Wk12, A4

Notes on Richardson (2009)

• As with Price et al (2007), this data was collected using the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)/ RASI tools, and uses similar methodology in the parameters and constant for data gathering and comparison, but in these data no significant difference between quality of f2f and online was found.

• It is suggested (p.82) that Price et al (2007) yielded the results it did because of the ‘particular demands of a multidisciplinary course.’ This is because students have adiopted similar approaches to studying – however, is this not directed by the activities set, the assessment tasks and the expectations of the dicpline? It is later argued that broad attitudes to studying remained the same regardless of mode – in an attempt to mitigate a weakness in the data that referred to the predisposition of the learner to work online or f2f. However, given that the discpline, content, assessment etc were the same I didn’t think this was particularly surprising.

–

Richardson, J.T.E. (2009) ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in distance education’, Arts and humanities in higher education, Vol. 8, No.1 pp.69–81 [online] Available from: http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/69 (accessed 7 May 2009)

Wk12, A3

Notes from Price et al, (2007)

• I sometimes find it a little difficult to get around statistical analysis because I think it can overlook some of the human subtleties inherent in teaching and learning, but I understood it in the context of this article. There is certainly a convincing pattern in the data, and it is not contrived as it is removed from the context. The authors are careful to disclaim methodological anomalies.

• The questions in the survey seem to be designed to extract affective responses in a simplified way. These are a mechanism for capturing the learner experience and use the Lawless & Richardson’s (2002) version of the ‘Course Experience Questionnaire’ (CEQ). So I got the impression that this was quite a good mechanism for capturing statistical data on the learner experience.

• The value of pastoral care is significant as it reflects the learner’s notion of wehat their learning experience will be. They expect things of their tutors and therefore the learning experience. The data reveals that students perceive this to be less effective online. To an extent this mirrors my own experience. I am far more reliant on self-motivation, self- and peer-assessment/feedback through reflection. Perhaps I am subconsciously building mechanisms to support my own learning because I have certain beliefs and expectations about how I learn online, and what my relationships with other people will be also.

• Student beliefs about teaching seem to reamin the same regardless of delivery mode. As the article suggests, perhaps it is down to tutors not fully understanding how to deliver on these expectations when online. The authors suggest that one factor in this is the trend to deliver technical support training rather that pedagogy. I think that it is about a clash between expectations, and understanding what is practically possible online. The article’s conclusion suggests online successful communication is the underpinning factor that will enable learners to see online learning as successful as face-to-face.

–

Price, L., Richardson, J.T.E. and Jelfs, A. (2007) ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education’, Studies in higher education, Vol. 32, No. 1. pp.1–20 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004366 (accessed 7 May 2009)