Virtues and shortcomings of guidance and tutoring in higher education: a longitudinal study of the TIMONEL Project

The study sits within the TIMONEL Project, a multi-university initiative (Spain, UK, Portugal) responding to urgent guidance and tutoring needs of university students and graduates. The aim is to present and evaluate a recommendation system (RS) that addresses academic, personal, professional, and ICT guidance needs for students, graduates, and university teachers. The project arises from evidence of uneven guidance practices, insufficient staff preparation and motivation, weak coordination with counseling services, and limited use of ICT in guidance—pressing issues amplified by the Bologna process and the expansion of online services post-COVID-19. Specific objectives: (a) detect training needs of university staff in guidance and tutoring; (b) analyze current guidance and tutorial practices; (c) identify good practices; (d) design an RS-based guidance program; (e) implement it; (f) evaluate the program and RS. The overarching research question is how technologies (a web-based RS) can effectively support university guidance and tutoring for both tutors and students across the identified domains.

Background literature underscores the importance of guidance within the European Higher Education Area post-Bologna, highlighting academic, personal, and professional support as essential (Fernández & Medialdea, 2014; Skaniakos et al., 2019). Evidence shows guidance reduces academic and personal issues and facilitates career integration (Biasi et al., 2017). Key problems include disparate models across institutions (Vidal et al., 2003), low faculty motivation and recognition for guidance work, and limited awareness of available services (Asin Cala et al., 2019; Martín-Romera et al., 2020). Coordination gaps between faculty and psychological counseling are noted (Getachew, 2020). ICT adoption in guidance remains underused despite growing demand for online formats, especially after COVID-19 (Muñoz-Carril & González-Sanmamed, 2015; Zeren et al., 2020; Schartner, 2023). Students report preference for online guidance over face-to-face (Barker & Barker, 2022; Liu & Qu, 2023). Prior studies on good practices and entrepreneurial/teaching excellence inform the design of comprehensive, integrated tutoring approaches (Guzmán, 2018; Fernández-Nogueira et al., 2018; Gonzalo et al., 2020), with calls for more research on good practices in guidance (Rodríguez Ugalde et al., 2018).

Design: Concurrent mixed-methods longitudinal study (2017–2020) in three phases integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. Phase 1 (Needs detection; objectives 1): Two sub-phases assessed (1) training needs in guidance and tutoring and (2) analysis of guiding and tutorial practices across academic, personal, professional, and ICT domains. Mixed data from teachers and students across universities informed Phase 2. This and the next phase were delayed by six months. Phase 2 (Good practices; objective 2): Multiple-case qualitative study to identify good practices among European and Latin American university professors, creating a catalogue of good practices and informing RS program design. Phase 3 (Design and evaluation; objective 3): Development, deployment, and evaluation of the web RS (www.timonel.net). The RS implements a guidance program sequence: identify problem → generate questions; analyze possible alternatives → prioritize; analyze alternatives → select; simulate/implement alternative; allows user interaction, saving recommendations, and incorporates collaborative feedback. Participants: Phase 1 quantitative sample via proportional stratified random sampling (except PIC and QML, which were intentional): 2779 students and 918 teachers from UJA (University of Jaen), UGR (University of Granada), PIC (Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra), QML (Queen Mary University of London). Phase 1 qualitative participants included discussion groups and nominal/SWOT groups with students and faculty across experience levels and universities (PAT data only in Spain). Phase 2 qualitative: three discussion groups (UJA n=8; UGR n=9; PIC n=6) and 11 interviews (UGR n=5; UJA n=6) with faculty experienced in Tutorial Action Plans (PAT). Phase 3: 484 students (150 men, 334 women) and 38 teachers (21 men, 17 women) across seven faculties and four universities, plus interviews and PAT case studies. Instruments: Phase 1 scales developed/validated by TIMONEL team. POTAE-17 (Guidance and tutorial practice in students and graduates): Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87; KMO=0.853; Bartlett χ²=6701.698, p=0.000. NFEOT-17 (Training needs in guidance and tutorial strategies): alpha=0.79; KMO=0.939; Bartlett χ²=28169.969, p=0.000. Both Likert 1–5, 61 items, EFA with PCA and Varimax extracting four factors consistent with theory and CFA. Qualitative tools (nominal group, SWOT, discussion groups, case studies, interviews) were constructed by a multidisciplinary team and aligned with phase objectives. Phase 3 evaluation scale (teacher and student versions): 7 demographics + 22 Likert items; alpha=0.89; KMO=0.951; Bartlett χ²=6180.038, p=0.000; included open questions and interviews with faculty. Data analysis: Qualitative analysis in NVivo 12 with categorization, content description, quotes/matrices, theme relationships, and conclusion validation. Quantitative analysis in SPSS 24 (Mac): frequencies, percentages, central tendency and dispersion, graphics, hypothesis tests (t-tests, ANOVA, multivariate contrasts).

- Guidance needs are multidimensional and interrelated; associations among academic, personal, professional, and ICT dimensions are high (p<0.01). The academic dimension is most assumed by faculty; professional is least assumed. - Phase 1 quantitative sample sizes: 2779 students; 918 teachers. Phase 3 evaluation: 484 students; 38 teachers. - Significant differences by faculty participation in PAT: professors participating in PAT perceive needs are more covered (p<0.000) and have more global knowledge; training in guidance/tutoring is critical. - Student level differences (ANOVA): personal (p=0.016), professional (p=0.002), ICT (p=0.002). Tukey tests show 2nd vs 4th year differences in personal (ΔM=1.148; p=0.014) and ICT (ΔM=1.195; p=0.008); 2nd vs postgraduate in professional (ΔM=2.01; p=0.002). Generally, 2nd-year students report greater perceived needs coverage than fourth-year/graduates in some areas. - Sex differences (t-tests): Students show significant differences across all areas (p=0.000), with men higher in personal, professional, and ICT orientations, and women slightly higher in academic. Faculty show differences by sex in some dimensions; no difference in professional (p=0.62). Example means (Table 4): Students—AG: Men 55.23 vs Women 53.39 (t=4.184, p=0.000); PG: Men 39.02 vs Women 37.14 (t=5.328, p=0.000); PRG: Men 40.60 vs Women 38.27 (t=4.740, p=0.000); ICTG: Men 40.63 vs Women 39.32 (t=3.789, p=0.000). Faculty—AG: Men 80.35 vs Women 83.89 (t=-4.809, p=0.000); PG: Men 50.60 vs Women 54.64 (t=-6.687, p=0.000); ICTG: Men 35.42 vs Women 34.15 (t=2.189, p=0.029). - Personal guidance needs: emphasis on emotional competencies and access to a reference person; second-year students show higher scores (e.g., M=38.43, SD=8.91 vs fourth-year/graduates M≈37.28–38.95; p-values around 0.004–0.002 reported for some contrasts). - Professional orientation needs: strong demand for transition-to-work information, professional networks, and alignment with labor market needs; differences favor second-year students over fourth/graduates in some measures (e.g., M=40.11 vs 38.90; p<0.032 reported). - ICT orientation is least covered; students prefer mobile-friendly, immediate tools over email; faculty indicate need for training and proactive communication models. - Phase 2 good practices: comprehensive, integrated tutoring across academic, personal, professional dimensions; flexibility in time/space; continuous support; strong command of diagnostic, information management, communication, group tools; institutional support and culture-building; alignment with student context; use of ICT close to student habits. - Phase 3 RS evaluation: High usability and utility reported by students and teachers for academic, personal, and professional guidance; suggestions include more strategic resource selection and a concise guide to RS operation. Recommendations from collaborative network rated higher than system-provided ones. Graduates (>42 years) valued TIMONEL most among students. - Regression on satisfaction with recommendations (DV: “The recommendations received have been to my liking”): Students’ model R²=0.676; Teachers’ model R²=0.638; both p<0.001. Age and sex non-significant; for students, all four RS phases associate with satisfaction; for teachers, association evident for existence and analysis of alternatives. - Overall acceptance: 91.5% of students would recommend TIMONEL to friends; 86.8% of teaching staff would recommend it to colleagues.

The study demonstrates that university guidance needs are comprehensive, spanning academic, personal, professional, and ICT domains, and that a single, integrated approach is required. Findings from Phase 1 confirmed uneven coverage, with faculty primarily addressing academic issues and less so professional guidance; students also perceive gaps, especially in ICT-mediated support and professional transition. Phase 2 identified good practices emphasizing comprehensive, flexible, and context-sensitive tutoring supported by institutional structures and ICT aligned with student usage patterns. These insights directly informed the RS design. In Phase 3, the TIMONEL RS effectively operationalized the guidance program, enabling users to navigate problems, consider alternatives, and implement solutions. Quantitative evaluations showed strong user satisfaction unrelated to age or sex and substantial explanatory power of the RS’s phased process for satisfaction. High recommendation rates among students and staff and qualitative feedback affirm the RS’s relevance and utility as a complement to traditional tutoring. The system’s collaborative features, mobile-accessible web interface, and curated resources address key deficits (especially in professional and ICT guidance), while promoting proactive information-seeking and coordination across services.

The TIMONEL Project achieved its three objectives: (1) diagnosing guidance and tutoring needs among students and tutors, highlighting stronger coverage of academic dimensions and deficits in professional and ICT support; (2) identifying good practices that advocate comprehensive, flexible, and institutionally supported tutoring; and (3) designing and evaluating a web-based recommendation system that translates these insights into practice. TIMONEL provides user-friendly, collaborative, and effective support for academic, personal, and professional guidance, with high satisfaction and recommendation rates among students and faculty. Future directions include continuous content updates, incorporation of additional tools and applications to enhance responsiveness and personalization, and expansion of user-contributed experiences. The successor TIMONELA project aims to extend this approach to secondary and baccalaureate education, further embedding guidance and tutoring as core teaching practices.

Primary limitation is the complexity of constructing an unprecedented RS in terms of conception, structure, and content arrangement, coupled with the need for constant updating and maintenance. Additional practical constraints included delays in Phases 1 and 2 and variability across institutions (e.g., PAT not implemented in Portugal or the UK), which may affect generalizability and comparability of some findings.