This paper was written as a reflection of an online distance learning course for staff experienced in 1998. It looks at the development of 'process' tutoring in one current Web-based course and asks how the authors can move forward to develop templates for collaborative tutoring in the future with new blood staff.
The reality of course development and design is often confusion, conflict, ambiguity and uncertainty. This reality should not be seen as a problem, but as a stimulating and creative environment in which quality course design can flourish.
(Murphy & Taylor, 1993)
The development of our web-based learning environment, NetWorkshop, has not been an easy task. We have had to mediate between the interests of all affected: learners, teachers, tutors, administrators and managers (the players). In many cases expectations have differed greatly from the organiser level up to the user level.
Generally what administrative personnel see as necessary may not always be pedagogically or motivationally meaningful for the learners. According to our experience the understanding of the behaviour and approach of different players can help to organise successful web-based training.
In this paper we will concentrate on different forms of support activities. We will even try to redefine later in this paper the tutoring concept to cover the whole organisational activity, not just the often reported student support role. These reflections come from our experiences in running our Web-based learning environment, NetWorkshop and one particular ongoing course called Kielipuoti.
It has been arranged by two training organisations, the Institute of Extension Studies, Tampere University (TYT), Finland and Language Service Communications OY (LSC) a private English language school also in Tampere. It is funded by the EU. The students' employers pay a nominal fee per participant. The course is open to firms that have less than 250 employees and are locally based. It started in March 1999 and finishes in the spring of the year 2000. A large part of it involves Distance Learning (DL)
Kielipuoti consists of 5 pre-planned elements
Because planning was done well in advance it meant that the resources and support for learning had been initially selected with the students in mind, rather than at hand. DL is very dependent on motivation and support functions within a technological environment. No matter how self-directed learners are, they still need stimulation and meaningful tasks.
When describing the role of technology in educational reform Glennan and Melmed (1996) note the following targets:
The points mentioned above do have an administrative view, at least from the learner's perspective.
To make these objectives a reality to learners we are focussing not just on those who have enrolled but more towards all the players who experience new courses as a learning experience for them too. We are trying to create a seamless model of co-operation between learners, tutors, teachers, administrators and managers.
Computer-based training has gone through many developmental phases. As a relic we have taken the following figure. To show that we still have a vast field with different expectations.
| Mass learning | Individual learning | Group learning | |
| Theoretical basis | Industrial technology | Behavioural psychology | Humanistic psychology, constructivism |
| Model | Economy of scale | Stimulus-response | Group dynamics |
| Emphasis of methods | Hardware | Software | Techniques |
| Results | CCTV; broadcasting | Programmed learning plus derivatives; computer assisted learning | Interpersonal skill sessions, games and simpulations |
Figure 1. Summary of main features of the three phases of educational technology.
Mass learning, has not totally lost it's appeal. When we think about the current progress in the web-based learning environment development, material databases are still sharply in focus. At least from the teacher and management point of view. Reusability, indexing and the combining of educational materials are those key words in material issues. Still, educators interested in contructivism see this often as a threat. Shouldn't it be the learners' right to co-operatively construct questions and answers and this way build material? Do learners really need ready-made material? We personally see communication as the most important function of web-based learning environment. Every task and action should be connected to explanation seeking questions, not only fact-seeking questions and memory-based activity. As Hakkarainen (1996) states:
Traditional learning environments allow a student to manage and even succeed without engaging in an extensive process of thought. Participation in higher-level processes of inquiry tends to require, in traditional learning environments, cognitive efforts very much above what is needed for doing well at school (see Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996). As a consequence, adaptation in current learning environments usually does not tend to elicit reflective thinking, complex cognition or higher-level inquiry (see Norman, 1993; Perkins, 1992; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1996).
What do those players in web-based training expect? How do expectations differ not only from the front line teachers, tutors and learners but also from the whole distance learning team? We need to go beyond a student/learner frame of mind and move towards a player/learner one. So explanation seeking questions and reflective thinking must also infuse the whole process of course development from customer down to management and then back again.
No matter where or when we start a course there is a system in place that is grounded in one tradition or another; in one generation or another; in one paradigm or another. A system includes ways of acting, basic assumptions that go unspoken, beliefs that are entrenched and territories that are defended. Walls can be put up that are either visible or invisible, that are hard or soft. In turn channels are not so open, are blocked or are diverted through difficult terrain:
Management:
Administrators
Teacher
Group/Tutor/
Individual learners
What are those possible walls?
The arena is fraught with potential misunderstandings where experts traditionally stand their ground and selective listening can be the order of the day.
The main task of tutoring, as we see it, is to inspire, maintain and stimulate the learning process. Basically it means to give support to students in learning. Tutoring is normally divided into three categories: face-to-face, distance and peer. Inside these categories there is also a more detailed classification between group and individual tutoring. Our concern for the future is not only to look at learner-centred tutoring where the learner is the student. We intend to broaden our perspective to what we call, for want of a better phrase, 'process tutoring' or 'tutoring in the mud' with all the players.
When the learning environment expanded from the traditional classroom to the network the role of learner and teacher/tutor also changed. Because of limited interaction with teacher/tutor and other learners, those learners now need to be equipped with the knowledge and skills for independent information processing and self-directed learning. In order to achieve this kind of skill and knowledge, support and guidance are important issues. So the tutor's role is to give the right kind of support to the learner. It is not necessary that the tutor is at the same time also a teacher. In the web-based environment there are more participants than only teachers and learners. It is a benefit for us of course that the main tutors are experts in web-based learning but this is not always so. We believe that all the players within the process of a web-based course from management, administration through to technical experts, planners/designers, instruction specialists, content specialists and classroom teachers should have some skills of tutelage. In turn this will take them beyond their own territories, break down the walls or unblock the channels. It is not only important that the course team is a team of experts but also a team of 'tutors'.
The general understanding in the Kielipuoti team is that the web-based course both online and offline is organic and conflictual and that difficulties are challenges not people. So we want to develop the concept in out NetWorkshop that tutoring in web-based learning is not limited to a certain learning content or a specific role but it covers the whole process.
Usually when we consider tutoring, we think about teacher/tutor and learner and their relationship. The web-based learning environment is rather a new thing not only for learners but also the whole team. We are currently assessing how the whole team (tutors, planners, technical experts, content experts, classroom teachers, administrators, management) is working within web-based learning environment and how tutelage can be applied through a process of critical reflection. In this way we can share problems, knowledge and skills and move ahead in the same direction. Our thoughts at this moment centre around the methods to achieve this goal. Kielipuoti is our workshop and assessment our tool.
Weakness 1: no-one is an island and yet the term 'expert' or 'specialist' can create territorial rights and borders. So even in the use of our language we can create a team of individual experts instead of a team. The borders must be erased to the extent that there is created a sense of awareness and accountability. We have noticed that one player's action has a direct effect on the next player in line, the receiver. This action has sometimes been misunderstood; it has also had a domino effect right up to the customer. So we are attempting to put into place a 'template' of process tutoring. Bob Zimmer (1995) wrote about empathy templates in collaborative learning. We are wondering how to evolve similar templates to develop the skills of tutelage in our players in an asynchronous environment. A serious of statements and questions that
For example, a decision maker can invite the one who will be directly affected to enter his or her domain of expertise. He or she will guide that person through the reasons for a particular decision and in turn will ask about the effects of that decision on the receiver and possibly beyond. The initiator may change the decision to accommodate the affected. This method of dialogue requires respect for each another's expertise and therefore breakdown walls within a more problem solving and collaborative atmosphere. Interestingly enough although we at TYT initially scheduled regular face-to-face meetings to develop courses we found that more and more we were collaborating asynchronously on our NetWorkshop bulletin board on a site especially prepared for the course team.
Weakness 2: working in a web-based learning process all learners (students and players) may not have a clear grasp of their activity. So they cannot identify meaning or entity in that environment. The Web is still a new phenomenon for many of us. We started staff training as early as one year ago to familiarise all future Kielipuoti players with Web-based learning. A series of tasks, projects and collaborative exercises were designed on NetWorkshop. During this storming period the learning curve was extremely steep and by the end of the year the team had formed and was performing quite naturally within the environment. We now have an invisible, asynchronous set up for discussion, debate, analysis and reflection within TYT. The tools are the same the customers are using. Every player has now learned through this process to support students to some degree and understand that dilemmas are challenges and not the students as incompetents. We have the tools but we have not yet created templates to put into place for new blood people or old blood people who are entering this environment for the first time.
In the web-based environment these tools can be used for guidance and tutoring. These tools may include e-mail, synchronous or asynchronous discussion forums, or tools for importing or downloading documents. Usually they work quite well, at least technically. The most challenging thing in web-based tutoring is, how to build and maintain interaction which really supports learning and how to make sure that tutoring is continually available? If we can develop future staff as reflective learners and as tutors with empathy then all of us will have the flexibility to understand the pedagogical support that our students need now and in future courses.
One main issue, we have realised over the past year of training ourselves, is that all learners should feel safe and comfortable using the new learning environment. Clear and simple enough instructions must be available for every learner.
Another issue is sense of audience and interaction with other learners. The tutor's role is to develop communication practices and encourage learners to use them efficiently. It is important that the learners do not feel alone on the web but share the environment and knowledge with many other learners.
The third issue is that learners should not be left alone by teachers or tutors. Tutors should take care of each learner and make sure that their skills and motivation are at an adequate level. This can be done for example by asking provoking questions, asking learners opinions and by following what learners really do in the network learning environment. When they need support during their learning process, support must be available quickly so that they can continue the learning process.
In addition to pedagogical support there are many other critical issues using this new environment. Technological issues could be one problem and learners might need more or less help with it. It is possible that there is also one tutor who will concentrate on technical problems.
One of the tutor's tasks can be seen as marketing; to help learners see the real benefits of using this kind of new environment. It is obvious that if learners do not see the benefit or additional advantage of this environment they won't use it. Especially when we think about adult learners, their time for learning is limited, because of work-life and family. If they feel that they cannot learn through the web-based environment, they will not waste their valuable time.
The tutor must provide the right kind of tools for distance tutoring and communication. These tools could be mental, but also technical. NetWorkshop seems to be one solution. Through NetWorkshop a tutor can give assistance while the learners are in distant locations working with traditional and online learning material.
How can the tutor interact with learners in Net Workshop? In our opinion, at first a tutor could support discussions on certain topics and respond to learners' comments. Also the discussion before and after contact period or tele-learning, sessions should take place in this forum. Secondly, a tutor might introduce teachers, schedules and new topics (in the bulletin board). Thirdly, a tutor should keep the interface updated and attach interesting learning material (in the database).
Though the interaction between student and tutor will be only written, usage of both synchronous and asynchronous group discussion extends possibilities of the tutoring forum. In this developing process we still should remember that learner's learning process is always the main issue. Thus the choice to be made is not "what technology", but "what kind of learning and teaching" we want to provide.
Ms Riikka Pajunen, M.Ed.
riikka.pajunen@uta.fi
Mr Mikko Ahonen, M.Ed.
mikko.ahonen@uta.fi
Tampere University, Institute for Extension Studies
P.O.BOX 607,
FIN-33101 Tampere
Brian Joyce, Diploma O&DE (OU(UK))
lsc@sci.fi
Language Service Communications Oy
Näsilinnankatu 22A34
33210 Tampere
Finland