A4: Reading Richardson (2009)

Face to Face versus online tutoring support  in humanities.

Two years after helping to write the previous paper, Richardson presents us with a new paper about online tutors, within humanities courses. On reading this Richardson (who is also the author of this week’s module materials) asks us to consider the rhetoric that is being used to ‘convince us’ of his argument.

Summary

In the opening Richardson tells us that the move towards electronic materials mirrors the move towards online support. (note that there is not much data here – more of a personal perception. However having seen that this is Richardson’s area of study, I feel more comfortable with these implied suggestions).

Alexander (2001) – 3 factors that influence the student experience – communication and support from student, time available to devote to course and the students level of experience and expertise in ICT. (Richardson does provide us with some back up research to support these ideas).

Basically Richardson moves on the Price et al study and asks more questions about the difference in the quality of the student experience when provided with online rather than face-to-face support. It’s interesting that he states there is some anecdotal support the viewpoint in the Price et al paper (does this phrase anecdotal undermine the findings?) but that it is limited in the research it did as it was a single course and multi disciplinary etc. (All points that are pointed out towards the end of the price paper.) The result – that there is no real difference in the perceived quality of online versus f2f support.

So, here Richardson will use a quantative survey for 2 courses (not sure HOW just one extra course might add more weight – or maybe I am being harsh?!) So we have a humanities course(entry level) and a literature course(honours level), each of 9 months duration. Tutorial support was either f2f(14/16 hours), contact by telephone and email or online through mediated conferencing and email – with tutor using their own discretion as to how this time was allocated. The tutors who did the online tuition were experienced f2f tutors, and underwent training for online tuition (although it doesn’t directly state what this training was). Students received a postal survey (2007) – part Course Experience Questionnaire and part Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory – and students were also asked why they chose online or f2f. Once again they were asked about the course as a whole rather than Units, topics, or tutors.

Results – 616 students completed (48% response rate). 70% female, 30% males. F2f – 50% online 45.9%

Why choose f2f? – because I prefer it(67%), because I don’t have reliable access(19%) and because I didn’t know about the online support(11%). Also mentions lack of confidence in own skills, and the need for personal contact with others. (something that we highlighted in the forums and conferencing last week.)

Why choose online? Prefer online (54%), other commitments mean cant make f2f (22%)….also mentioned need for flexible approach, other commitments or disabilities.

Richardson highlights some previous research (2005) that had been done with OU students – which is a useful summary of the general characteristics of OU students. (interestingly most score highly on the deep or strategic approaches.) It should be noted that the students ‘chose’ online or f2f, so there will be some personal motivation in using the particular tuition – they were also briefed on the aims and objectives of tutorial – so probably had a better understanding of the support they should receive.

What Richardson has done is taken some of the questions from Price et al and created a more ‘focused research’, so that questions about tutor training, perceptions of tuition and choice of medium have been addressed – which may suggest that some of the reasons/discussions around the outcomes of the Price et al’s study have been addressed.

Activity 4

Do you find my conclusion – that institutions can feel confident about exploring the use of online forms of tutorial support – a convincing one?

Probably. I think if I was reading this in isolation I may have more questions. But this is, like much of Richardson’s work , about going deeper into previous assumptions. I think that the paper does suggest that thinking about the right approach helps – the students were given expectations and choice, the teachers given training. But what about if there isn’t choice? What if it’s mandatory? What if these humanities teachers are better at adapting than others? Although this paper does address some of the previous points, it still is a very small study.


Richardson, J.T.E. (2009) ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in distance education’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, vol.8, no.1, pp.69–85

Reading Richardson

‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education’. Richardson (2005)

Summary of content.

Richardson's paper brings together a number of theories and research that looks at how learners and teachers approach education. He notes that past research has stated that learners adopt difference approaches depending on the demands of the course, the quality of the teaching and the nature of the assessment, but also brings into play a discussion around their understanding/conceptions of learning. Back in week four we started thinking about this and highlighted that a personals social background/ history/ how learners have been taught before may affect the way they see learning. So we pick up these ideas again with Richardson asking if student’s contextual factors effect their perceptions of learning. This also picks up on some of the discussions in week 11 on the global digital divide, and whether some social inadequacies need to be overcome before one worries about educational digital divides.

Theories

‘Interview-based research carried out in Britain and Sweden during the 1970s had identified three predominant approaches to studying in higher education: a deep approach, based upon understanding the meaning of course materials; a surface approach, based upon memorising the course materials for the purposes of assessment; and a strategic approach, based upon obtaining the highest grades.’(p674, Richardson,2005)

Richardson then picks up a number theories from Marton (1976), Säljö (1979) and Kember (1997).

Marton (1976) – deep approach students take a more active role and see learning as something they do (possible links here with the Participation metaphors). Surface learners take a more passive role, and often see learning as something that happens to them. (acquisition?)

Säljö (1979) – Conceptions of learning

1. increase of knowledge
2. memorizing
3. acquisition of facts o procedure
4. abstraction of meaning
5. interpretative process aimed at understanding reality

1 – 3 >surface learning; 2-5 >deep learning, and possibly seen more in older learners.

(Van Rossum & Taylor(1987) added a 6. conscious process, fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony and happiness and changing society – which could be linked to Marton et al (1993) changing as a person)

Kember (1997)

Teachers conceptions of teaching:

1. imparting information
2. transmitting structured knowledge
3. an interaction between teacher and student
4. facilitating understanding on part of student
5. bringing about conceptual change and intellectual development in students

Prosser and Trigwell (1993)

Deep understanding – teachers tend to be student focused. Also these teachers tend to report departments that value teaching, lower class sizes and control over what they taught. (this mirrors some of the discussion in week one, about what education is for, and that organizational structures and environments can effect the perceived quality of teaching. Less flexibility tends to impede teachers becoming more student focused even if they want to be)

Research methods

Richardson also introduces us to a number of research tools.

Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983)

Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987).

Course Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1991) (australian example 2001)

Approach to Teaching Inventory (Prosser and Trigwell, 1993)

Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) ‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching in higher education’, Educational Psychology, vol.25, no. 6, pp.673–80;

Teaching/reaching the Net Generation

“The Net Generation and Digital Natives – these seductive terms need to be approached carefully. This is not to say that statements about different age groups are useless, but to argue that as practitioners and researchers we need to keep gathering and analysing evidence about how people use technologies in learning." (Pettit, 2011)

The interview, conducted by John Pettit, (the author of our week 1 guidance, so it was nice to hear his voice)  and paper we were given to read focuses on research into the behaviour of First year students within three Australian Universities. IN the interview Kennedy expalins that the research was in part to answer Prensky’s ‘Google Generation’ and also a univeristy stragetic document that had talked about how the university was going to engage with the ‘digital natives’. Kennedy explains that he was skeptical to start with, and unsure whether claims that young peoples minds had been changed could be true, so he wanted to investigate.

After the pilot study they choose 3 institutions, each being slightly different and gathered both statistical dat through a survey and anecdotal data through focus groups. It was an interesting point made by Kennedy that most Australian Universities have some form of distance learning elements to them. Also a good approach combining the different subjective and objective methods. Kennedy also notes that the teachers were also involved in the research.

The findings were varied and somewhat surprising. The research identified that there were clearly students who were completely unaware of some of the technologies. There were core sets of technologies that students understood and used, like instant messagig and mobile phones, but then the rest varied a great deal. IT also highlighted that in some areas, teachers were more proficient than the students, thus staff may be ahead in information literacy, often because they need to be as part of their job.

Kennedy’s obversations were that even though there may not be a consistancy in the technologies that students were used to, but it didn’t mean that these technologies should not be used. What you might do is change the way you use the technologies and think about the access and previous experience of students when using them – thus a need to be mindful of the diversity of students. We should not make assumptions that students may be proficient in some areas and we should also be mindful that it is not the student who normally decides what technology will be used. We need to use the tools, skills and experience of both staff and students in the most effective way.

"Evidence of who our students are must remain an important factor in informing how we use the array of technological tools at our disposal to design rich and engaging experiences for all students” (Kennedy et al, 2008)

Kennedy, G.E., Judd, T.S, Churchward, A. and Gray, K. (2008) ‘First-year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives?’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol.24, no.1, pp.108–22; also available online at http://routes.open.ac.uk/ ixbin/ hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=routes&_IXSPFX_=g&submit-button=summary&%24+with+res_id+is+res18618 (last accessed 7th February 2012).