1

The Role of the Tutor in Asynchronous discussion Boards: A Case Study of a

Pre-service Teacher Course指導教授： Chen Ming-Puu報 告 者： Chen Hsiu-Ju報告日期： 2007.08.01

Lim, C. P., & Cheah, P. T. (2003). The role of the tutor in asynchronous discussion boards: A case study of a pre-service teacher course. Education Media International, 40(1-2), 33-48.

2

Introduction• Research on online education indicates that the capacity to support

collaboration, reflection and learning anytime and anywhere makes the use of asynchronous online discussion boards a potentially powerful learning tool.

(Bonk and Cunningham, 1998; Cecez-Kecmanovic and Webb, 2000)

• In order to provide a positive experience and ensure the effective use of discussion board for learning, the tutor’s roles in providing technical advice or support, facilitating discussion, encouraging participation and resolving communication problems are crucial (Feenberg, 2000).

• If the students perceive and experience online discussion as a valued process, they will then be more likely to participate actively in it (Rogers, 1995).

3

Rules of tutor in asynchronous online discussion (1/3)

• These roles adopted by the tutor in online learning environment using asynchronous discussion boards are quite different from teaching in face-to-face classrooms (Rossman, 1999).

• The three stages of online discussions: pre-discussion, during-discussion and post-discussion.

4

Rules of tutor in asynchronous online discussion (2/3)

• Pre-discussion roles– Managerial role :

• decide the size (20-25 participants in one group)• allocates and enrols the participants into group (Klemm, 1998)• sets an agenda (Berge, 1992)

– Facilitating role : • explaining the use and features, • stating expectations• rule of conduct and guidelines for participation• setting procedural rules and defining the objectives

– Pedagogical role :• The discussion topic is interesting, relevant and meaningful.• Good questions promote active participation and stimulate various levels

of thinking.

5

Rules of tutor in asynchronous online discussion (3/3)

• During-discussion roles (by Rossman (1999), Beaudin (1999), McKenzie and Murphy (2000), and Jolliffe et al. (2001))

– Facilitating role: • poses probing questions • contradicting viewpoints to get participants thinking• responds to questions• provide feedback or acknowledge the contributions.

– Managerial role:• that conflicts arise between participants, the tutor is expected to mediate.• A well-managed conflict may become an opportunity to bring the group

together much faster and open up the group to more intimacy, emotional expression, and ability to resolve future conflicts (Strickland, 1998).

• Post-discussion roles– Facilitating role:

• summarize the discussion at the close• draw appropriate conclusions from the various threads of discussion (Berge,

1995)

6

Research design and methods (1/2)• questionnaire survey• two focus group interviews and an analysis of the discussion

records of four discussion groups• serve as triangulation of data to improve validity and reliability.• 700 participants of the PGDE ( July 2001) programme (Postgraduate Diploma in Education programme 學位教師文憑課程 ) • a core education studies module on instructional technology, course code

PED 513• The course have two modes:

– ten face-to-face tutorials – two online discussions using Blackboard as a platform.

7

Research design and methods -The online discussion (1/2)

• Only the tutor could add, edit, and delete the materials posted in the discussion forum.

• Two online discussions: – a case study discussion – a sharing of their observations of IT lessons in their school attachment

experience.

8

Research design and methods The online discussion (2/2)

9

Research design and method (2/2) • The questionnarie• 30 descriptions of tutors’ roles organized into three stages of the discussion

– using a Likertliked scale, ranging from 1 (no importance) to 4 (high importance). • For the same item, to indicate how often he or she experienced the tutor

performing it. – The scale ranged from 1 (never observed) to 4 (always observed).

• The main objectives of the questionnaire were to determine:– how important each description of the role of the tutor was from the participants’

perceptions– how often each description of the role of the tutor was observed by the

participants based on their experiences of the online discussions.• SPSS• T-test : if there was significant difference between the experience and

importance of each role.• The discussion record analysis

– The different role of the tutor in the ‘during-discussion’ stage.• The focus group interviews

– To elicit in-depth, albeit subjective information on participants’ perceptions towards tutors’ roles in online discussions

– To allow elaboration, clarification and explanation of some of the functions listed in the questionnaire

– To allow participants to suggest other roles and functions not specified in the questionnaire

10

Appendix

11

Findings and discussion (1/2)

• The tutor’s roles specified in the 30 items were between ‘seldom observed’ to ‘frequently observed’ (m =2.4), most of these roles to be of ‘moderate importance’ (m =3.1).

• There was a significant difference between experiences and perceptions of the participants about the roles of the tutor (t =4.12; p < 0.05).

• Participants placed more importance on the roles of the tutors than what they actually experienced.

12

Findings and discussion (2/2)

• Pre-discussion stage– Experiences (m=2.77) < perceptions of the tutors’ roles (m=3.2)– Set clear goal (m=3.25)– The role of facilitator > technical or administrative ones

• During-discussion stage– participates’ experiences of tutor’s role (m=2.32)– Participate of role (m=3.1)

• Post-discussion state– participates’ experiences of tutor’s role (m=2.4)– Participate of role (m=3)

13

Conclusions• There was a significant difference between the participants’ experiences and

perceptions of the roles of the tutors.– ‘seldom observed’ while their perceptions bordered on ‘moderate

importance’

• Tutors were more involved in preparing the participants for discussions than the later stages of discussion.

• Advice to tutors– to be clearer in drawing appropriate conclusions– to round up the discussion, in terms of the concepts, problems and issues– should organize and make easily available the widest possible range of

resources for learning (Addesso, 2000).

14

Conclusions-Implications for practice

• Setting meaningful task.• Guiding participants in the ‘technicality’ of online discussion.• Participating actively by answering queries, providing

feedback and posing conflicting views to elicit thinking/reflection.

• Keeping the discussion focused.• Drawing conclusions and providing content expertise.• Recommending resources for extension of learning.

15

Conclusions-Limitations of this study

• A larger sample size will contribute greatly to enhance the validity of the findings that can satisfy triangulation purpose.

• But this may generate more varied views and opinions that will require a much longer time to analyse.

• some questionnaire were incomplete or had ratings that were the same for all items.

• There was a time lapse of about two months between the completion of the online discussions and the study.

• This might have contributed to why some respondents of the survey and focus group interviews found it difficult to provide input for some items or questions.

16

The End

Thank you!