Developing tutoring craft through cross-institutional peer exchange: Reflections on the inaugural Waikato-York programme

Richard WalkerHead of E-Learning Development

University of York, UK

DEANZ Conference 2016: 17-20 April 2016Images: Rachel Clarke and James Rowan

Developing online tutoring craft: Some challenges

Pace of change – alignment of teaching methods with tools to support student learning

Adaptation from classroom to online practice: ‘unlearning’ of traditional pedagogy (McWilliam)

– …and yet majority of tutors have limited or no background of online learning experience to draw upon (Bennett & Marsh, 2002)

Defining and shaping tutor identity i.e. ‘online teaching persona’ (Harper & Nicolson, 2012) and tutoring strategies

Re-envisioning of instructional role and different dimensions of instructional support to facilitate student learning (Danielsen & Nielson, 2012)

Putting pedagogy first in tutor development

Shift of emphasis from ‘how to’ (technology first) to a critical review of instructional design

Focus on process of learning: facilitating and supporting student learning.

A re-examination of approaches to teaching and learning, exploring full potential of technologies to support different pedagogical models (Kirkwood & Price; 2012)

How can peer observation contribute to tutors’ professional development?

non-judgemental / constructive dialogueon tutoring practice

opportunity to define tutoring approach and address development needs through critical dialogue and sharing of perspectives(McMahon, Barrett & O’Neill, 2007) – colleagues as mirrors, mentors or critical friends

(Brookfield, 1995)

empowering to participants– control of objectives for observation– freedom to determine mode of participation

(observer and/or observee)

Why cross-institutional peer observation?

“…an opportunity to have a rethink about things and work with someone I have never worked with before, so there was no institutional agenda at work here, it was about growing ourselves”

“…getting experience of the external culture of an institution – that was motivating. It is important to keep abreast of developments in distance learning in other institutions, to see whether the way they do things could benefit our own students.”

Waikato TutorYork Tutor

Design of the 2015 Waikato-York cross-institutional programme

Shared features with COOLAID model(Bennett, Lee, Lynch & Howard, 2010)

Features specific to Waikato-York programme

Choice over:• Participation (opt-in)• Focus of observation• Form of feedback• Future action

Choice over:• Institution (internal or

external partner)• Role (observer and/or

observee)

No choice over:• Selection of partner -

although preferences over discipline & tutoring experience considered where possible

Putting pedagogy first in tutor development

8 pairings between York and Waikato tutors; 1 York – York pairing 7 reciprocal pairings; 2 pairings focusing on ‘one-way’ observations

York participants Waikato participants

• Public Policy & Management (x3)

• Health Economics (x3)

• Applied Human Rights (x2)

• Education: Teaching English to Young Learners (x1)

• History: Railway studies (x1)

School of Curriculum & Pedagogy (x4):• Research Methods• Digital Technologies & Pedagogical

Purposes• Writing for Academic Purposes• Teaching & Learning MathematicsSchool of Human Development & Movement Studies (x3):• Intelligence, creativity & development of

talent• Primary teacher education• Human development for educators

Key stages in the 2015 peer observation programme

Blind matchingof pairs (March)

Preparing for the observationVirtual introductions Definition of observation objectives

Conduct of observationarchived or 'live' course

Exchange of feedbackdiscussion of outcomes

Evaluation of observationConfirmation of 'change agenda' for individuals and programme team

March 2015 2-3 Weeks 1 Month 2-3 Weeks Sept 2015

Emergent modes of engagement between pairings

• synchronous meeting / email exchange to confirm procedures & describe individual course contexts

• objectives determined on an individual basis

Instrumental(task focused)

• synchronous discussion(s) to build rapport, before discussing objectives for observations

• objectives for observations agreed through discussion

Collaborative(personal exchange)

• synchronous discussions to build rapport• evolving foci for a series of observations, based on

shared interests and real-time teaching challenges

Collaborative (cyclical exchange)

Engagement modes and reported outcomes

“It did reinforce some of the things I had picked upon in my own reflection. She provided an answer for how I might think about doing it. She helped me to make a decision on a course of action - she influenced that.”

“Even when there were points made that were not glowing, they were telling for me and I appreciated this learning even if it highlighted an area beyond the initial observation like effective communication.”

Waikato TutorWaikato Tutor

Task focused (driven by objectives) Rapport-based:

(challenging – going beyond the agreed objectives)

Are outcomes different in a cross-institutional partnership?

“…she recognised how the language I used and the way I talked was much more informal than she was used to. I don’t know if that is NZ or a personality thing….The different experiences and perspective of interactions were valuable for thinking about my teaching.”

Waikato Tutor

Discussion management: encouraging student

participation andmeaningful engagement

Personal reflection on tone / formality of the

tutor voice

Activity design:Encouraging students to engage in reflective practice

“X’s questions on the assignment – he raised questions regarding the validity as it is currently set up. He raised a question which I can put to the team and this can lead to real change in the future.”

Waikato Tutor

Institutional differences in assessment practices:challenging institutional norms and blind spots (what’s acceptable)

and academic values (e.g. freedom of students to determine assessment focus)

“…their willingness to have a much more varied assessment scheme than University Teaching Committee will allow us to do. That is something to talk about and I can come back with evidence. The other thing is the level of trust that X invested in her students – in contrast to the way that we go through each week – delivering a lecture and then a discussion which is very highly bound to the lecture. It is very different in New Zealand.”

York Tutor

Technology usage and content design:tools and visual structure

Waikato Tutor

institutional differences in course design and technology usage: what’s possible

“Without exception I get new ideas looking at someone else’s course…. -an awareness of the … different tools they were using – the VLE platforms were different too… the way they were branded and customised – our Moodle platform is more boring, so this was an interesting insight – I didn’t know about that and it made me look at that.”

Do participants associate a greater value in cross-institutional / cross-cultural exchanges?

Pros Cons

(more) motivating – freshness of ‘outsider’ perspectivedifferent context offers more objective stance – no institutional agenda

Commitment needed to manage virtual relationship: building rapport; overcoming practical challenges -time zones & access to learning environments

Perspectives can be broader – you get a different picture of your practiceCan highlight personal and institutional blind spots

Institutional differences may limit transferability of observed practice and insights:value of feedback can be negligible if suggestions cannot be implemented

Easier to be frank with people you don’t know

Sensitivity to differences in national, institutional and course-level practice is needed to ensure a meaningful exchange (e.g. teaching across multiple time zones and challenges of introducing synchronous tutoring)

Affirming about own practice & tutoring context: e.g. privileges /academic freedoms of national HE context

What are the key conditions for a productive relationship?

Growth mindset (Dweck, 2006): open orientation to professional and personal growth….

Commitment of time:– investment in relationship building (rapport) -

establishing common ground;

Effective time management:– negotiating time zones and institutional calendars

Adequate preparation: mastering “telescopic”(big picture) and “microscopic” (operational) perspectives of observed course

Further information

York tutor’s reflections on participation on the 2015 York-Waikato programme:https://youtu.be/Gy5DOUWDzqU

Peer observation programme: guidance resources:https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/teaching/community/peer-support/distance-learning-observation

Next steps

Expansion of cross-institutional peer observation

2016 programme: collaboration between York, Waikato and Otago

Further exploration of cross-institutional, cross-disciplinary peer mentoring

Questions? Dr Richard WalkerE-Learning Development TeamUniversity of York, UK

richard.walker@york.ac.uk

Image: Bryn Jones

References

Bennett, S.; Lee, S.; Lynch, P.; Howard, L. (2010). COOLAID (Collaborative Observation in the On-Line Environment for enhancement across Institutional Divides. HEA Evidence Net.

Danielsen, O., & Nielsen, J. L. (2010). Problem-oriented project studies - the role of the teacher as supervising / facilitating the study group in its learning processes. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010: 558 - 565. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Danielsen.pdf

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, New York.

Harper, F.; Nicolson, M. (2013). Online peer observation: its value in teacher professional development, support and well-being. In International Journal for Academic Development, 18 (3). Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.682159

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2012). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. Retrieved from: http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/lth/genombrottet/Missing_-_a_scholarly_approach-HO.pdf

McMahon, T.; Barrett, T.; O’Neill, G. (2007). Using observation of teaching to improve quality: Finding your way through the muddle of competing conceptions, confusion of practice and mutually exclusive intentions. In Teaching in Higher Education 12 (4), (pp.499–511).

McWilliam, E. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. In Journal of Learning Design 1 (1), (pp.1-11).