Ladkin, Adele

Penfold, Paul

English

Bournemouth University Research Online

Exploring the Chinese Tourism Curriculum: A casestudy of Guilin Institute of Tourism, ChinaMr Paul, PENFOLDEducational Development ManagerSchool of Hotel & Tourism ManagementThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong Kong SAR, People’s Republic of ChinaEmail: hmpp@polyu.edu.hkPhone: (852) 2766-4092ANDProfessor Adele, LADKINProfessorSchool of Hotel & Tourism ManagementThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong Kong, SAREmail: hmladkin@polyu.edu.hkTel:852-2766-6342ABSTRACTThe paper explores the development of the tourism curriculum at the Guilin Institute of Tourism.Using a case study approach, the research describes the process of curriculum review from anexisting to a new hotel management programme.  Two areas are identified for discussion based onempirical data collection, satisfaction with the curriculum and quality of teaching, and the viewsof the students are presented.  The study concludes that Guilin Institute has made considerableimprovements in programme content and delivery methods and that evaluation of this kind canoffer significant improvements and lead the way for developing tourism education in China.KEYWORDSTourism Education, China, Programme DevelopmentINTRODUCTIONWith travel and tourism in the People’s Republic of China expected to grow  at  an  annualrate of 9.6 percent over the next decade, China will become the number one world  destination  forforeign tourists by 2020 (WTTC, 2008). It has also  been  predicted  that  by  2015,  there  will  bearound 200,000 lodging facilities of various kinds  including  about  10,000  star-rated  hotels  andover 500 five-star hotels across China (China Economic Net, 2008). The unprecedented growth ofnew hotels and developments in the tourism industry over the past decade in  China  has  led  to  asustained need for trained professionals – which  in  turn  has  created  increasing  pressure  on  itshuman resources’ capacity. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC, 2008) theindustry accounted for 74.5 million jobs in 2008, 9.6 percent of total employment  in  the  country.However, with projections of 98.9 million people needed in the industry by  2018,  China  will  begreatly challenged to recruit, train and develop these millions of people for  the  industry  over  thenext 9 years.Although there is a huge demand for front line and managerial staff, in the  hotel  industry,and some 3.2 million job vacancies in 2007 for hospitality positions, there  were  still  1.2  millioncollege graduates in China with no job offers (Xinhua News Agency, 2007). One of the challengesin meeting this demand is the ability of the universities, colleges and vocational training  institutesto prepare more people equipped to meet future demands of the industry. According to Zhang  andWu (2004), “The current state of  tourism  education  is  not  meeting  the  industry’s  expectation.Industry  executives  and  managers  are  not  satisfied  with  graduate  performance…The  currentcurriculum is outdated; it needs to be updated in  line  with  industry  expectations.  Good,  qualityeducators are rare.”Set against this background, there is a clear need to evaluate the ways in which  tourism  isbeing taught in China and to ascertain if and where improvements can be made.TOURISM EDUCATION IN CHINAThere is a well established body of literature  that  examines  the  development  of  tourismeducation  (Ritchie,  2002).   Liu  and  Wall  (2005)  articulate  that  “The  Chinese,  in   becominginvolved in this (tourism) industry, are typically hampered by their lack of familiarity with serviceskills, marketing, and tourism cultures.” Cheuk (2005) found that  the  Chinese  education  systemitself did not help the development of hospitality and tourism professionals. His view was that  thetourism discipline was not recognized, teachers did not have the necessary practical experience  orindustry networks, and in addition, Chinese tourism institutes should “strengthen  the  cooperationwith the industry, closely linking production, learning and research” (Cheuk, 2005).  In  an  earlierstudy, Lam and Xiao (2000) concluded  that  poor  curriculum  design  was  a  major  problem  fortourism education in China, and that graduates from tourism institutes and  vocational  schools  donot meet industry requirements. This finding was confirmed in  a  later  study  by  Zhang  and  Wuwhich also indicated that university graduates were unwilling to enter the industry, and  that  therewas a gap between what was taught and the “realities of the industry itself” (Zhang & Wu,  2004).In summary, researchers seem to agree that reform of tourism education is sorely needed, and  thathigher education in China needs to be enabled to respond  to  socio-economic  and  labour  marketdemands (Li & Min,  2001).  These  reforms  are  slowly  happening  as  the  Central  Governmentresponds to the need for a skilled and well-educated workforce.  In  essence,  China  is  witnessingthe need to develop or modernise the tourism and hospitality  curriculum  in  order  to  provide  animproved educational experience for students and to better meet industry needs.Leading  the  way  in  tourism  educational  reform  is  the  development  of  a   new   hotelmanagement program at the Guilin Institute of Tourism (GLIT) in Guangxi  Zhuang  AutonomousRegion. Guilin is one of China’s primary  destinations  for  overseas  and  domestic  tourists,  withover 12 million visitors to the city in 2008. Founded by Guilin City  Council  in  1985,  GLIT  hasbecome  one  of  three  main  institutions  in  China  for  the  education  and  training   of   tourismprofessionals, providing over  55,000  graduates  to  the  industry  since  its  foundation.  With  thesupport of the regional government and the Guilin City Council  the  Institute  received  assistancefrom  the  UN  World  Tourism  Organization  (UNWTO)  to   help   establish   an   internationallyrecognized hotel management diploma program designed to meet the needs of  the  industry,  raisequality standards  and  equip  students  for  21st  century  employment.  A  leading  hospitality  andtourism educational institution was commissioned by UNWTO to help GLIT design, develop  andimplement the new program.The  new  program  development  process  took  two  years  and  involved  six  phases.   1)Environmental scan, to enable the  Institute  to  better  formulate  strategy,  benchmark  what  theywere doing against international standards, respond to  identified  industry  needs  and  align  theirstrategies  and  policies  to   ensure   successful   education   of   undergraduate   students   for   theburgeoning hotel and tourism industry in  China.  2)  Design  of  the  program,  which  involved  acomparative analysis of six world-class hospitality programs to identify core subjects, gaps  in  theexisting curriculum and unique features  of  the  existing  curriculum.  3)  Training  of  teachers  incurriculum design, lesson planning, assessment methods and classroom teaching. 4) Design of  theoverall  curriculum,  detailed  syllabi  and  outline  lesson  plans.  5)  Implementation  of  the  newprogram in 2007  and  2008.  6)   Evaluation  and  review  of  the  program  using  qualitative  andquantitative data.  This  comprehensive  review  has  given  an  in-depth  insight  into  the  tourismcurriculum in the institute.Key features of the new programme are…(describe the new model)…what is unique?…..STUDY METHODSThe merits of a case study approach are well documented  (Yin,  2003).   It  allows  for  in-depth exploration of a particular issue, site, etc and here is used to explore  the  development  of  anew course in Hotel Management in Guilin institute.  The program  was  evaluated  independentlyby the Institute and the  UNWTO  consultants  at  the  end  of  the  project  development  phase  inDecember  2008.  Focus  group  interviews  were  conducted  with  teachers,   administrators   andstudents from to gather qualitative data and to refine the questions to be  used  in  the  quantitativesurveys.  In  addition,  GLIT  conducted  an   evaluation   to   compare   student   satisfaction   andachievement in the new program with the old existing programme. The  questionnaires  comprisedof three parts: facilities, teaching quality and the overall program. In each part, there were  severalrelative attributes used to address the perceived importance of each attribute using a 5-point Likertscale with “1=very important” to “5=very not important”). The  questionnaire  also  measured  thesatisfaction with the facilities, teaching quality and  program  as  a  whole  using  a  5-point  Likertscale with “1=very satisfied” to “5=very dissatisfied.” The results were measured  by  the  rankingof mean and standard deviations.  This short paper cannot present the  full  report  on  the  detailedresults from students, teachers and administrators, so  it  will  focus  on  just  two  critical  areas  –satisfaction with the curriculum and quality of teaching. Both  of  these  areas  will  have  a  majorimpact on the graduate quality and  determine  whether  graduates  meet  the  requirements  of  theindustry.FINDINGSThe  questionnaire  data  revealed  that  students,  teachers  and  administrators  were  moresatisfied with the new  program  than  with  the  existing  older  program.  The  comparative  studybetween students who joined the new program, and other students studying similar subjects in  thetraditional program showed that the students on the new program were more independent learners,were more responsible, had better communication and language skills and took a more active  partin class. In addition, it was found that the academic achievements were higher among the  studentsof the new program, with grades of between 3-15 percent above those of students studying similarcore subjects in the traditional program (Figure 1). Due to differences in the teaching  content,  thearrangement  of  the  semester  and  other  factors,  this  is  not  an  absolute  comparison,   but   anindication that perhaps the subject content, teaching  methods  and  student  attitudes  have  led  tobetter academic outcomes than comparative subject results.Figure 1: Comparison of New Program Class & Normal ClassesStudents taking the new program were  overall  much  more  satisfied  with  the  quality  ofteaching than students taking the normal program in  the  Institute.  Students  were  most  satisfiedwith the ‘Interaction between teachers and students’ (95.45%), the ‘Use of case studies’  (95.45%)and the ‘Teaching methods’ (93.18%). This compares with a much lower level  of  satisfaction  bythe other students, who rated ‘Interaction between students and teachers’ at 79.07%, ‘Use  of  casestudies’ at 82.56% and ‘Teaching methods’ at 81.40% (see Table 1).Table 1: Students’ satisfaction with quality of teaching|No. |Aspect                |New Program     |Normal classes |% Difference    ||    |                      |class           |               |                ||1   |After class support   |70.45%          |48.84%         |21.62%          ||2   |Facilities            |88.64%          |72.09%         |16.54%          ||3   |Interaction between   |95.45%          |79.07%         |16.38%          ||    |teachers and students |                |               |                ||4   |Case studies          |95.45%          |82.56%         |12.90%          ||5   |Teaching methods      |93.18%          |81.40%         |11.79%          ||6   |Teacher’s help        |81.82%          |74.42%         |7.40%           ||7   |Teacher’s knowledge   |90.91%          |83.72%         |7.19%           ||8   |Teacher’s             |93.18%          |87.21%         |5.97%           ||    |qualifications        |                |               |                ||9   |Assessment methods    |77.27%          |73.26%         |4.02%           ||10  |Preparation for class |88.64%          |84.88%         |3.75%           ||11  |Teacher’s experience  |90.91%          |87.21%         |3.70%           ||12  |Theory and practice   |72.73%          |72.09%         |0.63%           |Students in the new  program  rated  the  following  aspects  of  the  new  curriculum  mostsatisfactory  –   ‘Flexibility’   86.36%   compared   with   66.28%   by   other   students,   ‘Programadministration’ 84.09% compared to 66.28%,  and  ‘Length  of  Internship’  84.09%  compared  to72.09% by the other students (Table 2).Table 2: Students’ Satisfaction with the Curriculum|No. |Aspect                       |New Program  |Normal class |Difference||    |                             |class        |             |          ||1   |Timetabling                  |81.82%       |55.17%       |26.65%    ||2   |Flexibility                  |86.36%       |66.28%       |20.08%    ||3   |Program administration       |84.09%       |66.28%       |17.81%    ||4   |Helpfulness to professional  |81.82%       |67.44%       |14.38%    ||    |practice                     |             |             |          ||5   |Length of Internship         |84.09%       |72.09%       |12.00%    ||6   |Usefulness for job seeking   |77.27%       |66.28%       |10.99%    ||7   |Curriculum diversification   |81.82%       |72.09%       |9.73%     ||8   |Hospitality content for      |84.09%       |74.42%       |9.67%     ||    |freshmen                     |             |             |          ||9   |Length of Program            |81.82%       |74.42%       |7.40%     ||10  |Teachers with industrial     |63.64%       |58.14%       |5.50%     ||    |experience                   |             |             |          ||11  |Broad foundation of learning |77.27%       |74.42%       |2.85%     ||12  |Up-to-date information       |70.45%       |68.60%       |1.85%     ||13  |Depth of Knowledge           |72.73%       |72.09%       |0.63%     ||14  |Funding for field trips      |45.45%       |56.98%       |-11.52%   |CONCLUSIONSThis new model of tourism education is quite unique  in  China  as  far  as  we  know.  Theprogram challenges the traditional methods and approaches, and can be perceived  as  a  threat  bysome who see the traditional teaching and assessment processes being  undermined.  In  the  main,however, it is seen as an opportunity to raise the standards and professionalism of the tourism  andhospitality industry. For a government institution to be able to change the  curriculum,  implementoutcome-based approaches, introduce interactive teaching, run tutorial classes and put in place  aninternational model of assessment and  quality  assurance  is  a  huge  achievement.  Despite  someinitial uncertainties about aspects of the new curriculum model, students and most  academics  andadministrative staff have been enthusiastic, and have effectively implemented the new program  ina relatively short time frame. There are still challenges to be overcome, in particular how to  makethe program  cost-effective,  hiring  of  enough  suitably  qualified  and  experienced  teachers  andsatisfying Ministry of Education  requirements.  GLIT  are  also  considering  how  to  expand  themodel from a pilot program in one department to the rest of the Institute, which will have  a  muchgreater impact on the future direction of tourism education in mainland China.There is a sense of expectation about the future of education in China as the nation reachesnew heights in diplomacy, space exploration, research and innovation. This project is  very  timelyfor China’s growth and economic development, as the model is breaking new ground, challengingtraditional education methods and  providing  a  well-designed  and  workable  model  for  tourismeducation in China. The barriers are not insurmountable, but need to be recognized and  overcomein order for Guilin Institute of Tourism, and tourism education in  particular,  to  benefit  from  thefoundational work of this project.REFERENCESChina Economic Net (April 4, 2008). Tourism & hotel sector gaining momentum.Retrieved February 23, 2009 from http://en.ce.cn/Insight/200804/03/t20080403_15050312.shtmlChina National Tourism Administration (2008). Travel in China - Hotels andAccommodation. Retrieved February 24, 2009 fromhttp://en.cnta.gov.cn/TravelInChina/Forms/TravelInChina/Hotel.aspxGross, A & Heinold, L. (2005). Human Resources Trends in China, SHRM Global Forum2005World Travel & Tourism Council (2008). Travel & Tourism Satellite AccountingResearch, Travel & Tourism: The Winds of Change. Retrieved February 26, 2009 fromhttp://www.wttc.org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/china.pdfXinghua News Agency, (December 25, 2007). Chinese youth become more flexible withemployment. Retrieved February 24, 2009 from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/25/content_7311553.htmZhang, H.Q. & Wu, E. (2004). Human resources issues facing the hotel and travelindustry in China, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Volume 16,Number 7, 2004, 424-428Ritchie, J.R.B. (1992). New horizons, new realities: perspectives of the tourism educator, inRitchie, J.R.B. and Hawkins, D., eds, World Travel & Tourism Review. CAB, Oxford, 257-263.Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and Methods. Sage, London.

Exploring the Chinese Tourism curriculum: A case study of Guilin Institute of Tourism, China

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bournemouth University Research Online