By: Marion Bowman, LDU, University of Bradford

For: ALDinHE 13:00 -14:00 Wed 4 April

Contact: m.bowman@bradford.ac.uk

Learner Development Unit

5.4a: One-to-one support for academic writing:

Face-to-face versus e-advice

Icebreaker: E-advice howlers

‘Justice and violence are the different sides of the same

walnut.’

‘As a professional we are accountable for our actions

and emissions.'

‘Marriage is considered as scared in religious terms.’

Format of presentation

1. Welcome to the LDU: we prioritise 1:1’s

2. The debate: 1:1 face-to-face vs. 1:1 e-advice

1. Welcome to the LDU: Origins

• The LDU was set up 6 years ago• It grew out of student development in Careers• Was set up to meet a need for greater individual face-to-

face support • Ethos: friendly ‘can-do’ service• Emphasis on individual client management on a case by

case basis through discussion

• Physical set up: reception area and client rooms (analogous to a counselling unit / doctor’s surgery)

1. Welcome to the LDU: Range of provision

• Academic / Maths / Interpersonal Advice

• Mainly: One-to-one advice

(Appointments / drop-in / e-advice / telephone)

• Also: Generic workshops, bespoke sessions, resources, web resources.

1. Welcome to the LDU: Prioritising 1:1 appointments

Boundaries managed ‘in relationship’*

Very close teamwork 5 advisers

Discussions about

individual cases

Triage ‘in relationship’

*(Symons and Wheeler, 2005)

1. Welcome to the LDU: Why we prioritise 1:1’s?

• 2 key studies: Bloom (1984) (school) & Cohen et.al.(1982) (LR). • Bloom’s (1984) 1:1 tutoring = 2 SD units more effective than

classroom teaching. • Cohen et.al.’s (1982) 1:1 tutored students outperformed control in

exams and positive attitude to studies.• Subsequent research on 1:1 learning = further support effectiveness• 1:1 > effective than conv. teaching even if tutors untrained (Graesser, et.al.,

1995).

• But there is variation in the effectiveness of tutors• Personal qualities of most effective tutors = empathy,

- the ability to communicate at the level of the student, - the ability to create an atmosphere of trust to encourage questions

(Grasser, et.al., 1995; Grasha, 2002).

- Possibly also good subject knowledge (Schmidt and Moust, 1995),

1. Welcome to the LDU: Our students

University of Bradford (UoB): Context:

- small university, approx. 9000 students (FT/PT not sandwich not PHD or PGR, SoM 1400)

- mostly ESL students, many mature & international std’s (25%), also

large proportion British Asian home std’s

This data = self-referred students only, excl. bespokes in Schools, excl. PHD’s

1. Welcome to the LDU: Self-referral model

Over-represented:

• Female students (Academic skills); Male students (Maths)

• PG international students; mature students

• AS: Health/Social Sciences/Life long learning: LDU 10% >

• Maths: Engineering and Life Science: LDU 2-3% >

Under-represented:

• Management (off site): 4% LDU : 35 % UoB and Computing

• Males (Academic Skills) from Computing and Engineering

1. Welcome to the LDU: Survey results

1. Welcome to the LDU: Survey results

Usefulness of different services:

e-advice v F2F

1. Welcome to the LDU: Survey results

2. The debate: F2F v e-advice: Our current provision

• 45 min real time apptmnts• Unseen draft and brief• Dedicated client rooms

• 3 working day turnaround• Annotations + overview email• 30 - 40 mins per piece

2. The debate: F2F v e-advice: E-advice: what it looks like

with a cover email pointing out overall strengths and points for improvement

2. The debate: Typology of clients

F2Fe-advice 114

Number of AS 1:1 interactions: F2F = 1069 v e-advice = 354

(1 Sept 2011 till 27 March 2012)

284 563

both

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: Discussion

Activity:

• Have a read through the raw data from the e-advice students.

• Discuss the e-advice v F2F points raised with your colleagues.

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The Student perspective

Reason for preferring Face to Face Number of times mentioned

Can ask questions / clarify 7

Greater connection / interaction / body language 4

Easier to understand 3

Get quick answers / real time / there and then 3

Earlier stage: assignment brief / structuring essay 2

Better for verbal understanding 1

Something new could come up can discuss it then and there 1

Get handout sheets as well (GSP) 1

Better for general advice 1

F2F clients on F2F: Sample = 12

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: F2F clients on e-advice

Questions Responses

E-advice certaincircumstances?

No

Only if no other options, or in an emergency, or if the LDU is closed

During holiday week, reading week, placement week or at a distance needing urgent advice

If I have short / specific questions, or want limited answers

If my essay is at a more complete stage / near completion of essay

Negatives: e-adv Not as easy to understand – you just get notes

Time consuming - as have to ask for more info if you don’t understand

2. The debate: F2F v e-advice: E-advice clients

Preferences No. Reasons

Prefer e-advice 3 • Written record to refer to later• Convenience• Useful • Quick / faster than F2F• More detailed

No clear preference – like both

3 • Will use E-advise when busy or adviser not avail.• Like both • F2F better at start of assignment, e-advice better at end.

Prefer F2F 2 • Use e-advice only if F2F is inaccessible (School of Management; only on campus 2 days a week)

E-advice clients: Which do you prefer (F2F or e-advice): (Sample = 8)

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: e-advice clients

Questions Responses

Disadvantage of F2F

You have to keep your own notes

It takes longer to book a F2F appointment

The particular adviser you want to see is not always available

Advantages of F2F

A lot of advice can be obtained

Can ask questions then and there (x2)

Better for understanding (x2)

Adviser can ask me questions about what I aim to do; dialogue (x2)

Better at the start of the assignment

• F2F students unanimous about preferring F2F

• E-advice students divided on preferences

• Adv of F2F = primarily better understanding (questions + interaction)

• Adv of e-advice = can be used when F2F inaccessible

• E-advice may be better at later stage of assignment writing process or for specific queries

• There are differences in perceptions of how fast / convenient F2F is v e-advice

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: Conclusions: Client persp.

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: A student’s conclusion

“You need both modes for students to choose, if you eliminate one, some students will feel squeezed”

(Student response)

2. The debate: F2F v e-advice: Advisers on F2F:

F2F Advantages F2F Disadvantages

More to ‘feed off’ (interaction), more soft scaffolding, customised support

Could run out of time, may get through less

Rapport, direct personal connection May not suit all clients

Very important for motivation / confidence / reassurance

Understanding: concept checking questions, can see if std doesn’t understand

Easier to set correct tone for interaction

Advisers starting point: “There is a place for both (e and F2F)”

“Holistic provision is very important”

2. The debate: F2F v e-advice: Advisers on e-advice:

E-advice Advantages E-advice Disadvantages

Convenience, manage service provision

Could set wrong tone, affect confidence (pos v neg comments)

Notes student can re-read, memory Fewer referrals and triage?

Easier boundaries management than F2F?

Advice v feedback v proofreading?

More suited to high achieving client / reluctant client?

Difficulties weaning off dependency?

Can read through and decide focus? Prefer F2F first then e-advice? Otherwise less customised.

Converting clients from e-advice to F2F = more common. (reasons: meaningless text, baffled as to what client did / meant)

Converting clients from F2F to e-advice = less common (reasons include: defensiveness, talkativeness, dyslexia)

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The literature 1

Acc. to Clark (2004), E-learning generally involves:• More reading: less listening • More writing: less speaking • More formal: less informal communication • Thus, a different set of competencies is required

“Interaction online – without eye contact, tonal inflections and the ability to adjust on the basis of ongoing feedback” “…language is the sole source of communication” (impoverished medium) (Menchik and Tian, 2008, p. 3)

However, successful e-communication is possible (users respond to cues (emphasizing, characterization, reference)

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The literature 2

‘soft scaffolding’ to overcome barriers

• “e-learning is becoming one of the dominant paradigms for T and L in the 21st century” (Lea, 2007)

• “e-learning is less concerned with ….learning through engagement with disciplinary bodies of knowledge [and is more concerned with] the management of knowledge” (Lea, 2007, p. 22)

• Examples: VLE, moodle, Blackboard, = merging of pedagogy and management of learning (Lea, 2007)

• Gap between academic lecturers, subject content and institutions focus on systems of managing learning (Goodfellow, 2007)

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The literature 3

In the mid-1990’s…. (Goodfellow, 2007)

Massification of HE

Issues of T & L started to be taken seriously New

technologiesGovernment funding

E-learning as dominant paradigm @ institution level

Possible pressure to reduce F2F support

2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The literature 4

Conclusions

• Face to face provision arguably higher value for understanding, confidence and development

(students, advisers, literature)

• But e-advice adds value (for particular clients, certain situations, certain stages, for managing demand).

• “Aim for equality and parity of provision (e-advice and F2F) but acknowledge that by its very nature, e-advice is predicated on different features.”

• “Holistic provision very important, resist massification pressures from above, > numbers is not > quality.”

Questions?

Any questions?

References

• Beard, C. and Wilson, J.P. 2004. The power of experiential learning, London: Kogan Page.

• Bloom, B. S. 1984. The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring, Educational Researcher, 13 (6), pp.4 – 16.

• Clarke, 2004 A. E-learning skills, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A. and Kulik, C-L, C. 1982. Educational outcomes of Tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings, American Educational Research Journal, 19 (2), pp. 237 – 248.

• Graesser, A.C., Person, N.K. and Magliano, J.P.1995. Collaborative dialogue pattens in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, pp.495-522.

•  • Grasha, A.F. 2002. The dynamics of one-to-one teaching, College Teaching, 50 [Online] Available at:

www.questia.com. [Accessed on: 22 January 2010].

• Goodfellow, R. 2007. Learning technologies in the university from tools for learning to sites of practice, in eds. Goodfellow, R. and Lea, M.R. 2007. Challenging e-learning in the university, Maidenhead: Open University Press

• Lea, M. R. 2007. Approaches to learning: developing e-learning agendas, in eds. Goodfellow, R. and Lea, M.R. 2007. Challenging e-learning in the university, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

• Menchik, D.A. and Tian, X. 2008. Putting social context into text: The semiotics of email interaction, American Journal of Sociology, 114 (2) p.332-359.

• Schmidt, H.G. and Moust, H.C. 1995. What makes a tutor effective? A structural-equations modeling approach to learning in problem–based curricula, Academic Medicine, 70 (8), 708 – 714.

• Symons, C. And Wheeler, S. 2005. Counsellor conflict in managing the frame: Dilemmas and decisions, Counselling and psychotherapy research, 5 (1), 19-25.

Contact Details

• Learner Development Unit (LDU)– www.brad.ac.uk/learner-development

– learner-development@brad.ac.uk

– 01274 236849 (general enquiries)

– Chesham building B0.23

The LDU