support, may provide the students with an integral growth. This development is supported in a whole maturation process (attitudinal) for university students that also has a great effect on the social dimension of university life. Such an example is the need of a university culture that develops creative and critical style of each student, proposing elements of university life. An example could be the extra-curricular initiatives as: conferences for "freshman", volunteer- workshops, service learning, among others, that develop social virtues such as respect, tolerance, freedom, solidarity and justice, as well as the cultural impact of the development and cultivation of human rights (Arthur & Bohlin, 2005; Buchanan, Baldwin & Rudisill, 2002). Both of these dimensions (academic-professional and personal-social) accompany the training of the student throughout their university process. For this, it is important to identify three main moments, in university transition, in which tutoring is especially significant (Table 2):

68


Table 2. Temporal specifications and dimensions of integral tutoring

Temporal specifications

Integral tutoring Academic-professional

Personal-social

Beginning of studies. Secondary-University transition

Leveling Courses: strengthen new knowledge later. Introductory Seminars for basic disciplines

Welcoming Plans. Harmonization between secondary and university education. Services for university orientation : information

During the studies

Formative itinerary Practice Seminars-Workshops Scholarships in university departments Access to the labor market Continuation of studies (degree-postgraduate course) complementary training Final Degree Projects Working with Departments Research groups Work placements

University extension / cultural and formative events: Sports clubs, service learning, volunteerism, initiatives for sustainability, educational gatherings, workshops, film club, student participation (engagement), possibility of mentoring (peer tutoring), among others.

End of degree. Transit labor market / other formation

6. Conclusions: recommendations and prospect The European university is facing a deep reform (Trends, 2010) that has been unfolding in the last decade (Table 1). Under the new EHEA a common formative framework has been established, which presents even challenges to respond to, but also wants to be extended by a plural space research, able to promote and develop the knowledge in Europe. Thus, the European Commission intends to develop a “knowledge triangle”: Research, education and innovation, as central and strongly interdependent drivers of the knowledge-based society. For this, the European Research Area (ERA) has been promoting different initiatives in the construction of a European educational research area (Agalianos, 2003). The issue for this article, tutoring in university, can be a necessary subject of investigation in the European research in a plurality context (Lawn & Grek, 2012). Tutoring in university promotes the development of the student from two basic dimensions: academic-professional and personal-social. Another great benefit is reducing the number of university dropout. In this regard, well planned and implemented university tutorials are a guarantee to reduce the high percentage of students leaving qualifications at the beginning of their career (Murtaugh, Burns & Schuster, 1999; Braxton, 2000; Corominas, 2001). The university tutoring is complex for several reasons, some of them involving the professors: - Professors have to teach many students; given such conditions it is difficult to be a good tutor. - There are professors who lack training, who do not offer enough guarantees in their tutorial work. - University professors do not feel they have responsibilities beyond teaching and research functions. - Many of them are not willing to dedicate an extended time that can be devoted to other issues of greater value in the academic career. - The university culture encouraged to a minimal relationship between professor and students beyond school hours.

69


The foregoing aspects, among others, must be taken into consideration. The following recommendations may be useful to proper development of university tutorials: - To increase the qualification of university professors as tutors. - Conceptualize adequately the meaning of tutoring in university, justifying its place within the professional profile of the university professor. - Give greater value to university tutoring; it should be well designed, planned and evaluated when promoting and accrediting university professors. - Promoting university as a real community (Ruiz Corbella & Harris, 2012), recovering the value of dialogue and the formative importance of the relationship between professors and students. - Establish different levels of tutorial concreteness within the university (faculties, departments) that enable the design of integrated programmes for university tutoring, including the diversity of degrees, plurality of objectives and educational purposes. We have continuously referred to the benefits of tutoring for university students, but cannot forget that tutoring can offer a broader horizon for the professional development of the professor, for his enjoyment and satisfaction. The professor, who guides and orients students, should consider the tutoring action as important. A tutorial work has intangible benefits and satisfactions, which are deeper than other (career advancement, invitation to join a committee, the acceptance of a relevant journal article). Reclaiming the tutoring as the axis of university culture has changed. The invitation has been made; professors should only accept the challenge and commit themselves to an integral tutorial action. References 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

Agalianos, A. (2003). Is There an Emerging European Education Research Space? European Educational Research Journal, 2 (1), 180-188. Arthur, J. & Bohlin, K. (eds.). (2005). Citizenship and Higher Education. The role of universities in communities and society. London and New York: Routledge Falmer Baker, V. & Lattuca, L. (2010). Developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (7), 807-827. Barnett, R. (2011). Being a University. New York and London: Routledge. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, (Nov./Dec.), 13–25. Bologna Declaration (1999). The European Higher Education Area. Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Bologna, 19/06/1999. Braxton, J. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto's theory. Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569-590. Buchanan, A., Baldwin, S. & Rudisill, M. (2002). Service Learning as Scholarship in Teacher Education. Educational Research, 31 (8), 30-36. Corominas, E. (2001). La transición a los estudios universitarios. Abandono o cambio en el primer año de universidad. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 19 (1), 127-151. De Miguel, M. (coord.) (2006). Metodologías de enseñanza y aprendizaje para el desarrollo de competencias. Orientaciones para el profesorado universitario ante el espacio europeo de educación superior. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. ENQA (2005). Standards and guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. UE: European Commission. In: http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20(2).pdf Esteban, F. (2010). Quo vadis, formación universitaria. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 247, 461-477. Eurydice (2008). Higher Education Governance in Europe. Policies, structures funding and academic staff. UE: European Commision. (http://www.eurydice.org). García, Mª. J. & Gavari, E. (2009). Tradición y reforma en la educación occidental del siglo XXI. Madrid: Ediciones Académicas.

70


15. Hall, L. A. & Burns, L. D. (2009). Identity development and mentoring in doctoral education. Harvard Educational Review, 70 (1), 49-70. 16. Haug, G. (2003). Quality Assurance/Accreditation in the Emerging European Higher Education Area: a possible scenario for the future. European Journal of Education, 38 (3), 229-240. 17. Horn, H. (1993). Karl Jaspers (1883-1969). Perspectivas: Revista trimestral de educación comparada, 23 (3-4), 769-788. 18. Ibañez-Martín, J. A. (2009). La fundamentación filosófica de los nuevos planes de estudio (pp.17-19). In A. MEDINA, Mª. L. SEVILLANO y S. DE LA TORRE (coords.). Una universidad para el siglo XXI (EEES). Una mirada transdisciplinar, ecoformadora e intercultural. Madrid: Universitas. 19. Jaspers, K. (1960). The Idea of the University. London: Beacon Press, [translated from the German Die Idee der Universitiät, 1946]. 20. Lawn, M. & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing Education: governing a new policy space. UK: Symposium Books. 21. López, E. & Bocciolesi, E. (2012). Panorámica de la tutoría educativa dentro y fuera del sistema educativo: su especial relevancia en la universidad. VegaJournal. Periodico di Cultura, Didattica e Formazione Universitaria, 8 (1). Università degli Studi di Perugia y Università Telematica eCampus. 22. López, E. (2012). Tutoring at university: an innovative experience in the Degree in Primary School Teaching. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, in press. 23. MacIntyre, A. (2009). The very idea of a university: Aristotle, Newman and Us. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(4), 347-362. 24. Marginson, S. & Wende, M. Van Der (2007). Globalisation and Higher Education. Education Working Paper 8. Paris: OECD. 25. Medina Rubio, R. (2005). Misiones y funciones de la universidad en el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 230, 17-42. 26. Murtaugh, P. A., Burns, L. D. y Schuster, J. (1999). Predicting the retention of university students. Research in Higher Education, 40 (3), pp. 355-371. 27. Newman, J. H. (1996). Discursos sobre el fin y la naturaleza de la educación universitaria. Pamplona: Eunsa. Ed. Orig: (1852). Discourses on the Scope and Nature of University Education. Dublin: Duffy. 28. Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit. Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 29. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1983). Misión de la Universidad. Obras Completas, Tomo IV. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. 30. Readings, B. (1996). The university is in ruins. Harvard University Press. 31. Ruiz Corbella, M. & Harris, S. (coords.). (2012). Special Issue: La universidad como comunidad: recuperar la idea de universidad en el escenario del siglo XXI. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 64, 3. 32. Sorbonne Declaration (1998). Joint Declaration on harmonization of the architecture of the European Higher Education systems by the four minister in charge from France, Germany, Italy and United Kingdom. Paris, 25/5/1998. 33. Thornhill, C. (2011). Karl Jaspers. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring Edition). In: . 34. Trends. (2010). A decade of change in European Higher Education. European University Association. 35. Van Der Wende, M. & Westerheijden, D. (2001). International Aspects of Quality Assurance with a Special Focus on European Higher Education. Quality in Higher Education, 7, (3), 233245.

71