Interactive TV Technology and Markets - Essay Example

Text Most educators view Tourism Education as a relatively new field of education since was only established as a degree in the 1980s, when it was first offered as such in the United Kingdom tertiary education field. (Walmsley, 2009). It has since experienced an unprecedented growth in the reguon and neighboring countries in Europe. Since 1992, 14 tourism courses have been introduced in various universities across the region (Dipartimento del Turismo, 1996 cited in Airey and Johnson, 1999). Japan is the leader in this field in Asia with a total of 7 Tourism Education Departments being established since 1966 (Koshizucha et al., 1998 cited in Airey and Johnson, 1999). A development that has been emulated by the US, Australia, Europe, and New Zealand with a similar trend being noted in other emerging and developed economy countries. This is a sector growth that has seen an increase in enrollees and simultaneously, teachers, textbooks, journals, conferences, support systems and organizations for tourism education (Airey and Johnson, 1999). This is a growth that has worried the Council for Academic Awards (1993) who made known their unease at the rapid growth in the area. Citing Airey and Johnson, (1999) a lack of common agreement regarding the tourism program curriculum and the lack of basic definitions and parameters within which the course should be taught and developed made the organization worry about the teaching methodology used by the varying universities and educators. As of 1997, this has yet to be agreed upon (Tribe, 1997) due to the ability of the academics to develop its own concepts and approaches. According to Cooper, Scales, and Westlake (1992) this is because the course curriculum tends to take on the knowledge and ability of those teaching the courses involved. WhileKoh (1994) developed studies that indicated the individual influences of the educators had the ability to affect the biases of the professors depending upon their experiences within the tourism industry. Airey (1997) does not see any problem with this type of teaching as the curriculum is in its infancy stages and still has room for perspective and insight development. It was Middleton who pointed out that a lack of definition for the term tourism creates two difficulties for those trying to teach it (Councilf for National Academic Awards, 1993). One of the biggest problems that this non-uniform definition creates is the confusion that it causes for the course applicants, students, and employers. As Koh (1994) explains: if tourism hopes to gain professional recognition, curriculum diversity cannot be allowed to continue because professionalism demands standardization. Jaspers (1997) supported this assumption by indicating the need for an internally harmonized method of tourism education. He offered that there was a need for a core tourism curriculum in order to achieve that harmony. Mor importantly, sans the harmony and core curriculum, it will be difficult for tourism to develop its field as a coherent area of study. Aside from Jaspers, Cooper et al. (1992) also support the need for a standardized tourism education in order to give the subject credibility and focus. A problem that was caused by the modular course programs of the past. As of now, there is very little guidance available to tourism students in terms of a coherent area of study within the field. Middleton and Ladkin (1996) both acknowledge that financial restrictions due to large student enrollees has resulted in universities trying to achieve cost efficiency in the Tourism Education Department. Since tourism is often confused with liesure, recreation, and hospitality, it will be of the utmost importance that the subject focus on retaining its enrolleesand remain relevant in a continuously evolving hospitality field. Tribe has exlained that tourism is not a discipline and as such, packaging it as a discipline is a failure based upon logical grounds (Tribe, 1997). He beleives that Torusim should be described as two fields. One being a business interdisciplinary approach and the other, the non-business elements of Tourism (Tribe, 1997). At present, it is difficult to create a difference between the two courses because students normally combine business / vocational modules with non-business / non-vocational studies. It has been suggested by reports of the HM Inspectorate (1992) and the CNNA (1993:11) through citations by Airey and Johnson (1999) that industrial placements are normal. While Busby et.al (1997) argues that the assumption that was made may be incorrect. Busby believes that courses may be identified at the post graduate level which are vocational, yet not placement experience inclusive. Tribe however, believes otherwise. He beleives that the core body of knowledge for tourism is actually developing around business elements rather than non-business elements. That is because the non-business elements relate more to other related disciplines instead of Tourism itself. Text 2 A core body of knowledge for tourism While the United Kingdom is the first country to have formalized the study of Tourism, the core curriculum that comprises its education has been a point of discussion dating all the way back to when Tourism was first taught as a college course. In the United Kingdom, the early Tourism teachings were influenced by the works of Burkart and Medlik (1974) whose lessons covered 10 chapter headings (see Table 1). In 1981, Nightingale (1980), along with Airey & NIghtingale (1981) developed a study of careers of tourism. Cited in Airey and Johnson (1989), the UK Tourism Society decided to develop its own core body of knowledge (Table 1). The study became the basis of further development and research by Airey and Middleton (1984). Middleton found himself returning to what he believed should be the core curriculum of Tourism in his report for the Council of National Academic Awards (1993). Due to the rapid expansion of degree level provisions for Tourism, it became important to identify seven subject areas for the course. It was int he 1990s when Middleton proposed a minimum core for tourism degrees, which were later refined and was submitted as a document to the national Liason Group for Tourism in Higher Education in the UK (Holloway, 1995). The proposal was well received by the academic institutions. The seven headings may be referred to in Table 1. The three colums of Table 1 represent the most widely accepted and agreed upon understanding of the core body of Tourism Education covering a 20 year period in the United Kingdom. Why is developing a core curriculum for Tourism quite important? Tourism requires more direction and focus as, being a relatively new field of study, its focal points and important fields of study have yet to be established as a series of headings meant to create the field of study for Tourism. However, because the study is neither prescriptive nor restrictive, it becomes evident that the course cannot be open to other topics that may not be related to Tourism as a study. In 1993, a CNAA report in 1993pointed out that 20 percent of the total content of the Tourism course should be composed of core headings (1993). However, the CNAA did not make any reference to the title or importance of the headings. As such, the curriculum developers and organizers are left to come to their own conclusions. This was how the UK came to be supported as the core body of knowledge for Tourism ( Richards, 1993; Holloway, 1995). Make no mistake however, just because there is a measure of support for the core body of knowledge, does not mean that it can be developed without an problems or controversy. The CNAA (1993) supports the claims made in favor of a common core being able to aid in communication and transferability and provide a logical base for subject development. The case the CNAA is trying to make is that these foundations will offer better project development and recognition for the course. Doing so will allow universities to create a stronger foundation for the students studies. These points are better understood by referring to Table 2 for a summary of the points made by the CNAA. Baum (1997) however, opposed the claims made by the CNAA. He argues that the points made by the CNAA would weaken the development of the Tourism curriculum as it would reduce variety and hinder the flexibility and innovation in the field. It would weaken employment possibilities for the graduates as they will be unable to meet the diverse requirements of the industry. The other criticisms of the CNAA opinion have been fully summarized by Johnson (1997) in Table 2. Tribe(1997) identifies a certain distinction in relation to the business and non-business elements of tourism. The understanding is that the course needs to note the headings of the core body of knowledge based upon business elements as these elements are where the studies seem to center. This is a statement that supports Tribes beleive that Tourism should be developed as a field of study. This would ease the apprehensions that exist about the common core relations of the non-business elements. However, the question pertaining to the business elements presents more difficult questions to answer in the process. Read More