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
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