This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 22:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

What Does “Personalized Education”Mean for Faculty, and How Should ItServe Our Students?Jennifer H. WaldeckPublished online: 03 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Jennifer H. Waldeck (2006) What Does “Personalized Education” Mean forFaculty, and How Should It Serve Our Students?, Communication Education, 55:3, 345-352, DOI:10.1080/03634520600748649

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748649

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Raising the Question #3

What Does ‘‘Personalized Education’’Mean for Faculty, and How ShouldIt Serve Our Students?Jennifer H. Waldeck

‘‘Personalized education’’ has become a buzzword in the academic community*on

both small, private liberal arts campuses and at large, publicly funded research

universities. For example, in its promotional materials, Loyola Marymount

University in Southern California describes its brand of personalized education as

ensuring ‘‘that students will acquire the knowledge and skills to lead.’’ My own

institution’s mission is to ‘‘provide a personalized education of distinction that leads

to inquiring, ethical, and productive lives as global citizens.’’ Larger universities such

as the University of Wisconsin tout the benefits of personalized education in an effort

to quell the fear of many high school graduates and their parents that students

become ‘‘numbers’’ at large, state-supported schools. UW Milwaukee’s Honors

Program website advertises ‘‘the personalized education of a small liberal arts college

without sacrificing the unique opportunities available at a major research university.’’

The University of North Carolina at Asheville, the largest dedicated liberal arts school

in the UNC system, emphasizes ‘‘a personalized education characterized by close

faculty�student interactions, challenging academic programs and service-learning

activities.’’

Personalized education is viewed by many faculty, administrators, and researchers

as accomplishing a number of important objectives. For example, it may be one way

of meeting the needs of a diverse student population (Mancuso, 2001). Concerned

about the growing number of nontraditional aged students in U.S. colleges and

universities, Mancuso concluded that the most effective institutions ‘‘have a culture

in which flexibility, individuation, and student-centered learning drive institutional

practice’’ (p. 165). Furthermore, the move toward personalized education may

represent academia’s effort to overcome the popular complaint of students reflected

Jennifer H. Waldeck (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara) is Assistant Professor in the Department of

Communication Studies at Chapman University, Orange, CA. Jennifer H. Waldeck can be contacted at

waldeck@chapman.edu

ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2006 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/03634520600748649

Communication Education

Vol. 55, No. 3, July 2006, pp. 345�352

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

14 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

in the strident proclamation by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement

of Teaching that ‘‘overall . . . [undergraduate] teaching is not well rewarded and

faculty who spend too much time counseling and advising students may diminish

their prospects for tenure and promotion’’ (Boyer, 1990, pp. xi�xiii). Others see

personalized education, in its many forms, as the best way to capitalize on student

strengths and result in ‘‘true’’ learning (Dunn & Griggs, 2000).

However, despite the many promises of personalized education, there appears to be

little or no empirical work defining the concept or validating strategies for delivering

it. Our limited knowledge of what it is or how it happens does not give us confidence

that it is a worthwhile mission for higher education. Professors can only guess what

specific classroom (or extra-classroom) teacher behaviors comprise effective

personalized education, and whether these behaviors are even empirically linked to

meaningful student learning outcomes. However, many professors are held

accountable by their institutions and are evaluated on their ability to deliver on

the promise of personalized education. They struggle to do so in the absence of an

operational definition of ‘‘personalized education,’’ and with a scarcity of research

indicating what teacher behaviors and teacher�student interactions promote this

type of learning. The mandate to deliver personalized education poses challenges to

faculty that range from ‘‘extra’’ work for teachers in the form of numerous

independent study arrangements and special projects geared toward students’

individualized learning needs, to confused and resentful students who misunderstand

flexible course requirements.

The purpose of this essay is to raise the question, ‘‘What IS personalized

education?’’, and to engage our discipline in a conversation about how teachers can

best accomplish this seemingly utopian educational goal while maintaining standards,

keeping their workload manageable, and most importantly, attaining strong student

learning outcomes. Toward that end, I will (1) discuss and critique common

responses that colleges and universities have had to the mandate for ‘‘personalized

education’’ (such as smaller class sizes, learning experiences matched to student

learning styles, flexible course requirements, assignments tailored to perceived

student needs, and frequent or intense extra-class communication among students

and faculty); and (2) set a research agenda for testing the relationship between

various personalized learning delivery strategies and a number of student- and

teacher outcome variables.

Common Responses to the Call for Personalized Education

In an attempt to deliver personalized education, universities and their faculty engage

in a variety of activities that include developing relationships with students both in

and out of the classroom, reducing class sizes, implementing various types of

Personalized Education Plans, and facilitating collaborative learning experiences in

the classroom. These activities hold great promise for the outcomes of personalized

education, but also have their limitations.

346 J. H. Waldeck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

14 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

In a Personalized Environment, Students Are ‘‘Known’’ to Educators

One common view is that a personalized education is one where students are known

by their professors (Sizer, 1989). Although intuitively obvious, from a research

perspective, this aspect of personalized education is problematic in that there is no

clear conceptualization of what it means to ‘‘know’’ one’s students in such a way that

results in student perceptions of personalized education and heightened learning.

Many very effective teachers know their students’ names and a small amount of their

personal background, but others spend a great deal of time outside of class getting to

know students on a personal level*discussing topics from childhood to family to

career goals. A colleague recently spent over 2 hr with a single student discussing the

student’s impending engagement and related family problems. Although this

interaction is admirable, busy faculty with heavy class loads and institutional

expectations for research and service simply cannot offer this kind of relationship to

each and every student. A model of personalized education needs to clearly

conceptualize what it means to ‘‘know’’ our students and suggest to what extent

faculty need to be engaging in these kinds of time-consuming (but potentially

important) student interactions.

The immediacy literature suggests a range of teacher behaviors that signal personal

involvement with students. Immediacy behaviors require various levels of teacher

commitment, time, and interest level. For instance, simply knowing students’ names

and using them is one immediacy behavior that results in student motivation and and

learning (Christophel, 1990). However, the research on extra-class communication

(ECC) suggests that teachers must take additional steps beyond prosocial classroom

behaviors to be perceived as offering the most personalized experience for students.

Specifically, Bippus, Kearney, Plax, and Brooks (2003) found that students predicted

more positive outcome values of ECC when teachers were socially accessible and

provided a range of mentoring functions related to the course and to students’ overall

career goals. Jenkins and Keefe (2002) proposed that these types of teacher behaviors

serve as the foundation for the ‘‘teacher-coach,’’ a role that is important to the delivery

of personalized education. Bippus et al.’s work points to specific areas that are

important in building a relationship with students such that they will feel ‘‘known’’ to

their professors. In view of the empirical evidence of the importance of both teacher

immediacy and ECC to the student experience, a model of personalized education

must include both classroom interactions and teacher�student communication

outside the classroom which is targeted toward specific student needs and goals (those

identified by Bippus et al. should serve as an initial list). In this way, we should come

to know what it means to ‘‘know’’ our students in meaningful ways that result in

perceptions of personalized education and other important learning outcomes.

Small Class Sizes

A professor’s ability to know their students is linked to small class sizes , another

aspect of personalized education that many colleges and universities promote.

Raising the Question #3 347

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

14 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

However, research findings on appropriate class sizes are mixed, and findings seem to

be largely dependent on the discipline, qualities of the instructor, and characteristics

of students. Overall, most research suggests that a smaller college class size does not

significantly impact students’ grades, and university officials often cite this research in

defense of their economic decisions to allow class sizes to skyrocket. However, grades

are only one measure of student performance and learning outcomes. Additional

research indicates that small class sizes result in other important outcomes, such as

student retention and higher student self-esteem, especially among those students

identified as ‘‘at-risk’’ (Black, 2003), higher performance by females in the sciences

(Meyer, 2002), and student and parent perceptions of the quality of education offered

(Johnson, 2002). In a meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of class size on

student learning outcomes, Biddle and Berliner (2002) concluded that small class

sizes are most important for students not yet socialized to the university learning

environment. Unfortunately, those are the lower division students who are being

placed into large-lecture general-education classes.

Class size seems to be an important factor in helping students assimilate to

university life, critical to helping students learn the culture and work ethic of a

discipline, and key to personalized education. Systematic research should identify

appropriate sizes and formats for courses by discipline based on the range of positive

outcomes that these reduced class sizes might produce*not simply grades.

Personalized Education Plans

An additional aspect of personalized education that is emphasized at some

universities is the Personalized Education Plan (PEP). PEPs suggest curriculum

paths, extra-curricular experiences and internships, and competencies that need to be

developed. PEPs typically are based on the results of diagnostics and assessments such

as Meyers Briggs Type Inventory, learning styles inventories, and Emotional

Intelligence/EQi. For example, in one groundbreaking example of this type of

personalization, Portland State University has implemented the use of ‘‘360 Degree’’

instruments (similar to those used in evaluating employee performance in

organizations) with all MBA students. The results of these assessments will be used

to plan coursework and experiences with faculty that ensure proficiency in 12 specific

leadership, communication, and technical skills and competencies. Elsewhere, the

Colorado Personalized Education for Physicians program focuses on assessing

interpersonal communication skills and requiring mini-residencies and ‘‘preceptor-

ships’’ for program participants lacking strong patient communication skills (Moran

& Fredrickson, 1993).

Similarly, Jenkins and Keefe (2002) note that instruction based on learning styles is

one form of highly personalized learning but note the practical challenges associated

with this type of curriculum planning. Learning styles describe a student’s

information-processing habits, attitudinal tendencies toward learning, and biologi-

cally based responses that are typical of how they learn and prefer to learn. This

gestalt can be measured by a variety of assessment techniques that assist students and

348 J. H. Waldeck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

14 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

faculty in planning an appropriate curriculum path that is based on learning-style

characteristics. The current structure and resource limitations of even the smallest

universities typically preclude the use of such assessments in providing individualized

curricular planning and classroom experiences. As a result, some instructors

experiment with pseudoscientific methods for assessing a given group of student’s

needs and preferences for learning.

For example, instructors sometimes offer a variety of assignment choices to

students that might include a project (for those who prefer experiential learning), a

paper (for those who excel in research and writing), and a presentation (for those

students who enjoy and are comfortable with presenting information orally in front

of a group). The choice itself often confuses and frustrates students who generally

want structure and guidance in the classroom (Tschirhart & Wise, 2002)*and the

results are invalid and unreliable if each assignment does not measure the exact same

competencies and skills to the same degree.

Although flexible student assignment and evaluation opportunities might be

viewed by those who implement them as a middle ground between the use of

sophisticated, yet impractical, learning style assessments and no personalization at all,

the end result may be perceived negatively by students as a type of teacher

misbehavior (Kearney, Plax, Hays, & Ivey, 1991). Kearney et al. identified a number of

teacher behaviors that negatively impact student satisfaction with their learning

experience*including lack of organization, unclear expectations, and deviations

from the syllabus. They note that while teachers ‘‘may feel justified in changing the

syllabus . . . students may disagree. And when they do, undesirable student respon-

ses . . . including negative teacher evaluations, poor attendance, classroom disrup-

tions, and lower achievement [may result]’’ (p. 323).

Moreover, flexible evaluation methods create extra work for instructors that might

not be correlated to positive student learning outcomes. Instructors must develop

multiple assignments to measure the same competency, manage the process of

student selection of an evaluation method (e.g., paper, project, or presentation), and

then stay organized with regard to student progress on these multiple tasks. In short,

nonscientific attempts to be personalized and flexible with regard to student

evaluation can result in negative student perceptions and learning outcomes, invalid

and unreliable outcomes, extra unnecessary work for faculty, and in some cases, a

record-keeping nightmare of ‘‘who is doing what assignment’’ and ‘‘which criteria do

I use for this student and that student given their choice of evaluation method?’’

Systematic research is necessary within the disciplines for substantiating the

contributions that Personalized Education Plans can make to overall student

performance. Programs like that at Portland State are uncommon, and numerous

structural, financial, and time limitations prevent faculty on traditional campuses

from engaging in systematic learning styles assessments and subsequent tailoring of

instruction. However, if empirical evidence demonstrates that these are effective

strategies for personalized education delivery, educators and institutions committed

to personalized education must be willing to innovate and perhaps modify radically

their current structures to accommodate these practices. Ironically, Personalized

Raising the Question #3 349

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

14 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Education Plans are much more common in web-based education environments,

which are ostensibly much less personal, than on traditional college campuses.

Collaborative Classroom Experiences

Many faculty believe that personalized learning emerges from classroom communities

in which students work closely with one another about course concepts (Jenkins &

Keefe, 2002). Considerable evidence indicates that students learn better and have

more positive affect toward the class and subject matter when working in groups than

when working alone (Allen & Plax, 2002). However, when teachers dispense with

whole-class instruction and their role as facilitator/leader, and put students into

collaborative work groups, they give up a great deal of their control over the

communication that takes place in the classroom. They must be creative in their

development of what educational theorists refer to as constructive activities *which

systematically require students to state the topic, paraphrase the learned material,

refer to personal experience, generate questions, create analogies, and answer specific

questions*in order for learning to occur.

Before adopting the collaborative work group aspect of personalized education,

instructors must be confident in their ability to design such constructive activities,

and to maintain their own interactivity with student discussion groups, so that group

communication in classrooms remains focused on learning outcomes. Moreover,

successful collaborative learning must be designed in a way that reduces the

opportunity for group relational tensions to arise. For instance, teachers must

consider the role of the student who is highly apprehensive about communicating in

group situations, and who might consequently withdraw from the learning

experience. Allen and Plax (2002) review a number of other tensions that classroom

groups experience, and that teachers must be prepared to work with*including

issues of trust, disclosure, and power that can all work against the personalized

learning objectives of collaborative classroom activities. Because most research on the

effectiveness of collaborative group work as an aspect of personalized education has

been focused on the lower and secondary grades, much more work is needed to

determine strategies for ensuring positive learning outcomes from college-level group

experiences. This research should focus on both student and teacher roles with an

objective of improving the use of groups as a method of personalized education.

Conclusions and Directions for Research on Personalized Education

If you ask five faculty members on your campus for their definition of ‘‘personalized

education,’’ you are likely to get five different answers. Ask five students, and you will

get five more. Although there are some common themes that seem to characterize

personalized education initiatives at colleges and universities in the United States*such as faculty/student relationships, small class sizes, Personalized Education Plans,

and collaborative learning arrangements*systematic research is required to

350 J. H. Waldeck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

14 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

synthesize our intuitive notions of what personalized education should be and how it

appears to be facilitated on today’s college campuses.

Communication researchers are poised to be leaders in this research, because we

are experts at the kinds of relational communication among faculty and students that

seem to facilitate personalized education. The objectives of our work should be to

develop a definition of personalized education and a research program designed to

assess how personalized education happens. This research agenda should focus on:

(1) defining, on both conceptual and operational levels, personalized education from

both faculty and student perspectives*and learning how these definitions might be

dynamic and flexible based on the needs of students from various disciplines

and class standings (e.g., taking into account the needs of lower division students);

(2) developing a valid and reliable measure of teacher strategies for delivering

effective personalized education both in and outside of the classroom; (3) studying,

longitudinally, the relationship among personalized education and important student

outcomes such as affective, behavioral, and cognitive learning; assimilation to

university life; student retention; and degree completion; (4) demonstrating the

extent to which personalized education meets the needs of a diverse student

population that includes individuals with differing cultural expectations for student/

teacher relationships as called for by Mancuso (2001); and (5) assessing the extent to

which personalized education initiatives are helping to overcome negative student

perceptions that research productivity is more important to their teachers than they

are. This research program and the answers it provides to the questions ‘‘what is

personalized education?’’ and ‘‘how should it serve our students?’’ provide a critical

step toward contemporizing higher education in America. Investigating personalized

education ensures that we are delivering on what has become a promise valued and

relied upon by our students and their families.

References

Allen, T. H., & Plax, T. G. (2002). Exploring consequences of communication in the classroom:

Unraveling relational learning. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New Directions in Group Communication

(pp. 219�234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). Small class size and its effects. Educational Leadership , 59 ,

12�23.

Bippus, A. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Brooks, C. F. (2003). Teacher access and mentoring

abilities: Predicting the outcome value of extra class communication. Journal of Applied

Communication Research , 31 , 260�275.

Black, S. (2003). Keeping kids from dropping out. The Education Digest , 68 , 37�41.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate . Princeton, NJ: Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors, student

motivation, and learning. Communication Education , 39 , 323�341.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (Eds.). (2000). Practical approaches to using learning styles in higher

education . Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Jenkins, J. M., & Keefe, J. W. (2002). Personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan , 83 , 440�448.

Johnson, J. (2002). Do communities want smaller schools? A public agenda survey. Educational

Leadership , 59 , 42�45.

Raising the Question #3 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

14 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What

students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39 , 309�324.

Mancuso, S. (2001). Adult-centered practices: Benchmarking study in higher education. Innovative

Higher Education , 25 , 165�181.

Meyer, G. M. (2002). Encouraging female undergraduate students: What can a science department

do? Journal of College Science Teaching , 32 , 98�101.

Moran, P. G., & Fredrickson, R. L. (1993). Colorado personalized education for physicians (CPEP):

Physicians’ communication skills and medical practice. Journal of Continuing Education in

the Health Professions , 13 , 289�298.

Sizer, T. R. (1989). Diverse practice, shared ideas: The essential school. In H. J. Walberg & J. J. Lane

(Eds.), Organizing for learning: Toward the 21st century. Reston, VA: National Association of

Secondary School Principals.

Tschirhart, M., & Wise, L. R. (2002). Responding to a diverse class: insights from seeing a course as

an organization. Journal of Public Affairs Education , 8 , 165�177.

Received February 27, 2006

Accepted March 29, 2006

352 J. H. Waldeck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

14 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014