draft+idea+for+tutor+experience

Another issue which we considered important is ‘tutor experience’; that is the experience Christina had of working as a tutor on this course. We are interested in how her pedagogical approach/approaches influenced her perceived role as an e-moderator/facilitator/tutor/educator and thus her overall experience of running the course. Stephenson (2001) explores pedagogies for (online) learning and in one chapter looks at adopting an experiential learning approach, another on constructivist pedagogies and another on 'learner managed' spaces.
 * Tutor experience**

Do we need to expand more on pedagogies here?

Packham //et al//. (2006) considered that students and tutors may have a broadly similar view to what constitutes effective on-line moderation, including the importance of constructive feedback, although students may be concerned with how the moderator supports them to engage with the learning environment, through providing support and effective module management, whereas tutors may be more focussed on the factors that enable learning.

Early descriptions viewed the online teacher role in terms of social, cognitive and pedagogical facilitation (Mason 1991). The role of the tutor has also been identified as: a designer and administrator of the educational experience; the facilitator and co-creator of a social environment; and a subject matter expert, able to be proactive in ‘scaffolding’ learning experiences (Anderson //et al.// 2001). In contrast, Salmon (2000) emphasised the facilitative rather than tutorial or expert role of the online teacher and provided a five-stage model for e-moderation. This includes: access and motivation; socialisation and 'community building'; information exchange; student responsibility for knowledge construction; and finally a development stage where participants are involved in reflection and assessment and become responsible for their own learning (Salmon 2000). The concept of a community of inquiry as a conceptual framework for online learning has also been viewed as incorporating cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence (Garrison and Anderson 2003).

Vlachopoulos & Cowan (2010a) suggest that facilitation involves the use of interventions to encourage student engagement with the aim of achieving the overall learning outcomes. However they argued that there is little evidence to indicate how tutors choose particular facilitative approaches and recognise that it is not simply appropriate to replicate face to face approaches for online learning (Garrison and Anderson 2003). In particular, teachers need to be able to //‘understand and exploit the strengths of// approaches such as asynchronous discussions (Vlachopoulos & Cowan 2010a, p.215). In their grounded theory study the authors collected data from the transcripts of an online discussion board, identifying and comparing the strategies used by the tutors in their moderating role (Vlachopoulos & Cowan 2010a). A variety of types of interventions were undertaken by the e-moderators and tutors iteratively modified their approaches to e-moderation, drawing on similar principles used in face-to-face teaching.

In another research study, Connolly, Jones & Jones (2007) explored the experiences of a group of tutors newly engaged in a major e-learning project. The authors considered that online learning requires a strong pedagogical strategy, integrating a good understanding of the technological affordances of the approaches taken. However, again it was recognised that tutors new to e-learning tended to rely on what they know about face-to-face teaching (Hodgson and Watland 2004, p. 115). In the research, data were generated using focus groups, questionnaires and observation (Connelly, Jones & Jones 2007). The findings indicated that tutors did not feel they had control over their course material as it was prepared for online use and were somewhat disappointed when they initially saw that it lacked the ‘bells and whistles’ that they had expected. However, working with instructional designers they developed the modules to become more engaging and interactive. It appears that over a period of time, approaches to assessment were re-evaluated and a more effective balance between learning activities and time for completion was sought. Similar to other studies, the style of tutoring online was a personal one, and practice varied amongst tutors, for example, in moderating discussion boards. The researchers argued for clearer specification of the tutor role, and opportunities for staff development in this key aspect of online education, particularly given that most tutors found the online approach particularly time-consuming specifically because of the additional pastoral care and encouragement that some e-learning students require.

In terms of Christina’s experience of running her course there are several considerations. It is possible that at this stage of running the course, Christina was fairly new to this approach- she gave the impression that she had recently undertaken an 8 week course herself- and she was perhaps still ‘finding her feet’ as an e-moderator. As such, she appeared to have cast herself in the role of subject expert, and she was certainly brimming with enthusiasm for the subject, providing students with what appears to be fairly substantial amounts of information and instruction. It is not clear if she had the opportunity to reflect on her experiences and consider how she might adapt and develop.

More.....


 * References (incomplete)**

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001) Assessing teacher presences in a computer conferenceing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5 (2), pp.1-15.

Connolly, M., Jones, C. & Jones, N. (2007) New approaches, new vision: capturing teacher experiences in a brave new online world. Open learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and eLearning 22 (1), p.43-56

Garrison, D. & Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st century. London: Routledge Falmer

Mason, R. (1991) Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS

Packham, G., Jones, P., Thomas, B. & Miller, C (2006) "Student and tutor perspectives of on-line moderation", Education + Training, Vol. 48 Iss: 4, pp.241 – 251

Salmon (2000)

Smyth, K. & Mainka, C. (2010) P Pedagogy and learning technology: a practical guide. Edinburgh Napier University ? required

Stephenson, J. (2001) Teaching & learning online: pedagogies for new technologies Vlachopoulos, P. & Cowan, J. (2010a) Choices of approaches in e-moderation: Conclusions from a grounded theory study. Active Learning in Higher Education 11 (3), pp.213-244.

Vlachopoulos, P. & Cowan, J. (2010b) Clark,R C. & Mayer, R.E. (2008) E-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, Calif. : Pfeiffer Craighlockhart- 658.312402854678 CLA – not sure if helpful and might get out of library Litteljohn and Pegler – to check