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