By: Marion Bowman, LDU, University of Bradford For : ALDinHE 13:00 -14:00 Wed 4 April

1. Learner Development Unit 5.4a: One-to-one support for academic writing: Face-to-face versus e-advice By: Marion Bowman, LDU, University of Bradford For: ALDinHE 13:00 -14:00 Wed 4 April Contact: m.bowman@bradford.ac.uk

2. Icebreaker: E-advice howlers ‘Justice and violence are the different sides of the same walnut.’ ‘Marriage is considered as scared in religious terms.’ ‘As a professional we are accountable for our actions and emissions.'

3. Format of presentation • Welcome to the LDU: we prioritise 1:1’s • The debate: 1:1 face-to-face vs. 1:1 e-advice

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 1. Welcome to the LDU: Prioritising 1:1 appointments Triage ‘in relationship’ Very close teamwork 5 advisers Discussions about individual cases Boundaries managed ‘in relationship’* *(Symons and Wheeler, 2005)

7. 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),

8. Welcome to the LDU: Our students This data = self-referred students only, excl. bespokes in Schools, excl. PHD’s • University of Bradford (UoB): Context: • small university, approx. 9000students (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

9. 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

10. 1. Welcome to the LDU: Survey results

11. 1. Welcome to the LDU: Survey results

12. 1. Welcome to the LDU: Survey results Usefulness of different services: e-advice v F2F

13. 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

14. 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

15. 2. The debate: Typology of clients Number of AS 1:1 interactions: F2F = 1069 v e-advice = 354 (1 Sept 2011 till 27 March 2012) both 284 114 563

16. 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.

17. 2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The Student perspective F2F clients on F2F: Sample = 12

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

19. 2. The debate: F2F v e-advice: E-advice clients E-advice clients: Which do you prefer (F2F or e-advice): (Sample = 8)

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

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

22. 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)

23. 2. The debate: F2F v e-advice: Advisers on F2F: Advisers starting point: “There is a place for both (e and F2F)” “Holistic provision is very important”

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

25. 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)

26. 2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The literature 2 ‘soft scaffolding’ to overcome barriers

27. 2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The literature 3 • “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)

28. 2. The debate: F2F v e-adv: The literature 4 In the mid-1990’s…. (Goodfellow, 2007) Issues of T & L started to be taken seriously Massification of HE New technologies Government funding E-learning as dominant paradigm @ institution level Possible pressure to reduce F2F support

29. 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.”

30. Questions? Any questions?

31. 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.

32. The LDU 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