Read: Richardson, J. (2009) Face-to-Face Versus Online Tutoring Support in Humanities Courses in Distance Education , Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 2009; 8; 69 -85 http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/69 (accessed 6th May 2009)
This article tested the Price et al findings, by testing the different evaluations of students on 2 different humanities courses, delivered in the 2 different ways. The results found that PRices’ claims were pretty much valid and that the reasons why there were some negative comments about online tutoring on Price’s multidiscplinary courses was as he suggested, due to the fact the tutors are less competent at covering a multidiscplinary course than a single subject that they are an expert in.
1. Bearing in mind what I said earlier about the role of rhetoric in reports of educational research, do you find my conclusion – that institutions can feel confident about exploring the use of online forms of tutorial support – a convincing one?
I find this article very easy to read. I admit to jumping past the methodology and results sections as for me the most important bits are the introduction and discussion; but this shows in a way how we have to rely on the robust activities of authors if we are to skim through such articles. Hence relying on peer reviewed journals only is advisable. I did found the conclusion convincing in the context of these two courses; but the end results of the students weren’t obvious in the sections I read, just their opinions. I do challenge the fact, which the author admits, that you cannot force students to take one type of course over an other so to really measure the differences is difficult.
2. How do the accounts given in these two papers fit with your own experience of online tutorial support in H800?
Well it wasn’t until I read Richardson(2009) that I realised the online tutorial being written about was an asynchronous tutorial; I really thought Price was talking about an online tutorial like Elluminate. So first, there is a need to define the terminology used in each article to be sure you interpret the findings for your own context correctly.
In my experience of H800, I have found the online tutorial support (ie the forums) to be excellent. The things that are important to me are the tutor seeming to be “ever present” and participating in the forum with us; a evidence commitment to our success (eg feedback and opportunties to ask questions about TMAs); taking opportunities to let students take the lead. My experience on H800 has been far better than the 2 other online supported OU courses I’ve done; now would that mean if I did the RASI and the CEQ on these courses, my scores would not concur with the ressearch results here. Or are the tutors on this course working extra hard as they knew that in Week 12 we’d be critiquing their input like this.
What is interesting that with my current tutor, I feel quite comfortable in being honest and direct with her. As we read earlier in the course, about students feeling more comfortable with being less reserved in online forums, this can be common. But I’m not sure if it’s just her style of tutoring that invites this informal participative approach in me or if it is because it’s an online forum.
Richardson’s research found that people’s choices around taking face-to-face versus onlnie tutored courses was because, mainly, a feeling of comfort or not with technology, levels of flexibility enabled by the asynchronous tutorial and access to technology or disability issues. Where people felt less comfortable with online work, or as we have at work people who think “it’s not the same” – we need to overcome is people’s attitudes to online working. If they’ve never experienced it before to the extent that they have experienced face to face teaching then how can they make that assumption. People are always going to be more comfortable with what they know best.
I’m not surprised that the Openings course had less deep learning and more negative opinions about assessment as these courses are aimed the education-shy/deprived.
I’m certain that Richardson’s writing style has something to do with my favourable opinion of this article, if you compare it to the agressive nature of one of the debaters in the Economist debate who alienated me because of his approach.