Remote Tutoring A Choice for Deaf College Students ...

Remote Tutoring – A Choice for Deaf College Students:

An Action Research Study

by

LINDA M. BRYANT

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the

Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Supervised by

Professor Martha Mock

Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development

University of Rochester

Rochester, New York

2011

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS ii

Abstract

Today‘s deaf college students are expected to succeed academically despite language and

learning challenges (Paul, 2009). As a support service, the benefits of tutoring have been well

documented; however, research using remote tutoring with deaf college students is lacking. This

Action Research study examined the activities (actions and interactions) that occurred during

twenty-two remote-tutoring sessions with nine deaf students in my English class. Using

Dimensional Analysis (Schatzman, 1991), the dimensions used to narrate the remote tutoring

process with deaf college students served to inform relevant theory and answered the research

question: How does using remote tutoring with deaf college students affect my tutoring

practices? Findings pointed to choices as the central perspective revealing students desire

options for supplemental learning. These included choice of time for tutoring; choice of type of

tutoring (traditional or remote); choice of remote tutoring (asynchronous versus synchronous);

choice of remote technologies (webcam, chat, email or videophone); choice of communication

(ASL, SimCom or Speech); choice of tutor; and choice of course (e.g., math, English, science).

Relevant dimensions included transitioning, benefits and sharing experiences. Analysis also

revealed theory suggesting that remote tutoring is comparable to traditional tutoring using

technologies as the mediating tool. Whether it‘s provided in one‘s office or through a

webconferencing site, both are similar in delivery of instruction and perceived benefits. An

action plan for delivering remote tutoring to deaf college students in other English classes is

outlined. Implications for tutors, deaf educators and distance educators are discussed and future

research considerations are proposed.

Keywords:

Deaf, tutoring, action research, dimensional analysis, distance learning, remote tutoring

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS iii

CONTENTS

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ xi

Chapter One –Overview

1.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................1

1.2 Personal Philosophy of Tutoring ..............................................................................2

1.3 Statement of the Educational Problem ......................................................................3

1.4 Goal of the Study ......................................................................................................5

1.5 Theoretical Frameworks ...........................................................................................5

1.6 Research Questions ...................................................................................................8

1.7 Action Research as the Appropriate Methodology ...................................................8

1.8 Action Research Methodology ...............................................................................10

1.9 Significance and Contributions of the Study ..........................................................12

1.10 Organization of the Dissertation ...........................................................................12

Chapter Two – Literature Review

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................14

2.2 Exploring the Educational Problem ........................................................................16

2.2.1 Language and Academic Challenges ...................................................................16

2.2.2 Diverse Communication Modes ..........................................................................19

2.2.3 Deaf Identity and Development ...........................................................................21

2.2.4 Benefits of Tutoring .............................................................................................23

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS iv

2.2.5 Contribution to Remote Tutoring.........................................................................25

2.3 Theoretical Frameworks .........................................................................................28

2.3.1 Sociocultural Theory ............................................................................................29

2.3.2 Activity Theory ....................................................................................................31

2.3.3 New Literacy Studies ...........................................................................................33

2.4 Addressing the Educational Problem ......................................................................36

2.4.1 Technical Considerations .....................................................................................37

2.4.2 Communication Considerations ...........................................................................40

2.4.3 Pedagogical Considerations .................................................................................41

2.4.4 Deaf Identity Development ..................................................................................43

2.4.5 Users‘ Satisfaction ...............................................................................................44

2.5 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................45

Chapter Three – Research Design

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................47

3.2 Choice of Methodology ..........................................................................................47

3.3 Context ....................................................................................................................50

3.4 Overall Design ........................................................................................................51

3.4.1 Remote-tutoring Formats .....................................................................................51

3.4.2 An Action Research Cycle ...................................................................................53

3.4.3 Positionality within Action Research ...................................................................53

3.4.4 Participants‘ Recruitment.....................................................................................55

3.4.5 Intervention and Data Sources .............................................................................57

3.4.5.1 Remote-Tutoring Sessions ................................................................................57

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS v

3.4.5.2 Remote-Tutoring Questionnaire .......................................................................57

3.4.5.3 Remote-Tutoring Transcripts ............................................................................58

3.4.5.4 Students‘ Evaluations........................................................................................58

3.4.5.5 Researcher‘s Summaries ...................................................................................58

3.4.5.6 Student Interviews ............................................................................................58

3.4.5.7 Researcher‘s Memos .........................................................................................59

3.4.6 Data Collection Timeline .....................................................................................59

3.5 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................59

3.5.1 The Importance of Video Data ............................................................................60

3.5.2 Incorporating the Student‘s Voice .......................................................................61

3.5.3 The Transcription Log .........................................................................................62

3.5.4 Unit of Analysis ...................................................................................................63

3.5.4.1 Study Activities, Actions and Interactions........................................................63

3.5.5 Method of Analysis ..............................................................................................65

3.5.5.1 The Explanatory Matrix ....................................................................................67

3.5.6 Steps of Analysis..................................................................................................68

3.6 Methodology Check ................................................................................................70

3.7 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................70

Chapter Four –Findings

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................71

4.1.1 Research Questions ..............................................................................................71

4.2 General Findings .....................................................................................................72

4.2.1 Characteristics of Eligible Participants ................................................................72

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS vi

4.2.2 Utilization of Remote Tutoring ............................................................................73

4.3 Research Findings ...................................................................................................74

4.3.1 Researcher‘s Assumptions ...................................................................................75

4.3.2 Central Perspective - Choices ..............................................................................76

4.3.2.1 Central Perspective – Dimension 1: Choice of Times for Tutoring .................77

4.3.2.2 Central Perspective – Dimension 2: Reasons for Choosing Remote Tutoring .78

4.3.2.3 Central Perspective – Dimension 3: Choice of Remote Tutoring Mode ..........79

4.3.2.4 Central Perspective – Dimension 4: Choice of Remote Technologies .............82

4.3.2.5 Central Perspective – Dimension 5: Technical Configurations that Affected

Choices Research Sub-question 1 .....................................................................83

4.3.2.6 Central Perspective – Dimension 6: Choice of Communication Mode

Research Sub-question 2 ...................................................................................89

4.3.2.7 Central Perspective – Dimension 7: Offering Additional Choices/Suggestions ..

...........................................................................................................................92

4.3.2.8 Summary of Central Perspective - Choices ......................................................96

4.3.3 The Three Relevant Dimensions ..........................................................................96

4.3.4 Transitioning Dimension .....................................................................................97

4.3.4.1 Transitioning Dimension - Property 1: Tutor‘s Perspective of Transitioning

with Technology ................................................................................................97

4.3.4.2 Transitioning Dimension – Property 2: Tutor‘s Perspective of Transitioning

with Instruction. Research Sub-question 3 .....................................................100

4.3.4.3 Transitioning Dimension - Property 3: Students‘ Perspectives of Transitioning

..........................................................................................................................106

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS vii

4.3.5 Benefits Dimension. Research Sub-question 5 .................................................113

4.3.5.1 Benefits Dimension – Property 1: Tutor‘s Perspective of Benefits ................114

4.3.5.2 Benefits Dimension – Property 2: Students‘ Perspectives of Benefits ...........116

4.3.6 Sharing Experiences Dimension. Research Sub-question 4 .............................119

4.3.6.1 Sharing Experiences Dimension – Property 1: Meeting Obligations .............120

4.3.6.2 Sharing Experiences Dimension – Property 2: Informing Others ..................121

4.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................124

Chapter Five – Impact of Action Research

5.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................126

5.2 Action Research Cycles ........................................................................................126

5.2.1 Cycle One – Adobe® Connect Pro 7

TM system ..................................................127

5.2.2 Cycle Two – IdeaToolsTM

system ......................................................................128

5.3 Next Stages of Action Research ...........................................................................131

5.4 Implications on My Tutoring Practices.................................................................133

5.4.1 Technical Impacts ..............................................................................................133

5.4.2 Communication Impacts ....................................................................................135

5.4.3 Pedagogical Impacts ..........................................................................................137

5.4.4 Socio-affective Impacts .....................................................................................140

5.5 Action Plan - Piloting Remote Tutoring in English Classes .................................143

5.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................146

Chapter Six - Conclusions

6.1 Study Highlights ...................................................................................................147

6.2 Study Implications ................................................................................................150

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS viii

6.3 Study Opportunities and Limitations ....................................................................153

6.4 Further Research Considerations ..........................................................................155

6.5 Final Thoughts ......................................................................................................158

References ........................................................................................................................160

Appendix A Remote Tutoring Questionnaire .................................................................184

Appendix B Student Evaluation Form ............................................................................186

Appendix C Tutor Evaluation Form ...............................................................................187

Appendix D Glossary of Terms ......................................................................................188

Appendix E Snapshots of Webconferencing Systems ...................................................189

Appendix F Dimensional Analysis Definitions .............................................................192

Appendix G Initial and Pre-existing Codes ....................................................................193

Appendix H Tutor Actions Related to Remote-Tutoring Systems ..................................197

Appendix I Instructional Strategies used in Select Sessions ..........................................198

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS ix

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Remote Tutoring Activity System ................................................................33

Figure 3.1. Action Research Cycle ..................................................................................48

Figure 3.2. Remote Tutoring Action Research Cycle .....................................................54

Figure 3.3. Dimensional Analysis Steps..........................................................................67

Figure 4.1. Explanatory Matrix .......................................................................................77

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS x

List of Tables

Table 3.1. Intervention and Data Source Collection Timeline ........................................60

Table 3.2. Video Transcription Log .................................................................................62

Table 4.1. Participant Utilization: Number of Sessions and Remote-tutoring System ....74

Table 4.2. Communication and Language Choices for Varying Remote-tutoring

Formats ...........................................................................................................91

Table 4.3. Properties of Transitioning Dimension ..........................................................98

Table 4.4. Session Characteristics with Student Evaluations ........................................102

Table 4.5. Instructional Strategies Unique to Remote Tutoring ....................................104

Table 4.6. Properties of Benefits Dimension .................................................................113

Table 4.7. Properties of Sharing Experiences Dimension .............................................120

Table 5.1. Remote Tutoring Sessions by Cycle and Format ..........................................127

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS xi

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to my advisor, Dr. Martha Mock, for her guidance and helpful feedback

throughout all stages of this dissertation: coursework, proposal, study, analysis and reporting. I

am also grateful for assistance from Dr. Joane Larson and Dr. Christopher Kurz. All three

committee members are amazing teachers, researchers and individuals, and their influences

permeate this dissertation.

I would like to give thanks to my current supervisor, Dr. Robb Adams; my former supervisor,

Dr. Ellie Rosenfield, who left this world too soon in 2010; Dr. Katie Schmitz, Chair of the

department where I teach; and all of the wonderful students I am privileged to interact with

everyday. It never feels like ―work‖ when you love what you are doing.

I want to thank my family, friends and co-workers who encouraged me along the way. Your

inquiries and words of support gave me the motivation to persevere.

Finally, I am most grateful to my wonderful husband, Gary. You were my biggest fan and I

could not have accomplished this without your support. I dedicate this dissertation to you!

The journey is not so much about the destination,

but what the traveler finds along the way.

Lisa Meloncon, 2007

REMOTE TUTORING WITH DEAF COLLEGE STUDENTS 1

Chapter One

Overview

1.1 Introduction

Today‘s deaf college students are expected to do well academically despite language and

learning challenges (Paul, 2009). While delays in language acquisition and resulting academic

underachievement may presumably to be related to deafness, research indicates that ineffective

communication between parents and children and a later mismatch between home and school are

more likely to blame (Holcomb, T.K., 2010; Spencer & Marschark, 2010). In fact, ―quality

parent-child communication may be the single best predictor of language development, and it is

clearly a central factor in later academic success‖ (Marschark, Lang & Albertini, 2002, p. 91).

Even though intelligence is distributed normally in the deaf population (Swisher, 1989), learning

to successfully read and write in English without knowing or using its primary (spoken) form is a

challenge profoundly deaf children face in today‘s educational milieu (Berent, 1996; Knight &

Swanwick, 2002). As advancements in computer technologies provide additional access to

information, the demands on literacy skills will increase. At the same time, opportunities to

transform current support services, such as tutoring, using computers and related technologies

exist. This is important to consider when examining literacy interventions that go beyond

instruction in functional literacy skill development to those that enable deaf students to make use

of technology to construct new knowledge and facilitate participation in lifelong learning.


D/deaf1 students who attend college and are enrolled in writing classes may choose to

take advantage of tutoring services to help them organize, draft and edit their papers. Innovative

tutoring systems, such as synchronous remote tutoring, have the potential to provide increased

access to tutoring as a support service for these students. In remote tutoring, presenting

information in multimodal formats (signed and written) offers tutees opportunities to interact and

learn through familiar technologies, such as webcams, videophones, webconferencing software

and Instant Messaging. While advancements in technologies cannot solely eradicate the

difficulties deaf students experience with print literacy, research in remote tutoring may result in

strategies that can be utilized to supplement classroom and distance learning. As a result, in this

Action Research study, I strive to understand how using remote tutoring with deaf college

students enrolled in my English classes affects my tutoring practices in order to increase the

credibility of remote tutoring as a support service for this population, and inform others in the

fields of tutoring, deaf education and distance learning.

1.2 Personal Philosophy of Tutoring

Effective tutoring supports students in their personal journey to becoming successful,

independent learners (Gordon, Morgan, O‘Malley & Ponticell, 2007; Ritter, Barnett, Denny &

Albin, 2009). It calls for new approaches and mediating tools that capture the complex cognitive

and social processes that produce better readers and writers (Rose, 1985). Ideally, tutoring should

not emphasize deficit areas using remedial approaches but incorporate what students already

know as assets to learning and construct writing from there (Gutierrez, Morales & Martinez,

2009). Using this approach, tutoring serves as a form of re-mediation, ―that is, changing the

1 In this paper, the word Deaf with an upper-case ―D‖ refers specifically to those who claim membership in the Deaf

community whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL) and who affiliate with Deaf culture. The

word deaf with a lower-case ―d‖ refers to anyone who is profoundly deaf or hard-of-hearing including those who

sign as well as whose primary language is English and use speech, speechreading and audition for communication.


environment & the means through which students are taught the material they had not mastered

before‖ (Rose, 2008, para. 14) by providing a personalized, supportive environment with which

to interact and learn beyond what students would acquire alone.

In my philosophy of tutoring, I believe tutoring should be student-centered, strength-

based, scaffolded, interactive, holistic, respectful of diversity and differences, and that tutors

should maintain high expectations while providing successful experiences for learners. Using a

learner-centered approach, a tutor can facilitate instruction by engaging students in activities of

discovery and meaning making. Ideally, the tutor‘s goal should be to create opportunities for

students to participate as active co-constructors of meaning while attending to students‘

communication and learning preferences in the effort to promote English literacy. Typically,

good tutoring sessions consist of asking the tutee what content they desire to focus on, allowing

student writers to discuss their topics and writing processes, and tutors encouraging students to

provide information (Lang, Biser, Mousley, Orlando, & Porter, 2004). Recognizing the balance

of power in a teacher-student relationship, I also postulate tutors should foster personal and

professional relationships with students while providing constructive feedback as a way to

support each student‘s journey to becoming a better reader and writer. In sum, these are the

beliefs I profess as I approach delivering remote tutoring with students in my English classes.

1.3 Statement of the Educational Problem

Distance learning is on the rise due to the availability of digital technologies and the

affordances of increased enrollments and profits for universities (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Fuks,

Gerosa & Pereira de Lucena, 2002; Menchaca & Bekele, 2008; Miller, Martineau & Clark,

2000). Studies show that deaf college students who take distance learning courses are just as

capable of adapting to this form of education as their hearing peers (Long, Mallory, Fasse &


Marchetti, 2010; Richardson & Woodley, 1999).While there is a significant amount of research

addressing how to teach courses online (e.g., Bach, 2007; Bullen & Janes, 2007; Hewett &

Ehmann, 2004; Ko, 2001; Tallent-Runnels, Thomas, Lan, Cooper, Ahern, Shaw & Liu, 2006);

how to moderate posted discussions (Hanna, Glowacki-Dudka & Conceicao-Runlee, 2000;

Palloff & Pratt, 2007; Salmon, 2000) and how to use computer technologies to facilitate the

composing process to teach writing to deaf students (Geoffrion, 1982; Johnson, Griffith &

Barton, 1988; Lieberth, 1988; Nash & Nash, 1982), there is limited scholarship addressing the

use of one-to-one remote tutoring with deaf college students.

At the present time, there are a range of educational support service options available to

school-age deaf students, such as, teachers of the deaf, interpreters, note takers, assistive

listening devices, resource rooms and tutoring services. As a result, deaf students who attend

college may take advantage of college-sponsored tutoring programs. Although, there has been

limited research addressing tutoring with deaf students (Lang, Biser, Mousley, Orlando, et al.,

2004; Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 1997); it is presumed that the ―most effective way for Deaf

students to keep up with their class work is to provide them with tutorial services‖ (Livingston,

Duda & Lucas, 2000). However, according to Gallaudet Research Institute 2007-08 Regional

and National Survey (November, 2008), less than ten percent of deaf and hard-of-hearing

students in K – 12 programs receive tutoring as support service for instruction (p. 9). Those who

accessed and benefitted from tutoring in high school are more likely to continue with the service

in college (Eilers-crandall [sic], 2009; Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 1997). Regardless, an accurate

number of deaf students who access tutoring in college is unknown (Lang, 2002). This is further

complicated when considering offering tutoring remotely.


Recent digital technologies have paved the way for a variety of online communication

systems (e.g., blogs, instant messaging/chat, and webcams). Web 2.0 tools and webconferencing

software applications provide the landscape to create engaging distance learning environments

that allow real-time collaborations (Meloncon, 2007). Remote tutoring systems could make

tutoring more accessible, affordable and flexible for a broad range of users (children, college

students, adult learners, and people with disabilities).With this in mind, providing remote

tutoring to deaf students seem advantageous; however, the benefits are not fully understood.

Consequently, ―the success of these students may depend in part on how research may be applied

to optimize the conditions for learning in a timely manner‖ (Lang, 2002, p. 268). Research could

help clarify how innovative learning opportunities, such as remote tutoring, may improve

academic access and success for students who are deaf. Therefore, I argue that the need to

investigate the process of providing remote tutoring as a support service for deaf college students

is warranted.

1.4 Goal of the Study

Due to the unique communication and learning needs of deaf students, specially-trained

tutors using remote technologies have the potential to provide a much needed support service to

deaf college students in today‘s online environment. Therefore, the goal of this study is to

document the process of providing one-to-one remote tutoring to deaf students in my English

class. It is also my hope to disseminate knowledge gained to others who tutor remotely and/or

serve this population.

1.5 Theoretical Frameworks

Research shows that ―Emerging technologies are changing current practices in online

distance learning and influencing theoretical frameworks‖ (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 147).


Consequently, I draw from and integrate sociocultural theory, activity theory and new literacy

studies (NLS) to help understand the process of using remote tutoring services with deaf college

students since these theories provide insights into literacy development in the 21st century.

Sociocultural theory illuminates the ways in which learning occurs through social interactions;

activity theory describes how knowledge produces tools that later become useful for social

interaction; and new literacy studies addresses new forms of literacy made possible by

developments in digital technologies.

Proponents of sociocultural theory (SCT) believe that real-life learning occurs in socially

and culturally constructed contexts where students learn with more knowledgeable individuals

(Brown, 1994; Houge & Geier, 2009). Applying SCT, teachers serve as agents utilizing

strategies and tools for instructing, modeling, coaching, facilitating and scaffolding learning.

Using this theory, co-participation and guided practice form the basis of interactive and

collaborative discourse (Englert, Mariage & Dunsmore, 2006). To this end, literacy

development is enhanced by applying sociocultural strategies and techniques when providing

remote tutoring to deaf students in my classes.

Computer-mediated instruction uses a technical medium to facilitate human-to-computer,

human-to-content and human-to-human interactions. The conceptual framework of activity

theory (AT) provides a descriptive tool in which the relationship between subjects and objects

are mediated by analyzing the actions and interactions between artifacts within an historical and

cultural context. It also requires that people actively explore and transform their environments.

AT emphasizes the social factors and the interactions between people who invent or improve

tools as a way to gather and construct social knowledge (Engestrom, 2000; Jonassen & Rohrer-

Murphy, 1999; Nardi, 1996). To this end, AT principles provide a broad conceptual framework


with which to understand the goal-oriented, socially and culturally influenced work practices of

humans using digital technologies and is used as a lens to understand the actions and interactions

revealed in remote tutoring.

A new literacy studies (NLS) perspective illustrates how current computer-based

technologies foster new literacies that can be used to ―construct authentic reading and writing

pedagogy based on every day practices‖ (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006, p. 22). It asserts

differentiated learning experiences using preferential engagement with an emphasis on

constructing meaning to allow better learning outcomes (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). ―It is clear

that the nature of literacy is changing rapidly as new ICTs [Information and Computing

Technologies] appear, requiring new literacies…‖ (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004,

p. 1583). This shift supports new approaches to teaching reading and writing to those who are

not able to process sound by providing instruction through the increased use of multimodal

formats and technologies. Through remote tutoring, literacy can be enhanced by successfully

integrating computer and communication technologies with best tutoring practices to help

students ―learn how to learn‖ at their optimal achievement level (Gordon, et.al, 2007, p. 176)

with a goal of enabling students to become self-directed learners. ―By this definition, tutoring is

a collaborative process in which tutors guide students toward ownership of their own learning‖

(Gourgey, 1994, p. 87), serving as a bridge between classroom instruction and independent

learning (Cope and Kalantzis, 2009).

When addressing remote tutoring with deaf college writers, ―Meeting the needs of the

21st Century learner may require a multi-theory approach‖ (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 148). For this

reason, I am applying sociocultural theory, activity theory and new literacy studies lenses to the

questions asked, the analysis of the data gathered, and the interpretations formed.


1.6 Research Questions

Digital and communication technologies are available to provide remote tutoring as a

support service to deaf college students in English classes. Current webconferencing software

with webcams, desktop sharing capabilities and Instant Messaging/Chat features make it feasible

to interact with students who depend on communicating mainly through vision (whether it is

through reading text, reading lips or using sign language). However, the process of delivering

tutoring remotely with this population is not fully understood. Consequently, the overarching

research question addressed in my study is: How does using remote tutoring with deaf college

students affect my tutoring practices?

Subquestions include:

1. In what ways do technical configurations contribute to a satisfying remote-tutoring

environment?

2. In what ways do the diverse language and communication practices of deaf students

influence the remote-tutoring process?

3. What instructional strategies meet the needs of students participating in tutoring remotely?

4. In what ways, if any, do students‘ identities influence their participation in remote tutoring?

5. What determines student satisfaction with the remote-tutoring experience?

These are the questions that were used to decide the intervention and data sources, assist in

coding and analyzing data, and interpret the findings of this study.

1.7 Action Research as the Appropriate Methodology

Action Research, as a methodology, dates back to the 1940‘s when Kurt Lewin, a

social psychologist and educator, engaged in it and coined the phrase (Ferrance, 2000).

Simply stated, action research for teachers/tutors involves action or cycles of action and


reflection with a goal of improving one‘s own practice (Herr & Anderson, 2005). Often,

action research is a collaborative activity among colleagues searching for solutions to

everyday, real problems experienced in schools, or looking for ways to improve

instruction and increase student achievement (Ferrance, 2000). At its center, the action

researcher is ―directly involved in the research setting and in the experience itself and has

direct impact on the events being studied‖ (McPherson & Nunes, 2004, p. 8). The results

of action research include a better understanding of oneself as an instructor, increased

knowledge of the issues explored and a potential for sharing with others in the field

(Burgess, 2006).

In contrast to other forms of research, action research is cyclical process of inquiry, data

collection and interpretation, action, reflection and transformation. It links aspects of theory,

practice, and problem solving; thereby allowing the researcher to apply new knowledge and

problem solving using a futuristic lens (McFarland & Stansell, 1993). Herr and Anderson (2005)

argue that teachers can use action research to inform changes in real time. Using action research,

I was able to examine remote tutoring with students in my English classes by gathering data,

reflecting on the process and applying changes based on students‘ feedback.

In conclusion, action research is used to understand complex social situations and ―is

particularly appropriate for investigating learning situations since they constitute very complex

social settings‖ (McPherson & Nunes, 2004, p. 87). Due to the intricate actions and interactions

involved in providing one-to-one remote tutoring to deaf college students, action research is an

appropriate methodology for investigating the affects tutoring remotely has on my tutoring

practices.


1.8 Action Research Methodology

In this section, I provide an overview of the context, interventions, data sources and

analysis that were applied to the study. A more detailed explanation of each component will be

provided in Chapter Three.

The study took place at a post-secondary institution where there are a significant number

of deaf students. Only students who were enrolled in my English course were eligible for the

study. In this class, students could choose from a number of tutoring sources including:

traditional tutoring with me by appointment or during office hours, one-to-one remote tutoring

with me by appointment or during evening hours, and traditional tutoring with paid tutors

provided by the college‘s Learning Center during posted hours. Students‘ participation in the

research portion of this class was voluntary and they could cease participation at any time

without impact on their grade or status in the class. Students who did not want to participate in

the study could still choose remote tutoring from me as option for this course; however, their

data would not be included in the analysis.

Using webconferencing software, remote tutoring was offered in an online meeting space

that students could access using an internet browser during posted remote-tutoring hours. With

this software, I was able to display coursework and student drafts while simultaneously

providing instruction and feedback all while communicating using Instant Messaging and/or sign

language using webcams. For those who wanted to communicate with me directly, videophone

tutoring was also offered. And lastly, students could access tutoring support from me

asynchronously through email, if desired.

In this study, a number of data sources were used to examine the affects of remote

tutoring on my practices. During the first week of the course, all students enrolled in the class


were asked to complete a brief questionnaire regarding their past uses of tutoring and their

current interests in accessing traditional and remote tutoring from the instructor (Appendix A).

Since this questionnaire also included questions about students‘ access to computers, webcams

and videophones, this information was helpful in determining optimal tutoring configurations for

each student. Each remote-tutoring session was digitally recorded using HyperCam 3 desktop

recording software. These recorded sessions were used to identify technological, pedagogical

and communication actions and interactions that occurred during the remote-tutoring process.

Student feedback was requested at the end of each remote-tutoring session to obtain immediate

reactions regarding what they liked, didn‘t like, what they wanted to do differently, and what

they wanted to do in the future (Appendix B). Simultaneously, I summarized and evaluated each

session in order to identify technological, pedagogical and communication issues as well as to

develop action plans for the delivery of future tutoring sessions and to facilitate students‘

progress in the class (Appendix C). At two times during the study (5th

week and 10th

week), I

conducted interviews with students who had received remote tutoring from me to collect

additional feedback regarding their views and ideas. The digitally-recorded interviews took place

on campus during non-instructional times. Recording these interviews was necessary to perform

analysis since all students used sign language to communicate. Finally, recorded fieldnotes and

reflections were used as data and method triangulation as the ten-week study moved through two

action research cycles. A description of what constitutes a cycle will be provided in Chapter

Three.

Once collected, I transcribed, coded and analyzed written and recorded data to examine

the technological, pedagogical and communication actions and interactions encountered in

remote-tutoring instruction. Applying grounded dimensional analysis (Kools, McCarthy,


Durham & Robrecht, 1996; Schatzman, 1991), the dimensions and properties associated with the

remote tutoring process were identified. Utilizing an explanatory matrix created from this

analysis, the affects of remote tutoring were narrated revealing the theory that emerged. A

complete description of the data analysis and findings will be provided in Chapters Three and

Four.

1.9 Significance and Contributions of the Study

Due to the fact that evolving technologies continue to influence online distance

education, research on new approaches such as remote tutoring with deaf college students

warrants further exploration. It is my belief that tutoring provided remotely utilizing the proper

tools and instructional techniques has the potential to provide quality support services to deaf

college writers in today‘s educational environment. It is my hope that the results of this study

will advise the way I deliver remote tutoring services to deaf students in my classes so that I

might improve its delivery and inform others in the fields of tutoring, deaf education, and

distance learning.

1.10 Organization of the Dissertation

Chapter One provided a statement of the educational problem and why it merits further

investigation. A multi-theory framework was described as a way to view the research questions

and data. A rationale for using action research methodology was provided as well as a brief

description of the context, intervention and data sources considered for the study. Lastly,

potential contributions for the researcher and the field of deaf education were stated.

Chapter Two will present a summary of what is understood about remote tutoring with

deaf college students. Aspects of three theoretical frameworks (sociocultural theory, activity

theory and new literacy ttudies) are presented to illustrate how they were utilized to frame the


study. Finally, an explanation of how the educational problem is addressed by this study will be

detailed.

Chapter Three will describe the interventions, data sources and analysis that was used in

the study. A description of Action Research as the appropriate methodology for this study will

also be included.

Chapter Four will present the findings of the study. Results will be narrated using an

explanatory matrix created from dimensional analysis and tailored to address research questions.

General findings will also be included as they relate to the context and culture of remote tutoring

with deaf college students.

Chapter Five will describe the action research cycles that occurred and how they

influenced remote tutoring. The next cycle will be proposed. The influences of this study on my

current and future tutoring practices will also be presented. An action plan for piloting remote

tutoring services to deaf college students in English classes will be outlined.

Chapter Six will present the highlights and implications of the study. The study‘s

opportunities and limitations will be addressed. Future research in remote tutoring will also be

included.

Appendices are included to provide additional information for the dissertation. Included

are the Remote Tutoring Questionnaire (Appendix A), student evaluation form (Appendix B),

tutor evaluation form (Appendix C), a glossary of terms associated with deafness and hearing

loss (Appendix D), snapshots of webconferencing systems (Appendix E), Dimensional Analysis

definitions (Appendix F), initial and pre-existing codes (Appendix G), a list of tutor actions

related to remote-tutoring systems (Appendix H), and instructional strategies used in selected

sessions (Appendix I).


Chapter Two

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Throughout history, scholars have viewed tutoring as an alternative to substandard

schools or as an ideal approach to educating the individual child (Gordon, 1989). Although

different methods and philosophies of tutoring have prevailed over time, current tutoring

traditions continue to provide support in core subjects, such as, mathematics, reading and

writing, as well as to certain populations, such as, athletes and students with physical and/or

learning disabilities (Maxwell, 1994). In 2002, a federal tutoring program known as

Supplemental Education Services (SES) was mandated under the No Child Left Behind Act. As

a result, the demand for tutoring services was expected to rise (Gordon, Morgan, O‘Malley, &

Ponticell, 2007).

There are various types of tutors and tutoring services ranging from teachers, adult

volunteers, homework hotlines, peer tutors, franchised learning centers, university support

centers, internet sites, and offshore and private tutoring services (Gordon, et.al., 2007). There are

also programs that deliver online tutoring support to institutes of higher education, such as, the

SmarThinking™

program (Burrell, 2000) and eTutoring.org (2010). The list is extensive because

tutoring is an effective instructional tool that provides students with individualized instruction

and more time on task (Gordon, 2005).

Tutoring is one of several support services offered to deaf students. There are over 30,000

deaf and hard-of-hearing students currently enrolled in over 50% of two- and four-year

postsecondary institutions in the U.S. (Marschark, Sapere, Convertino & Pelz, 2008). Common


tutoring practices available for deaf college students include traditional tutoring from an

instructor or from on-campus service providers; computer-mediated programs for grammar,

vocabulary and mathematics; and asynchronous online services for writing assignments.

However, according to their most recent survey, only 33% of deaf and hard-of-hearing students

accessed tutoring services (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1994, p. 21). Speculation

as to why deaf students may not access tutoring services may include, but not be limited to, the

perception that tutoring is a sign of weakness, having had a negative or neutral tutoring

experience, not knowing it is available or because tutors don‘t know sign language. A possible

explanation why students may not use online tutoring services is due to their lack of familiarity

with the concept. While today‘s tech-savvy generation are familiar with computers and

electronics for personal use, they may not be experts at using these technologies in academic

settings (Oblinger, 2003). Thus, using technologies for instruction needs to be demonstrated and

explained to those who have never been exposed to learning through them, if benefits are to be

perceived. As a result, current computer and telecommunication technologies have the potential

to provide synchronous remote-tutoring services using webconferencing software; course

management systems; videoconferencing software, such as Skype; and videophones for Deaf

students who use American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate. Offering one-to-one remote

tutoring from tutors who are aware of deaf students‘ unique learning and communication needs

and trained in online instruction may be a viable way to increase its use with this population.

In this chapter, I will explore the literature related to what is known and unknown about

providing one-to-one remote tutoring to deaf college students. First, I will describe the issues

that affect deaf students and include evidence of the potential merits of tutoring in general and

specifically with deaf college students. Then, I will describe the theoretical frameworks used to


address the educational problem as well as how they apply to the study. Finally, I will describe

how this action research study addresses the limited scholarship regarding the use of one-to-one

remote tutoring with deaf college students. Postulating that knowledge is socially constructed

and mediated and that current technologies can support literacy development for deaf students

using distance learning technologies and best practices, this action research study examines how

providing remote tutoring to deaf college students in my English classes affects my tutoring

practices.

2.2 Exploring the Educational Problem

Important dimensions of the human experience are language, education, identity and

community. When examining the provision of remote tutoring services to deaf college students,

there are a number of factors to consider in the context of this study. The first factor is related to

the challenges deaf students face learning to read and write English. The second factor is the

range of communication methods used by deaf and hard-of-hearing people and the influence of

Deaf culture. The third factor is deaf students‘ identification with hearing and Deaf communities.

The fourth factor is the known benefits of tutoring and the fifth factor addresses the contributions

of remote tutoring in distance learning. In this section, these factors are described to better

understand the complex process of delivering remote tutoring to deaf college students.

2.2.1 Language and academic challenges.2

Linguistic input determines what and how any child will learn a language. Deaf children

experience linguistic input differently and uniquely. Factors such as degree of hearing loss, age

of onset and identification, type of schooling (deaf program, mainstreamed or special education),

language(s) spoken at home and use of amplification (hearing aid or cochlear implant) influence

2 A glossary of terms associated with deafness and hearing loss is located in Appendix D


the way deaf children learn to communicate. In the absence of auditory input, prelingually

deafened children are not likely to acquire language in the way that hearing children do

(Holcomb & Peyton, 1992; McAnally, Rose, & Quigley, 1999; Michaud, McCoy & Pennington,

2000; Quigley & King, 1980). In contrast, deaf children born to Deaf parents acquire ASL as a

first language parallel to hearing children‘s development of spoken languages (Newport &

Meier, 1985). For these children, English is learned as a second language (Mayer, 2009; Moores,

1996).

Children who are born profoundly deaf have unique educational needs. In the United

States, children who have a significant hearing loss and are not able to process speech auditorally

may have difficulty accessing and therefore acquiring spoken English (Evans, 2004; King, 1981;

Luetke-Stahlman, 1982; Paul, 1996). Since 90 – 95% of deaf children are born to hearing

parents, their access to spoken communication can be hindered (Paul, 2009). Children who are

prelingually deaf may not be able to sufficiently process spoken communication (auditorally) and

their parents may not be able to facilitate their children‘s language development (visually) using

American Sign Language (ASL), especially in the early developmental years. As a result, deaf

children may miss the critical period for language development in either modality resulting in the

inability to fully participate in the communication mode used first in homes and later when they

enter mainstreamed schools (DeLana, Gentry & Andrews, 2007; Schmitz, 2005). Since deaf

children have limited access to the phonological code of spoken English, they may find it

especially difficult to achieve grade-appropriate reading and writing skills because for them,

printed words are not connected to sounds (Holcomb & Peyton, 1992; Paul, 1996). This is

needed to create an understanding of how phonemes in speech link to the graphemes in

corresponding print; both necessary for learning to read and write English as a first or second


language (Freeman & Freeman, 2004; Paul, 1996). For a deaf child, conversational proficiency

in spoken English is particularly challenging adversely affecting text-based literacy development

(Mayer, 2009).

The early experiences with language as a social and cultural tool may have implications

later in life. Studies indicate Deaf children of Deaf families, who are exposed to sign language,

are more successful readers and writers than deaf children of hearing families (Humphries &

Allen, 2008). These findings also report better performance on tests of academic achievement

and social development. According to Israelite and Ewoldt (1992), ―native ASL users have

higher English literacy abilities than deaf children who learn ASL later in life‖. This reinforces

the need to provide deaf children with access to ASL to facilitate English literacy development

by providing a language base (Simms & Thumann, 2007). This can also be a factor in school

when the task is to transfer knowledge from a first language to learn a second language, such as

ASL to English (Mayer, 2009; Moores, 1996).

Notwithstanding the fact that intelligence is normally distributed in this population

(Braden, 1992; Swisher, 1989), the lack of a first-language base can lead to academic challenges

throughout deaf students‘ elementary and secondary education resulting in academic delays,

especially in reading and writing (Berent, 1996; Keenan & Bowers, 1988; Knight & Swanwick;

2002; Perfetti & Sandak, 2000). Between 1993 – 2001, the percentage of students with hearing

impairments who graduated with a standard high school diploma was 60.8% (U.S. Department of

Education, 2003). Reportedly, those who graduate from high school have an average fourth-

grade reading level and have writing skills similar to ―hearing‖ 9-10 year olds (Albertini &

Schley, 2003; Paul, 1998, 2009; Quigley & Paul, 1987; Traxler, 2000); 37% attend college (U.S.

Department of Education, 2003); 60% are inadequately prepared for college and only 8%


graduate from college nationally (Commission on Education of the Deaf, 1988). A university

that specializes in post-secondary education for the deaf, however, reported having an overall

40% graduation rate between 1968 – 2007, with the majority (56%) receiving associate degrees

(Hands & Voices, 2009).

Despite a variety of past and present approaches to educate deaf children in the U.S. (e.g.,

oral, total communication, cued speech, ESL, inclusion and bilingual-bicultural methods), there

is a lack of empirical studies to support particular practices (Luckner, Sebald, Cooney, Young

III, and Muir, 2005/2006). In fact, the Commission on Education of the Deaf (established by the

Education of the Deaf Act, 1986) concluded that over 175 years of research on the teaching of

English literacy to deaf children has been unproductive (Bowe, 1991). Siegel (2000) proposed

that laws, policies, and programs that recognize and respect deaf and hard-of-hearing children‘s

need to communicate are necessary to ensure the provision and coordination of a quality

education for deaf students; otherwise ―Deaf and hard of hearing children are at significant risk

for outcomes far below their potential and remain at high risk for poor academic achievement,

dropping out of school, and delays in the development of language and critical-thinking skills‖

(p. 69). In sum, past approaches to teaching the majority of deaf and hard-of-hearing students

have been unsuccessful and effective ways to improve the academic success of these learners is

needed.

2.2.2 Diverse communication modes.

Deaf and hard-of-hearing people communicate in a variety of ways. For some, speech,

lipreading and audition are their main mode of communication in one-to-one situations. In group

situations, oral interpreters and captions can be used to facilitate spoken communication. In

cases where the person‘s speech is not understood, writing or texting may be used to understand


the spoken or written messages. Deaf and hard-of-hearing people may also use a form of sign

language to communicate with other deaf people. These include American Sign Language

(ASL), contact signing, fingerspelling or an English language sign system, such as, Manually

Coded English or Signing Exact English (Scheetz, 1993). In mixed groups of hearing and deaf

people, a deaf person may use a combination of speech with sign (Simultaneous Communication

or SimCom), or a sign language interpreter may be employed to facilitate communication.

Typically, deaf people utilize a range of communication, switching from spoken or written

English to Simultaneous Communication or ASL, depending on whom they are speaking with,

the context and setting.

In the Deaf community, communication is not taken for granted. It is so highly valued

that it is the core of the conflict between the Deaf community and the dominant society

(Jankowski, 1997). Prior to 1960, 80% of deaf children attended residential schools (Lane,

Hoffmeister and Bahan, 1996) whereas in the 2007, over 95% attended traditional or

mainstreamed schools (Walter, 2010). Even when faced with the oralist movement (1880‘s –

1960‘s), deaf students used sign language in the dormitories and religious venues while Deaf

adults and teachers promoted its use in Deaf clubs and captured its elite in films (Burch, 2000).

These interactions created and sustained a Deaf culture where a different mode of

communication was the basis of a language (ASL) and a community (Kannapell, 1982) and

deafness ―refer[ed] to what is fundamentally a cultural and linguistic, rather than audiological,

feature‖ (Reagan, 2002, p. 45). Using this perspective, culturally Deaf peoples‘ difficulties with

acquiring literacy in English are considered to have linguistic, cultural, and educational rather

than pathological roots (e.g., Charrow & Wilbur, 1975; Johnson, Liddell & Erting, 1989; Padden

& Humphries, 1988).


Since language is both the medium and the message of socialization, access to

communication is extremely important, especially for students who are Deaf ASL users

(Albertini, 1993). This is particularly important in Deaf culture (Gannon, 1981; Wilcox, 1989)

since ASL has always been a cherished part of the daily lives of Deaf students in residential

schools and because it is a modality shared primarily with other Deaf, it binds them closer

together (Lane, 2005; Moores, 1996; Padden & Humphries, 1988). Knowing that deaf students

have varying levels of literacy skills, language preferences (English or ASL), communication

abilities (spoken or signed) and affiliations is critical to instructing them effectively in classroom

or tutoring situations.

2.2.3 Deaf identity and development.

As a group, Deaf and hard-of-hearing people identify with hearing loss differently. For

instance, people who are hard-of-hearing or late-deafened tend to use amplification,

speechreading and text (captions) to accommodate their hearing loss. They mainly use English as

their primary language and identify most with members of the ‗hearing‘ culture. Culturally Deaf

people, on the other hand, depend on either sign language or interpreters to communicate. They

also self-identify as members of the Deaf community (Padden & Humphries, 1988).

Exposure to family and educational systems are the two most important socialization

agents in a deaf child‘s identity development (Leigh, 2009). Thus, their identity, and idea of self,

is shaped by their day-to-day interactions with others, both hearing and deaf. Hearing family‘s

views of deafness are often shaped by members of the health profession and educators. These

professionals are compelled to "correct the defect" in an attempt to make the deaf hear in order to

assimilate them into the dominant (hearing/English speaking) culture (Jankowski, 1997;

Komesaroff, 2008). As a result, hearing families treat deafness as a disability and assume a


negative view. In contrast, deaf children born into Deaf families experience greater acceptance

and higher self-esteem (Bat-Chava, 1994).

There are several racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. A known way to

strengthen one‘s identity within a culture is to have access to and interact with members of its

community (Parasnis, 1991). Unlike members of ethnic communities whose members are able

to help shape the identity and self-esteem of their youth, young deaf children do not always have

access to Deaf role models. As a result, a deaf child, born into a hearing family, may have

difficulty accessing the hearing community due to the absence of hearing as well as difficulty

accessing the Deaf community due to the absence of sign language skills. Consequently, deaf

children ―face an identity paradox‖ (Grande, 2000, p.492) as they struggle to fit into both the

Deaf and hearing worlds. This reinforces the importance of providing deaf children with access

to other Deaf people to aid in the development of a healthy deaf identity.

Children with disabilities or from minority cultures are often viewed as ―inferior‖

because they do not conform to the dominant culture‘s perception of normal (Wrigley, 1996). In

the dominant (hearing) culture, where speech is the primary mode of communication, it is almost

impossible to imagine communicating without it. It is even more difficult to imagine anyone

rejecting speech as a preferred mode of communication (Padden, 1980). This condescending

behavior, referred to as audism in the Deaf community, results in deficit thinking toward Deaf

people; treating them as disabled individuals; a devaluation of signed languages; and an

emphasis on the ability to speak and lipread (Gertz, 2003, p. 317). On the contrary, many Deaf

people are content with their membership in the Deaf community and do not feel the need to

fully integrate into the hearing world (Gertz, 2003). In spite of services available for people with

hearing losses, which are justified for some, continued efforts to pathologize culturally Deaf


people in fact disables them. This in turn makes it difficult for this minority culture to maintain

their Deaf identity (Lane, 1984).

A critical deaf studies view of deafness highlights the fact that the language of the Deaf

community (ASL) is acquired visually and forms the foundation for a shared culture and identity

(Bosso & Kuntze, 1994; Ladd, 2003). Therefore, constructing Deaf people as individuals with a

disability ignores their status as minority language bilinguals. A critical deaf studies view also

acknowledges the struggles Deaf people have experienced as an oppressed social group and how

educators can position themselves to provide appropriate instruction (Gertz, 2003).Consequently,

my approach to deaf education has been strongly influenced by this context and has guided my

understanding and support for the language and culture of Deaf people.

2.2.4 Benefits of tutoring.

Research indicates that tutoring is an effective instructional tool (Gordon, Morgan,

O‘Malley & Ponticell, 2007) that ―helps students engage in activities that build community, self-

esteem, and responsibility along with academic and social skills‖ in a variety of contexts (Foster-

Harrison, 1997, p. 12). Salmon (2000) boasts synchronous tutoring as a way for students to feel

connected and stay motivated. While there are numerous findings supporting the benefits of

tutoring children in early educational intervention programs (Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small,

Pratt & Chen, 1996; Wasik & Slavin, 1993), its effectiveness with students at a higher grade

levels has been argued (Shanahan, 1998). Nevertheless, various models and theories promote

tutoring as an effective teaching strategy. ―The cognitive model posits that college students are,

or should be, active participants, autonomous, and good strategy users‖ (Stahl, Simpson &

Hayes, 1992, p. 3, emphasis added). Similarly, ―…constructivists hold the learning community

and the impact of social and cultural influences as key pieces in student development and


learning‖ (Gordon et al. 2007, p. 47, emphasis added). As such, constructivism posits that

―knowledge is acquired through social negotiation, experience and reflection, i.e., resulting from

the construction of meaning from interaction with specific contexts‖ (McPherson & Nunes,

2004, p. 4). These perspectives stress the social construction of meaning through interaction and

negotiation (Yager, 2000) and can be an effective alternative to the deficit model of tutoring

instruction (Stahl, Simpson & Hayes, 1992). When learning is seen as a process of socially

constructed understanding, the learner must be surrounded by a rich learning environment that

provides resources to support the communication and negotiation processes between members of

the learning community (Zucchermaglio, 1993). Social activities with mentors promotes skill

development via guidance provided when interacting with skilled others (Rogoff, 1990). In just

so happens that this type of collectivism is a dominant cultural pattern in the Deaf community

(Siple & Holcomb, 2004).

In spite of difficulties caused by delayed exposure to language or learning English as a

second language, deaf college students are expected to read and write well in college (Anderson,

1993; Lang & Meath-Lang, 1992; Marschark, Lang & Albertini, 2002; McAnally, Rose &

Quigley, 1987; Paul, 2009; Schmitz, 2008). In fact, success in college often depends on their

ability to obtain proficiency in English (Berent, Kelly, Aldersley, Schmitz, Khalsa, Panara &

Keenan, 2007). To assist deaf students, colleges offer a variety of access and support services

where ―Tutoring ranks with interpreting and notetaking as one in a triad of fundamental

academic support services for deaf and hard of hearing students at the postsecondary level,

particularly among those in mainstreamed settings‖ (Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 1997, p. 1).

Nevertheless, studies have shown that while the majority of two-and-four-year colleges offer


tutoring as a support service to deaf and hard-of-hearing students, the quality of tutoring was not

examined in the analysis (Lang, et al., 2004; Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 1997).

Deaf college students report several reasons for accessing tutoring including failing

grades, missing class, difficulty understanding class lectures, and problems with reading and

writing assignments. Similar to their hearing peers, deaf students reported the benefits of tutoring

to their overall academic success (Lang, Biser, Mousley, Orlando & Porter, 2004). Notably,

deterrents to accessing tutoring by deaf college students included poor time management,

difficulty matching availability with tutors, and tutors lack of attentiveness especially in group

sessions (Scherer & Binder, 1989). With widespread computer access and evolving digital

technologies, computer-mediated and online tutoring systems could make tutoring more

accessible, affordable and flexible for a broad range of users (Gardner III, Nobel, Hessler, Yawn

& Heron, 2007).

2.2.5 Contributions to remote tutoring.

Across the United States, colleges are increasingly offering distance learning education to

meet students‘ demands for flexible schedules, to provide access to college for students who

would otherwise not have it, to make more courses available, and to increase revenue and student

enrollment (Fuks, Gerosa & Pereira de Lucena, 2002; Menchaca & Bekele, 2008).

Unfortunately, the provision of tutoring to support students enrolled in online courses has not

kept up with this increase (Rabinovich, 2009). Valdes-Corbeil and Corbeil (2007) claim that

colleges themselves are at fault since in the rush to get distance courses online, the infrastructure

needed to support tutoring for online students was lacking. This is in spite of the fact that these

students ―pay fees which partially fund tutoring services‖ (p. 2121). In addition, there is limited

scholarship addressing the role of the distance language tutor and the attributes and skills needed


to be competent in this role: ―There is a need to explore the ways in which language tutor

attributes and expertise develop and change, not only as tutors acquire more experience, but as

they enter new environments, particularly online environments and virtual support networks‖

(Shelley, White, Baumann & Murphy, 2006, p. 12). The provision of remote tutoring and the

process of examining factors that satisfy the needs of users could address this gap.

In order to provide remote tutoring to college students, institutions must have appropriate

technology, technical support and trained tutors; and students must have access to technology

used by the remote-tutoring service. Modern web-based technologies have paved the way for a

variety of synchronous and asynchronous online learning opportunities. In recent years, phone

tutoring, asynchronous tutoring, computerized tutoring, webconferencing and videotutoring

systems have all been used to tutor students (Coogan, 1995; Jordan-Henley & Maid, 1995;

Crump, 1994; Nichol & Watson, 2000). The use of webconferencing and videotutoring has the

obvious advantage of removing locational constraints while allowing face-to-face contact with

deaf students. In their analysis of videotapes and related data, Nichol and Watson (2000)

confirmed that videoconferencing technology provided an effective medium for tutoring hearing

students at a distance. Houge and Geier (2009) reported that one-to-one, synchronous tutoring

with hearing students using videoconferencing technologies (including audio, video and

chalkboard features) was an effective way to deliver literacy instruction and ―shows great

promise‖ (p. 162). Bello, Knowlton and Chaffin (2007) suggested that instruction with hearing

students through interactive videoconferencing resulted in increased student motivation and

improved understanding of key concepts when compared to classroom instruction. Houge,

Peyton, Geier and Petrie (2007) found no significant difference for low readers (hearing

students) who benefitted from literacy instruction regardless of whether it was delivered


traditionally or online using webcam technologies. While these findings are encouraging, studies

with deaf students suggest that online tools need to be improved for ease, quality and reliability.

For tutoring deaf students remotely, Mallory and Laury (2001) reported success using Desktop

Video Conferencing with a QuickCam™ Desktop camera. However, they found the video aspect

of the camera to be too slow for communicating through sign language but useful for viewing

facial expressions and gesturing. More recently, four pilots using remote tutoring with deaf

middle-and-high school students were reported (Baker, 2010). These projects found issues with

video transmission; problems with using videophones with additional software applications;

computer crashes and students needing an on-site teacher to assist with course content intended

for delivery online. All four projects used different configurations in an attempt to determine

their viability with a deaf-student population. Overall, student and tutor comments about the

experience were positive making the potential use of webconferencing software for remote

tutoring promising but there was no optimal configuration. Consequently, delivering tutoring

remotely using webconferencing software still poses many challenges. Therefore, the need to

examine remote tutoring using video technologies with deaf college students needs further

exploration.

In conclusion, the availability and advancements of telecommunication technologies

(e.g., telephones for text messaging and the fourth generation iPhone for video calls) and

webconferencing technologies (i.e., Adobe Connect, ooVoo, Skype, GoToMeeting and

DimDim), provide people with hearing losses equal access to the same technologies used by

their hearing peers. Familiarity and ease of use makes these technologies ideal for

complementing much needed remote-tutoring services for deaf students. Even though it is

presumed that the ―most effective way for Deaf students to keep up with their class work is to


provide them with tutorial services‖ (Livingston, Duda & Lucas, 2000), there has been little

research conducted on remote tutoring with deaf college students (Lang, Biser, Mousley,

Orlando, et al., 2004; Orlando, Gramly & Hoke, 1997). With current trends in distance

technologies, the ability to provide quality remote-tutoring services to deaf college students

seems plausible. However, due to the limited number of qualified tutors who are able to use a

variety of communication modes used by deaf students and knowledgeable in their unique

learning needs, factors that promote satisfactory remote-tutoring experiences with deaf college

students still needs to be explored. The desire to identify these factors led me to investigate how

using remote tutoring with students in my English classes affected my tutoring practices.

2.3 Theoretical Frameworks

Theories, frameworks and models can be used as conceptual lenses through which to

view the world. They help us to identify ideas worth studying and by providing insight into the

nature and relationships between people, language, learning and objects. As technologies

advance and become an integral part of society and culture, theoretical frameworks can further

help us understand the complex contexts in which people and technologies interact. Since

remote tutoring with deaf college students is a complex, multifaceted domain; no single

framework can be used to view the technological, pedagogical and communication issues that

promote remote tutoring as a viable teaching strategy with deaf college students. Consequently, I

used aspects of sociocultural theory (SCT), activity theory (AT) and new literacy studies (NLS)

to pose research questions, design methodologies, collect evidence, and for analyzing and

interpreting data in this study.


2.3.1 Sociocultural Theory.

Sociocultural theory (SCT) is a theory of mediated cognitive development where

meaning is constructed by the convergence of individuals, cultures and activities (Lantolf &

Throne, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978, 1987). Supportive environments that foster social interactions

provide the opportunity for a child to learn beyond what he/she would acquire alone. Tutoring

embraces elements of the sociocultural theory as it emphasizes learning with the help of a

mediator. From a sociocultural perspective, the tutor can serve as a model in an academic setting

in order to create a supportive learning environment with which to interact. Similarly, the learner

can be an active observer thereby employing and practicing new skills. Since students learn

through observation, modeling can be used, particularly at times when teaching something

new. Once the learner encodes the appropriate behavior and it is no longer necessary to model it,

the role of the teacher shifts to coaching the student to a higher level of learning.

Learning as a sociocultural activity also builds on the concept of scaffolding, whereby

students use their existing knowledge to help them bridge the gap between known and unknown

information (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976). This method allows students to grasp information

that may be slightly above their current ability level by using what they know to inform what

they need to know. This phenomenon is known as the zone of proximal development (Lightbown

and Spada, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, scaffolded instruction can move students to their zone

of proximal development or extend it (Vygotsky, 1987). While the types and characteristics of

scaffolding in traditional classroom and tutoring settings have been identified (Roehler &

Cantlon, 1997), this concept needs to be reconsidered in contexts mediated by technology

(McLoughlin, 2002).


Vygotsky‘s sociocultural theory of learning ―influenced the development of the

constructivist movement‖ (Jaramillo, 1996, p. 1). The processes and main elements that support

effective tutoring, such as social constructivism, succeed when mutual help and reciprocal

treatment is fostered (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). Group learning, where pairs and small groups

of students learn together through social interaction, is considered one of the key constructivist

learning techniques.

Others include: a) encouraging student initiation of ideas, b) promoting student

self regulation and action, c) using students‘ experiences and interests in lessons

and offering multiple ways to learn, d) using open-ended questions and

encouraging students to elaborate, and e) allowing adequate time for reflection

and analysis (Yager, 2000, pp. 44 - 45).

Constructivism recognizes that learning occurs through interaction with others and that

the individual‘s cognitive growth is a direct result of timely and appropriate assistance

(Vygotsky, 1987). Consistent with sociocultural and constructivist pedagogies, tutoring

dialogues should be interactive and collaborative. When information resonates with the social

and cultural awareness of the user, it makes the learning experience more effective and increases

the probability of putting new knowledge into practice (Shulman, 1986). Appropriate language

use in relevant cultural contexts is required if learners are to become capable of using language

outside the classroom (Beebe, 1988; Valdes, 1986).

Vygotsky‘s work with handicapped children is less widely known than his sociocultural

views on learning (Gindis, 1995). He viewed deafness as a social abnormality, rather than a

sensory deficit and advocated teaching deaf children using a ―positive differential approach‖

building on students‘ strengths using social activities with peers and adults. Applying


sociocultural theory, the focus of instruction should be to accommodate the deaf child‘s ―unique

way of acculturation through acquiring different symbolic systems‖ (p. 79). Additionally,

pedagogical practices that use strategies connected to students‘ cultural patterns should be

utilized. (DeLana, Gentry & Andrews, 2007; Lantolf & Appel, 1994). As such, today‘s web and

video technologies could be used to mediate instruction for deaf college students.

In conclusion, a sociocultural theory can be applied to the strategies and techniques used

to deliver tutoring services since it emphasizes learning with the help of a mediator. A mediator

can be a teacher, peer, computer or writing lab staff member. Proponents of this theory believe

that real-life learning occurs in context within socially and culturally constructed situations

where learners are seen as active constructors of meaning and individual differences are valued

(Brown, 1994). Consequently, a socioculturalist views students as learning from more

knowledgeable individuals and reading and writing are seen as social processes in which tutors

and tutees learn from one another (Hough & Geier, 2009, p. 156). This theory will be applied to

the instructional strategies used in delivering remote tutoring sessions as well as to the

interpretation of data collected from this study.

2.3.2 Activity Theory.

Online instruction can benefit from utilizing activity theory (AT), a framework that

originated from a sociocultural theoretical framework. Leontiev (1978) defined activity as

something motivated by a culturally constructed need, such as the need to be literate. Literacy

development occurs as part of everyday activities in and out of school. The material and/or

thinking tools that are redesigned during an activity carry with them their cultural and historical

remainings. AT emphasizes the social factors and the interactions between people who invent or


improve tools as a way to gather and convey social knowledge. Therefore, AT requires that

people actively explore and transform their environments.

The cultural-historical theory of activity (CHAT), initiated by Russian psychologists

Vygotsky, Leont‘ev and Luria in the 1920s - 1930s, is considered ―a model of artifact-mediated

and object-orientated action‖ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 40). Yrjo Engestrom (1987) described a model

of human activity as one of social mediations characterized by the interactions between subjects,

objects, the community, the divisions of labor, and the rules which are all necessary to produce

an outcome (Figure 2.1). To illustrate, a model of activity for remote tutoring could be described

as follows: The subject is the tutor and the object is the tutee who produce a reciprocal

relationship with one another. Tools may include distance learning technologies, the course

management system, course materials and students‘ drafts. The community consists of the

instructor and all enrolled students. The division of labor for transforming the object includes

the students‘ roles. And finally, the rules regulate access to the system stipulated by the

instructor and/or course boundaries, how outcomes are measured and how students are rewarded.

Ultimately, outcomes produce constructed knowledge as the result of the activity.

Whereas animals mediate through instinct, human beings mediate activities using man-

made artifacts (Luria, 1976). The online tutor uses the tools of technology and instructional

strategies to coordinate their actions towards students and vice versa. This praxis continues and

changes as new ways of doing things evolve. Using activity theory and human-computer

interaction (HCI) frameworks, Bodker (1991), Engestrom (2000) and Nardi (1996) studied areas

supported by computer technologies, ―By understanding the cyclical components involved in an

activity, the HCI professional can better predict what user groups the software should support

and some of the information needs of these user groups as well as explain the larger issues that


influence how people use and interact with computers…‖ (Nardi, 1996, p. 75). Together, activity

theory and sociocultural theory emphasize ways in which a tutor and student interact socially to

Figure 2.1. Remote tutoring Activity System

Figure 2.1. This figure illustrates the activity system for remote tutoring

develop literate practices and thinking skills. Activity theory principles can provide a broad

conceptual framework with which to understand the learner-centered, socially and culturally

influenced work practices of humans using computers and the sociocultural theory principles can

provide a framework with which to understand that students and teachers create, process and

share thoughts and ideas within today‘s distance learning environments.

2.3.3 New Literacy Studies.

Literacy is critical to functioning well in school (Ramsey & Padden, 1998) but how

literacy is defined is largely contested. Traditional literacy instruction has confined itself to

Technologies

Tutee Tutor

Educational

Rules Educational

Community Students‘

roles

Constructed

knowledge


forms of print-based language (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). In contrast, new literacy studies (NLS)

are seen as an opportunity for defining ―text‖ in a broader way, especially in light of new

technologies (Kuntz, 2008). As such, information can be presented in multimodal formats with

the use of technology (e.g., graphics, sound, video, sign language plus print). NLS embraces an

emerging view that literacy is multiple and is an integral part of the sociocultural lives of

individuals and communities (Gee, 1996; Paul, 2006). As a result, NLS supports deaf students‘

use of multiple sources to access information and develop higher cognitive skills in all ways of

instruction, including tutoring.

Lankshear and Knobel (2006) describe New Literacy Studies using a socially-oriented

view of literacy, ―Understanding literacies from a sociocultural perspective means that reading

and writing can only be understood in the contexts of social, cultural, political, economic,

historical practices to which they are integral, of which they are a part‖ (p. 2). One way to

facilitate this view is to bridge the gap between in-school expectations and out-of-school

experiences thereby capitalizing on what students know and use (Larson & Marsh, 2005). Brian

Street (2003) refers to NLS as literacy as a social practice whose ideological model recognizes

that different cultures have different literacies. Consequently, the ways in which tutors and tutees

interact is a social practice that influences literacy development. Gee (1996) claims that

―discourses are intimately related to the distribution of social power and hierarchical structure in

society, which is why they are always and everywhere ideological‖ (p. 132). Since Discourses3

identify membership in a particular group, sensitivity to diverse literacy practices forms the

foundation of this ideological model of literacy.

3 Here, discourse with a capital ―D‖ is used to indicate discourse related to a community‘s everyday literacy

activities (Gee, 1996).


Amidst technical, social, economic, political and cultural changes, understanding new

literacies has implications for sociotechnical practices (Gee, Hull and Lankshear, 1996)

especially since they change regularly as technology evolves (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack,

2004). Due to the ubiquitousness of computers in classrooms and homes, there has been a shift

from ―the dominance of the medium of the book to the dominance of medium of the screen‖

(Kress, 2003, p. 1). Consequently, there are benefits from a shift in mode caused by changes in

media because all modes offer different affordances and are useful for different purposes. A

multiplicity of modes, or ―multimodality‖, can occur simultaneously, such as, image and sound;

and communication with text can be interactive, such as, Instant Messaging (Kress, 2003). The

effect is a reassessment of what writing is and how it can be taught:

It becomes clear that there is a deep difference in the potentials of image

and writing, with the latter –as alphabetic writing—still retaining its strong

relation to sound and its potentials, and the former with its use of light,

space and vision and their potentials (Kress, 2003, p. 10)

As a result, this shift justifies new approaches to teaching writing to those who do not use sound

by providing instruction through the increasing use of multimodal technologies.

In the case of distance learning, instruction no longer occurs in classroom space and time,

but instead occurs in online space at user-controlled times (Leander, 2006). As such, new

literacy studies can be applied to show the way current (and future) computer-mediated

technologies produce new literacies that can be used to ―construct authentic reading and writing

pedagogy based on every day practices‖ (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006, p. 22). A multiliteracy

approach can also foster ―learners as agents in their own knowledge processes‖ (Cope and

Kalantzis, 2009, p. 7) learning to practice and perform certain tasks independently.


In conclusion, literacy today does not only mean the ability to read and write, it ―is

perceived to be social by nature…inescapably ideological…relative… and situation-specific…‖

(Lonsdale & McCurry, 2004, p. 36). As a result, a new literacies perspective and a pedagogy of

multiliteracies allow for differentiated learning experiences using preferential engagement with

an emphasis on constructing meaning to allow better learning outcomes (Cope & Kalantzis,

2009). To this end, my goal is to enhance literacy by successfully integrating digital technologies

with social constructivist tutoring practices and activity theory principles with deaf students in

my English classes.

In conclusion, when addressing remote tutoring with deaf college students, ―Meeting the

needs of the 21st Century learner may require a multi-theory approach‖ (Beldarrain, 2006, p.

148). Sociocultural theory will be applied to the instructional strategies used during remote

tutoring sessions. Activity theory will be used to assess the activity under study; in particular

how the subject/objects interact using an array of mediated instruments (webconferencing

software, webcams, videophones, electronic documents, etc.). New literacy studies will be

applied to tutoring sessions with a focus on using multimodal technologies and a ―learning by

doing‖ approach to instruction. These theories form the lenses for analyzing how remote tutoring

with deaf college students affects my tutoring practices.

2.4 Addressing the Educational Problem

In order to address the educational problem, a number of issues need to be considered.

These include technical issues, pedagogical issues, communication issues, as well as students‘

acceptance to and perceived benefits of receiving tutoring remotely. In this section, each of these

issues will be addressed, identifying themes in the literature for use in analyzing the data

collected in this study.


2.4.1 Technical considerations.

Computer, communication, and access technologies have changed the routines and

practices in most areas of life, including how we teach and learn (Shank & Cleary, 1995). In

education, the appearance of high-speed internet, webconferencing software, course management

systems, webcams and videophones brings with it opportunities to reconstruct learning via

synchronous and asynchronous computer interface formats. Distance technologies hold great

promise for the practical use of remote tutoring with deaf college students; however,

understanding the opportunities and limitations is important when selecting a specific distance

tutoring format with this population. Baker (2010) assessed four different remote tutoring

configurations with deaf middle-and-high-school students and determined ―Once the issues

related to technology are resolved, pedagogical considerations and student outcomes can be more

purposefully studied‖ (p. 22). In particular, there were problems due to insufficient bandwidth to

support video-based communications over the internet. Additional barriers to video transmission

included freezing, desynchronized audio/video and blackouts due to firewalls or too much

internet traffic.

The process of selecting the right distance tutoring tool is crucial to implementing a

remote-tutoring program for deaf college students that will result in improved academic success,

retention and satisfaction by its users (Valdes-Corbeil & Corbeil, 2007). First, there is the need to

be able to communicate with one another online. Choices include: text-to-text, face-to-face, or a

combination. When using webconferencing to support distance learning, there are several details

to consider: the number of participants, the webconferencing room layout, whether the

combination of products will be used on a desktop computer or laptop, and whether or not end

users will be interacting with instructional materials. In particular, some deaf tutees would


benefit from voice transmission, while others would not. Including a video component within

the webconferencing system would support sign language for ASL and SimCom users as well as

spoken communication for those who depend on lipreading. In addition, collaboration using

shared documents would ideally occur during tutoring sessions fostering a higher degree of

interactivity. This requires ―share‖ features (documents, windows and desktops) that allow both

people to have access to the interface. All of these technical issues need to be considered when

designing an optimal remote-tutoring system for deaf students.

As previously stated, issues that hampered using webconferencing software tools have

been reported, such as, problems with video and audio transmissions, problems with the

uploading functions, errors in displaying images and general system instability (Ciano, 2007; Liu

& Ko, 2007). Unfortunately, the restricted bandwidth of current web-based video technology

degrades the signal to the point where natural sign language can be difficult to ―read‖ forcing

signers to slowdown their rate in order to be better understood. When using sign language as the

primary mode of communication, videophones transmit a better video signal and thus could also

be used for remote tutoring. The problem identified during this study involved webcam conflicts

that occurred trying to contact the tutor using a videophone when the tutor was already logged

into the webconferencing site. In this case, the student would get a message that they could not

connect. I n this study, a webconferencing site was used in order to allow document sharing and

collaboration; therefore, if a student wanted to use a videophone for remote tutoring, they had to

contact the teacher to set up the call thereby adding a step to accessing remote tutoring with the

instructor. Perhaps remote tutoring with deaf college students using videophones could be used

instead of webconferencing software since some videophone software programs also have chat

features for texting and display features that allow users to share desktop documents. Whether it


would be possible to co-collaborate using course materials was not evaluated during this study

and thus needs to be investigated. Or perhaps, better video technologies that maintain the video

signal within a web-based conferencing application will emerge in the near future.

Another technical issue related to remote tutoring with deaf college students is the skills

and attributes of remote tutors. Specifically, and different from traditional tutoring, online tutors

are responsible for technical as well as content instruction. ―Technical roles, possibly the most

daunting for academics, involve becoming familiar, comfortable and competent with the ICT

systems and software that compose the e-learning environment. Additionally, this role includes

supporting the students in becoming competent and comfortable themselves by providing

technical guidance…‖ (Rabinovich, 2009, The Role of the Online Tutor, para 3). To aid the

transition to and/or acceptance of online learning, to maximize online learning environments, and

to deliver effective instruction, online tutors need adequate technical training (McPherson &

Nunes, 2004). A tutor‘s comfort and technical skill is best realized when the practical

application occurs between parties. This could be facilitated by training tutors to teach remotely

using distance technologies.

In conclusion, using telecommunication and computer technologies as the mediating

tools to facilitate remote tutoring with deaf college students can allow real-time, face-to-face

tutoring to occur from a distance. Further research will also determine if students can interact

successfully with technologies and thereby benefit from this learning environment. This study

addresses the technological issues affecting the process of delivering tutoring to deaf college

students by examining in the ways technical configurations contribute to a satisfying remote

tutoring environment (sub-question 1).


2.4.2 Communication considerations.

Deaf and hard-of-hearing people communicate in a variety of ways. Knowing this can aid

tutors in facilitating communication by selecting technologies that support students‘ preferred

communication modes and utilizing communication strategies effectively. For those whose

primary language is English, a combination of speaking, speechreading, listening and writing

may be used. When communication breakdowns occur, adding common gestures, rephrasing

instead of repeating statements, spelling words and using writing can be used to facilitate

communication when instructing deaf students who don‘t know sign language (Mahshie,

Moseley, Lee & Scott, 2005). Other strategies include speaking at a normal pace; and if possible,

using words that may be easier to lipread or more familiar to students. Other deaf or hard-of-

hearing may use Signed English, Cued Speech or Simultaneous Communication to communicate

while culturally Deaf people prefer to use ASL with each other (Padden & Humphries, 1988).

Knowing this can aid in selecting and training tutors in order to meet the diverse communication

modes of students who depend on sign language. In all cases, when instructing students whose

primary receptive mode is vision, it is important to communicate using one mode of

communication at a time in the tutoring session. For example, when referring to printed course

materials, allow sufficient time for students to read it before discussing it. Also important, is

checking for understanding and clarifying what was spoken or signed to ensure

misunderstandings did not occur.

For remote tutoring to be successful with a deaf student population, the tutor must be able

to meet the diverse communication preferences of students. Therefore the tutor should be skilled

in communicating using ASL, SimCom, English and writing. Scherer and Binder (1989) reported

deaf and hard-of-hearing college students preferred tutors who were able to use a variety of


communication modes (ASL, simultaneous communication and writing). Providing tutors who

can deliver instruction across this diverse communication range is challenging further supporting

the need to explore remote tutoring using qualified tutors. This study addresses the

communication issues that affect the process of delivering tutoring to deaf college students by

examining the diverse language and communication practices that affect the remote tutoring

process (sub-question 2).

2.4.3 Pedagogical considerations.

The challenge to delivering remote tutoring is to create opportunities for students to

participate as active co-constructors of meaning, in a supportive environment that fosters social

interactions, using familiar technologies in an unfamiliar forum. To be consistent with

sociocultural and constructivist pedagogies, tutoring dialogues should be interactive and

collaborative (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Lang, Biser, Mousley, Orlando, & Porter, 2004).

Juel (1996) found that the most successful tutors engaged in scaffolded interactions with their

tutees. In addition, effective tutoring sessions were characterized by students doing most of the

talking, focusing on content and organization rather than grammar, negotiating meaning from

readings and writings, and tutors asking questions (inductive instruction) rather than giving

answers (deductive instruction) (Weigle & Nelson, 2004, p. 203).

One-to-one interactions can provide students with access to language adjusted to their

level of understanding as well as instruction specific to their learning needs. Feedback delivered

in tutoring serves many purposes. Ciano (2007) discussed the effectiveness of tutor feedback for

learning and stated that corrective (fixing), suggestive (hinting) and reinforcing (praising)

feedback types were most effective. Feedback can also serve as a stimulus for the student to

imitate. Ideally, good tutoring programs help students ―learn how to learn‖ at their optimal


achievement level (Gordon et al., 2007, p. 176) thereby enabling students to become self-

directed learners. ―By this definition, tutoring is a collaborative process in which tutors guide

students toward ownership of their own learning‖ (Gourgey, 1994, p. 87). In a writing class, the

goal of remote tutoring is to produce a better writer, not simply a better paper (Murphy &

Sherwood, 1995).

From a social constructivist point of view, interactions between a tutor and a tutee are

essential since they can help the writer focus on form and identify problems. In a writing class,

―The function of writing becomes the representation and communication of thought in a

community of writers, and, by focusing on content and process, the writer learns to communicate

more clearly and effectively‖ (Albertini & Schley, 2003, p. 124). From a second language

acquisition framework, the inclusion of the students‘ primary language and culture to motivate

students to generate their own knowledge is a constructive language model (Strong, 1992).

Lerner (1997) found that this type of tutoring significantly improved performance in writing

courses with second-language learners.

In conclusion, the remote tutor must be able to demonstrate skills in planning and

organizing the delivery of instruction, be competent in the content area and be able to instruct

online, utilize scaffolding in learning activities, match diverse communication and learning

styles, and utilize effective feedback (Gerrard, 2002). Livingston (1997) recommends tutors use

a collaborative writing approach when working with deaf writers. Employing a Socratic

dialogue, tutors and tutees can actively construct meaningful texts to promote students‘ cognitive

growth. Through active participation, the mechanics of writing can be provided to show deaf

students how to confirm what they know and encourage them to express themselves further

(Keenan & Bowers, 1988). Asking for clarification, giving feedback and using modeling


techniques during individual tutoring sessions can help students expand on their own texts. The

frequent use of collaborative conferencing also can minimize the student‘s sense of isolation

often felt when writing alone. In this study, I examine how instructional strategies meet the needs

of students participating in remote tutoring (sub-question 3).

2.4.4 Deaf identity development.

Language, literacy and identity development are embedded in social and cultural

practices (Lane, 2005). As stated in Chapter One, there are many factors that shape deaf identity

formation and transition including degree of hearing loss, communication access and skills,

family and educational experiences, and even technology. Bat-Chava (1994) categorized three

possible identities for deaf people: culturally Deaf, culturally hearing, and biculturally Deaf.

According to Glickman (1993), most prelingually deaf begin with a culturally hearing identity

due to early exposure to English-only/oral-only methods. The movement towards culturally and

biculturally Deaf is a process influenced by exposure to sign language and the Deaf community.

Consequently, if the formation of one‘s identity is influenced by relations with others through

socially meaningful activities (Lonsdale & McCurry, 2004), then a deaf person may identify with

either the Deaf community or the hearing community depending on his/her relationships over

his/her lifetime. However, in order to become a true member of the Deaf community, which is

founded on a shared language (ASL) and culture, a Deaf person conscientiously self-identifies

with the culturally Deaf community (Padden & Humphries, 1988).

With the emergence of new technologies come new identity formations (Leigh, 2009).

Therefore there is a need to consider how digital technologies and literacies affect deaf identity

formation, and vice versa. As such, this study will consider in what ways, if any, do students‘

identities influence their participation in remote tutoring (sub-question 4).


2.4.5 Users’ satisfaction.

Presently, educators have an opportunity to improve literacy skills using computer and

web technologies already familiar to many college students. For example, remote tutoring can

utilize webconferencing, include web links to the course management system, and integrate

video for students who depend on lipreading and sign language. However, it is important to

consider students‘ readiness and attitudes toward remote tutoring to determine if this type of

learning environment meets their needs. Liu and Ko (2007) collected and analyzed data from

online tutors‘ reflective journals, discussions and interviews. With regards to the quality of

instruction, tutors reported they were able to customize instruction to meet students‘ needs.

However, students perceptions of online learning environments and their affects on learning are

less known (Gilbert, Morton & Rowley, 2007). This information would be beneficial to the

instructional design process and measures of user satisfaction (Menchaca & Bekele, 2008).

Anecdotally, students may prefer classroom instruction, perhaps due to the fact they have

not yet experienced distance learning, yet studies show online learning can be as effective (e.g.,

Cook, Levinson, Garside, Dupras, Erwin & Montori, 2008; Johnson, Aragon, Shaik & Palma-

Rivas, 2000; Frydenberg, 2007) and in some cases, more effective than classroom learning

(Redding & Rotzien, 1999; Maki, Maki, Patterson & Whittak, 2000; Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart

& Wisher, 2006). To transition students to remote tutoring and motivate them to try it, a tutor can

demonstrate and explain the process of remote tutoring in a nonthreatening way allowing

students the opportunity to experience it before attempting to learn through it. Time and

experience with tutoring remotely will tell if the perceived benefits of remote tutoring outweigh

those attributed to traditional tutoring.


The best tutors possess desirable qualities, such as, enthusiastic, approachable, honest,

encouraging, friendly and respectful (Murphy, Shelley, White & Baumann, 2006). Scherer and

Binder (1989) reported deaf and hard-of-hearing college students preferred professional tutors

over peer tutors, tutors who were able to use a variety of communication modes, tutors who were

empathetic, had good teaching skills and were knowledgeable in the subject matter. I believe all

of these skills factor into whether a student is satisfied with the remote-tutoring experience and

may determine whether they return. Consequently, in addition to being competent in the content

area and being able to instruct online, remote tutors need to be positive, proactive, patient and

persistent with their tutees in their tutoring sessions (Shepherd, 2003). Asking users for their

input and incorporating their ideas into the design gives students a sense of ownership and may

result in greater satisfaction. In summary, students‘ comfort with digital technologies will

determine their willingness to try remote tutoring and their satisfaction with it will determine

whether it meets their needs as an appropriate support service. Consequently, in this study, I look

for what determines student satisfaction with the remote tutoring experience (sub-question 5).

2.5 Conclusion

When considering the provision of remote tutoring services to deaf college students, a

number of factors emerged. First, there are a variety of digital tools to examine and pilot.

Second, knowledge of deaf students‘ diverse communication preferences and unique learning

styles need to be considered. Third, there are pedagogical approaches concerning best practices

for teaching writing to deaf and hard-of-hearing students as well as best practices for teaching

them remotely that need to be examined. Fourth, being aware of students‘ affiliation with the

Deaf community and noticing the affects it may have on the remote tutoring process should also

be recognized. Last, there are the unknowns related to students‘ reactions and perceptions of


remote tutoring and if or how it satisfies their needs. Even though there is evidence that tutoring

can improve academic performance and that today‘s web 2.0 tools and conferencing applications

can support remote tutoring, the factors discussed above warrant further investigation into the

process of delivering one-to-one remote tutoring to deaf college students.

In Chapter Three, the interventions, data sources and analysis that were used in the study

are described. An explanation of action research and why it was an appropriate methodology for

this study is also included.


Chapter Three

Research Design

3.1 Introduction

It is my belief that remote tutoring utilizing proper communication, technology and

instructional techniques has the potential to provide a much needed support service to deaf

college students in today‘s online environment. In order to better understand its use with this

population, the purpose of this study is to document how remote tutoring affects my tutoring

practices. In this chapter, I will first explain why action research is the methodology that was

applied to the study. I will then detail its overall design. Next, I will provide a rationale for each

intervention. Finally, I will detail how data were collected and analyzed relative to the research

questions and theoretical frameworks presented in Chapters One and Two.

It is my hope that this action research study will lead to a better understanding of the

remote tutoring process with deaf college students, increase the credibility of remote tutoring as

a support service for this population, and inform others in the fields of tutoring, deaf education

and distance learning.

3.2 Choice of Methodology

Stated simply, action research involves cycles of planning, acting, observing and

reflecting with a goal of improving one‘s own practice (Herr & Anderson, 2005; Kemmis, 1982;

Lewin, 1948). ―Action research is used for various purposes: school-based curriculum

development, professional development, and systems planning‖ (Ferrance, 2000, p. 28). The

action researcher is ―directly involved in the research setting and in the experience itself and has

direct impact on the events being studied‖ (McPherson & Nunes, 2004, p. 8). Since action

research happens as and where the action is taking place, immediate reactions can occur. The


results of action research include a better understanding of oneself as an instructor, increased

knowledge of issues explored and a potential for sharing with others in the field (Burgess, 2006).

In contrast to linear forms of research, action research is an ongoing process of inquiry,

data collection and interpretation, action, evaluation and transformation (Figure 3.1). It links

aspects of theory, practice, and problem solving; thereby allowing the researcher to apply new

knowledge and problem solving using a futuristic lens (McFarland & Stansell, 1993). Since

Figure 3.1. Action Research Cycle

Figure 3.1. This figure illustrates the cyclical process of action research. (Ferrance,

2000, p. 9). (Used with permission from The Education Alliance at Brown

University).

Gather data

Interpret data

Act on evidence

Evaluate results

Plan next steps

Identify the

problem


an action research design emerges and evolves, it allows the researcher to identify a problem and

implement changes using a reflective process (Ferrance, 2000; Herr & Anderson, 2005). Since

action research is often used to understand complex social situations, ―…this type of research is

particularly appropriate for investigating learning situations since they constitute very complex

social settings‖ (McPherson & Nunes, 2004, p. 87). Providing remote tutoring to deaf college

students occurs in a complex social setting since many factors exist due to overlapping technical,

pedagogical, and communication activities. Applying this method, I hope to identify the affects

remote tutoring has on my tutoring practices; thereby increasing an understanding of myself as

tutor/researcher. These actions and interactions will be described in greater detail in the data

analysis segment of this chapter.

One reason action research was chosen as the methodology for this study is because it

allowed me to develop an action plan for an activity I was already providing, that is, tutoring as a

supplemental service to students in my classes. The main difference, however, was that I was

providing it remotely as opposed to traditionally. In order to measure how remote tutoring

affected my tutoring practices, students in my classes were offered remote tutoring in the

evening. Examining remote tutoring using action research allowed me to systematically analyze

the process as well as ascertain student satisfaction in order to better understand my practice and

improve its delivery. A second reason action research was chosen is because it allowed for the

creation of new knowledge - ―one of its major strengths‖ (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 6). Due to

the complicated nature of providing remote tutoring to deaf college students, action research

methodology allowed me to analyze and reflect on the delivery of remote-tutoring instruction

and apply new knowledge obtained in cycle one to cycle two as well as develop an action plan

for the implementation of remote tutoring in my college.


3.3 Context

Each quarter, I teach two sections of English to approximately twenty-four deaf college

students. Classes meet for 50 minutes, four consecutive days a week over a 10-week period. The

four-tiered English curriculum offered at the college is developmental (I-II-III-IV) and integrates

both reading and writing skill development with a focus on writing. The course I teach serves

students placed in level II. Students are placed into this class in one of two ways. The first way is

determined by the scores students receive on reading and writing course-placement tests given

during new-student orientation. The second way is by passing a pre-requisite course.

To better understand the population eligible for this study, the following information

provides characteristics of deaf students who attend the university. Specific details regarding

actual participants will be provided in Chapter Four. In order to qualify for admission to the

university, deaf students must have a 70 dB or greater hearing loss and have obtained a general

or regents high school diploma. The gender distribution of deaf students at the university consists

of 50% male and 50% female students. Since the majority of students who take this class are

first-and-second-year students, the mean age is 21 years (mean age of entering students for the

past five years). The race/ethnicity distribution of the deaf student population at the university

consists of 10% African –American, 10% Latino-American, 8% Asian, 1% Native-American,

68% Caucasian students, and 3% unknown (―Institution‖ Annual Report, 2009). Relative to

communication preference, 15% of the university‘s deaf student population use spoken

communication, 39% use a combination of spoken and signed English (SimCom), and 40% use

American Sign Language (ASL) as their primary mode of communication (Bryant, Caccamise,

Nelson, Scott, MacLeod, Wellin & Weymann, 2010). The only criterion for selection to

participate in this study was that students be enrolled in my English classes. Consequently,


offering remote tutoring to them was ideal for the purposes of studying the remote tutoring

process with a diverse deaf college student population using digital technologies.

3.4 Overall design

As previously stated in Chapter Two, the educational problem this study addressed was

the limited research supporting the use of remote tutoring with deaf college students. In order to

study this process using action research, the overarching research question was: How does using

remote tutoring with deaf college students affect my tutoring practices?

Sub-questions included:


environment?






3.4.1 Remote-tutoring formats.

Choosing the best available online formats to provide remote tutoring to deaf college

students in this study was a challenging endeavor since there are several webconferencing

providers who tout their usefulness for distance tutoring. While most appear to be affordable or

free, they lack the required video component needed to support sign language and lipreading.

(For a brief review, see Online Tutoring World, 2006). Videoconferencing, on the other hand, is

well-equipped to deliver high quality video; however, high-end sophisticated telepresence

technology (e.g., Cisco System Inc, Polycom Inc) can cost as much as $250,000 to install and


support. (For an overview, see Video Conferencing Review, 2008). Low-cost, one-to-one video

conferencing for the general public is also currently available, such as, Skype, Yahoo!

Messenger and iChat. Some even allow users to transfer files and may or may not allow

audio/video recordings for classroom or research use. Nevertheless, finding an affordable, high-

quality, open-source webconferencing system for use in this study presented a challenge.

After a thorough review, Adobe® Connect Pro 7

TM was chosen as the webconferencing

system used to deliver synchronous remote tutoring during the first five weeks of this study. It

consists of layouts and pods that allow the host to display content using a variety of features

including: document/window/screen share, chat, video/audio, notes, whiteboard, weblinks, and

polls. It is easy to utilize since it does not require special equipment or additional software

downloads since the required Adobe® Flash

® Player is already installed in most PC and Mac

computers. Similarly, there is no cost to individuals who want to use the Adobe®

ConnectNowTM

version from this company; however, institutions pay a modest price for the licensed Connect

ProTM

version.

As the study progressed and issues prevented users from achieving satisfactory remote

tutoring experiences, a change in webconferencing system was needed. Specifically, I looked for

a system that could be integrated with the course‘s Learning Management System (idea3) and

allowed both tutor and tutee to co-construct on shared documents. This became particularly

important since the focus of tutoring in this course centered on students drafting outlines and

paragraphs for homework. Co-constructing with students allowed me to utilize best tutoring

practices while empowering students to take ownership of their writing. For this reason, during

weeks 6 – 10, the IdeaToolsTM

Video Chat room was substituted for Adobe® Connect Pro 7

TM.

Snapshots of both remote tutoring systems are provided in Appendix E. Details of the


technological issues encountered and the action research cycles will be provided in Chapter Four

(Findings) and in Chapter Five (Action Research Cycles).

3.4.2 An action research cycle.

One of the challenges of using action research is determining what constitutes a complete

cycle (plan-act-observe-reflect). My overall plan was to provide remote tutoring to students

based on their academic needs, accommodate them using their preferred mode of communication

and differentiate instruction based on their knowledge of the task and goals for each session. The

action portion included everything that was involved with delivering the tutoring session: what

happened from a technical perspective, what occurred pedagogically and how communication

transpired. The observation component involved reviewing student and session evaluations and

instructional outcomes. Finally, all of this was taken into consideration when making changes

(See Figure 3.2). During a cycle, mini-cycles occurred involving technological, pedagogical

and/or communication issues. When decisions resulted in a change in technological systems, a

subsequent cycle was initiated. Thus, through this process of planning, acting, observing and

reflecting, I documented how the remote tutoring services I provided to deaf students in my

classes affected my tutoring practices. Ideally, the process of providing remote tutoring and

reflecting on this practice would allow me to create, modify and improve the delivery of remote

tutoring services in the future.

3.4.3 Positionality within action research.

In action research, positionality is an important consideration since explaining one‘s

position within the organization and study provides the context from which to evaluate research

validity and researcher bias and ethics. Since I am studying my remote tutoring practices with

students in my classes, I am considered an insider; however, Herr and Anderson (2005) state that


researchers can hold multiple positions simultaneously (p. 44). Therefore, as a participatory

researcher, I am also an outsider since I am a ―digital immigrant‖ as I was ―not born into the

digital world‖ (Prensky, 2001, p.1) even though I have always been fascinated by technologies

and strived to become knowledgeable in their uses, especially those that relate to education. I am

also an outsider because I am a professor which inherently places me in a position of power

(even though tutoring is not a required activity in this course) and because I am a ―hearing‖

person which precludes me from being a member of the Deaf community. Nonetheless, I identify

with Deaf cultural beliefs and values by maximizing students‘ access to communication using

Figure 3.2. Remote Tutoring Action Research cycle.

Figure 3.2. This figure illustrates the steps that occurred in an action research cycle

In this study.

•Analyze sessions, evaluations, and interviews

•Reflect on the remote tutoring process

•Provide remote tutoring & collect data

•Design a way to provide remote tutoring

PLAN ACT

OBSERVEREFLECT


visual and auditory modes (signed and spoken). In addition, I possess near-native signing skills

as measured by the Sign Language Proficiency Interview scale which allows me to communicate

directly with my students. I also believe Deaf students, who have learned language visually,

experience life differently and that this should be maximized. Failure to do so ignores the

circumstances that relate to the developing identity of an individual (Lippi-Green, 2004).

Over the years, my ―own understanding of language, literacy, and [deafness as a] culture

has shifted‖ (Nieto, 2006, p. 316). Consequently, as a hearing instructor whose second language

is ASL, I negotiate from a position of both insider and outsider as a researcher/practitioner who

has a desire to evaluate my teaching practices and then share the knowledge generated from this

study with others.

3.4.4 Participants’ recruitment.

Students enrolled in my English class typically read at a sixth-grade level as measured by

the California Test of Reading Comprehension. Many of these students have difficulty reading

for meaning and ―they often make vocabulary and structural errors that include omitting or

confusing articles, prepositions, and verb tense markers, and they have difficulty with complex

structures such as complements and relative clauses‖ (Holcomb & Peyton, 1992, p. 1). The focus

of this class is to develop vocabulary and grammar in context, understand paragraphs, and write

six different types of paragraphs (process, descriptive, compare-contrast, classification, cause-

effect and opinion). In the past, approximately 20% of students have taken advantage of tutoring

from me or from the college‘s learning center. It was my hope that offering tutoring remotely

would increase utilization.


Due to students‘ diverse communication and learning styles, the remote tutoring session

must be capable of meeting their individual needs. The first step in recruitment was to make it

easy and clear for students to access remote tutoring. To ensure this, students were instructed on

how to access the online meeting space. This was accomplished by providing them with the web

address on the syllabus as well as a link within the course management system. Since the concept

of meeting with the teacher on the web was new for many, I used a laptop to demonstrate how to

access the site while using the classroom PC to display what it looked like when they logged in.

Performing this allowed students to see first-hand what the site looked like and how to get there.

Judging by their questions and feedback, students appeared more comfortable considering its

access and potential use. Students were also given an opportunity to ask questions about the

service and were reminded of all the tutoring options offered for the course.

Recruitment for the study took place during the first week of class. Students received an

Information Letter describing the types of tutoring services offered for the course. These

included traditional tutoring with the instructor by appointment or during office hours, traditional

tutoring with paid tutors provided by the college‘s Learning Center during posted hours, and

remote tutoring with the instructor by appointment or during evening hours. The Information

Letter also described what was required of participants. Details of the study were discussed,

emphasizing that subjects‘ participation in remote-tutoring research was voluntary and that they

could cease participation at any time without impact on their grade or status in the class. The

study proceeded when subjects accessed the online meeting space, emailed the teacher or

contacted the instructor via videophone for remote tutoring. Students were reminded that their

sessions would be digitally recorded for later analysis. Students were also informed that if they

did not want to be part of the study, they could still choose remote tutoring with the me and their


sessions would not be recorded. All nine participants provided permission by agreeing to have

sessions recorded and by completing session evaluations.

3.4.5 Intervention and data sources.

The provision of remote tutoring and six data sources were utilized to address the

overarching research question and sub-questions for this study. Data sources included a

questionnaire, session transcripts, participant evaluations, participant interviews, researcher

session summaries, and researcher reflections. In this section, I will briefly detail how they were

introduced and applied. An overview of data collection and data analysis processes follows later

in this chapter.

3.4.5.1 Remote-tutoring sessions.

The intervention for this study was synchronous and asynchronous remote tutoring with

the instructor. This was offered as a choice to all interested students enrolled in the course.

Students also had the option of receiving traditional tutoring with the instructor or with tutors

from other campus resources. Since receipt of tutoring with the teacher was voluntary, no grade

or other value was placed on receiving any form of tutoring as part of this course.

3.4.5.2 Remote-tutoring questionnaire.

Prior to recruiting participants for this study, all students enrolled in the class were asked

to complete a questionnaire to collect information about their past uses of tutoring and their

current interests in accessing traditional and remote tutoring with the instructor (Appendix A).

This data also provided information about students‘ preference for tutoring times, their access to

computers, and their preferred communication mode. Specifically, this information was used to

plan remote-tutoring configurations for students who chose remote tutoring via the

webconferencing site.


3.4.5.3 Remote-tutoring transcripts.

Remote-tutoring sessions were digitally video recorded for later analysis using

HyperCam 3TM

desktop recording software. Recordings were necessary in order to capture what

occurred during remote-tutoring sessions and in particular, what was communicated through sign

language. Participants‘ recorded sessions were transcribed by the researcher used to analyze the

affects of remote-tutoring instruction. In order to protect the confidentiality of the participants,

remote-tutoring transcripts did not contain any references to students. Pseudonyms were used in

place of students‘ names and all identifying information was removed from final reports.

3.4.5.4 Students’ evaluations.

After each remote tutoring session, participants were asked to complete an online

evaluation (Appendix B). This feedback was collected from students to obtain immediate

reactions regarding what went well and what didn‘t go well. Participants‘ feedback on tutoring

sessions was also reviewed with regards to how well the tutoring session met their instructional

needs.

3.4.5.5 Researcher’s summaries.

After each tutoring session, remote tutoring practices were summarized and evaluated by

the researcher using an online reflection form grounded in the action research cycle (plan, act,

observe, reflect) (Appendix C). This allowed me to document any technological, instructional or

communication issues encountered in order to determine future action research cycles as well as

identify future instructional goals for individual students.

3.4.5.6 Student interviews.

At two times during the study (5th

and 10th

week), a total of five participants were

interviewed to discuss their remote tutoring experiences (3 and 2, respectively). Interview


questions attempted to further uncover students‘ opinions of remote tutoring as well as solicit

their ideas for improvement. These digitally-recorded interviews took place on campus during

non-instructional times. Students‘ interviews were transcribed and analyzed by the researcher to

identify affects of remote tutoring sessions. Rationale for recording these sessions was due to the

fact that all of the students used sign language to communicate. Therefore, it was necessary to

capture what was communicated during interviews for optimal analysis. As a precaution and to

ensure confidentiality, interview transcripts did not contain any references to the participants.

3.4.5.7 Researcher’s memos.

Finally, researcher memos were generated throughout the study in order to document

events and monitor changes in practice while participating in two action research cycles:

identify problem – gather data – interpret data – act on evidence – evaluate results – determine

next steps (Ferrance, 2000). All data sources were used to evaluate the affects remote tutoring

had on my tutoring practices constituting a valid, unbiased and ethical approach.

3.4.6 Data collection timeline.

An intervention and data-source-collection timeline for the study is displayed in Table

3.1. The left-hand column lists course topics while the right-hand column lists the study

intervention and data sources. Although many of the study interventions repeated from week to

week; course topics and strategies varied, supporting the need to provide ongoing tutoring.

3.5 Data Analysis

In this section, I will describe the data analysis process use in this study. All aspects

pertaining to this process will be addressed. In particular, the method and steps of analysis will

be explained. This, coupled with Action Research methodology, serves to inform how remote

tutoring affects my tutoring practices.


Table 3.1

Intervention and Data Source collection Timeline

3.5.1 The importance of video data.

This study utilized digitally-recorded video data. Compared to audio-only recordings,

video captures activities as they occur; provides more detail and thus, richer data; shows

interactions between people and objects; and is used to triangulate other qualitative methods of

analysis (Knoblauch, Schnettler, Raab & Soeffner, 2006; Schnettler & Raab, 2008). Considering

the multiple and simultaneous levels of interactions that occurred in remote tutoring sessions,

Course Topics (from syllabus) Study Intervention and Data Sources

Week 1

Course overview

Orientation to course

management system (Idea3);

Elements of a good paragraph

Explained all tutoring choices

Administered tutoring questionnaire

Explained study and how to access remote

tutoring

Recruited participants

Note: did not provide remote tutoring this week

Weeks 2 - 5

Descriptive paragraphs

Process paragraphs

Vocabulary/grammar

development in context

Provided remote tutoring using Adobe Connect

Administered online evaluations to students who

participated in remote tutoring sessions

Completed summaries of each tutoring session

Interviewed three students who had participated

in remote tutoring sessions

Transcribed sessions and coded all data

Analyzed and reflected on issues related to

remote tutoring

Implemented changes

Weeks 6 - 10

Compare-contrast paragraphs

Classification paragraphs

Cause-effect paragraphs

Opinion paragraphs

Review all paragraph types

Vocabulary/grammar

development in context

Provided remote tutoring using IdeaTools

Administered an online evaluation to students

who participated in remote tutoring sessions

Completed a summary of each tutoring session

Interviewed two additional students who had

participated in remote tutoring sessions

Transcribed sessions and coded all data

Analyzed and reflected on issues related to

remote tutoring


videotaping was necessary to capture everything that happened in order to interpret its affects on

my tutoring practices.

Goldman (2007) discusses the affordances of using video technologies and how they ―are

changing every part of the research process‖ (p. 5). Hall (2007) states, ―We need new practices

as much as we need new media for doing and talking about research on learning and teaching‖

(p. 663). As a result, analyzing video, coding and reporting can be used as an epistemological

tool for displaying the tutoring process as teachers and students engage in learning.

3.5.2 Incorporating the student’s voice.

A transcript is anything but transparent but it holds the evidence from which themes

emerge and meaning is derived. Describing the way transcription is conducted and reported is a

necessary component of qualitative research and should therefore not be minimized. Linguistic

anthropologists view translation as a form of analysis (Ochs, 1979). Therefore, I believe it is

important to include the original speaker‘s voice in transcribed sessions and interviews. This

originates from my understanding of the Critical Deaf Studies‘ view of the struggles culturally

Deaf people have experienced in an English-only/speech-only society (Gertz, 2003).

Consequently, documenting an English-only translation makes a significant ideological

statement about the power of English to represent everyone and everything. My awareness of the

oppression Deaf community members have experienced has led me to incorporate the ASL

message when creating transcripts involving ASL participants. Hence, transcripts created from

tutoring sessions and interviews contained both an ASL glossed message as well as an English

translation. However, since ASL has no written form; an unofficial one known as ―glossing‖ can

be used to transcribe ASL for analysis purposes (Buisson, 2007). Since all of the students who

received remote tutoring in this study communicated using sign language, the signed data was


transcribed using adapted conventions developed by SignStreamTM (Neidle, 2002). SignStreamTM

annotations include a corpus of signs that are frequently used constructions in ASL. These

conventions were created specifically for ASL Linguistic Research projects and their annotations

are standard throughout sign linguistic literature (Neidle, 2007).

3.5.3 The transcription log.

For each tutoring session, a transcription log was created with four columns (see Table

3.2). Since I was most concerned with the actions and interactions that occurred in tutoring

sessions, I established that as my first column. The ASL (glossed transcription) and English

translation column were placed next. The second-to-last column indicated the time-code on the

video counter and the final column contained questions, comments, hypotheses and session

notes. In order to ensure accuracy, transcripts were also evaluated by a critical friend who is a

native signer and full-time ASL instructor. For coding and reporting purposes, the English

translations were used and indicated in [brackets].

Table 3.2.

Video Transcription Log

Action/

Interaction

Gloss-Transcription

[English translation]

Video

counter

Researcher’s comments:

Tabby

signing

Topic fs-OUTLINE

1P WANT KNOW 1P RIGHT

1P:SHOW:2P (yes/no q

eyebrows raised)

[I want to make sure I did the

outline right. Can I show

you?]

00:15 Reason for tutoring – help

with classification outline.

Wants to upload his draft.


3.5.4 Unit of analysis

A unit of analysis is the main entity to be analyzed (Babbie, 1998). They are ―things we

examine in order to create summary descriptions… and to explain differences among them‖

(p. 93). To understand the process of remote tutoring, the unit of analysis for this study was the

activity that occurred in remote tutoring sessions. These included human-to-human, human-to-

content (course matter) and computer-to-computer actions and interactions that occurred during

remote-tutoring sessions. Activity was chosen as the unit of analysis since it could be analyzed

within the context of remote tutoring while acknowledging the link between individuals and

social systems (Kuutti, 1991). Applying Activity Theory to remote tutoring, the central subject-

object (tutor-tutee) relationship is mediated by tools which can be an instrument or an artifact,

such as the internet, a computer or laptop, a videophone or webcam, course materials, previous

knowledge, instructional strategies, or a shared document (Engestrom, 1987). To better

understand the relations between individuals and their environment, the community (e.g., the

university, its members, grade policies, classroom structures) is added along with its mediating

tools of rules and divisions of labor. Finally, the resulting outcome (learning, satisfaction,

recurring remote tutoring) is analyzed to better understand the remote tutoring process. Thus,

analyzing data using remote-tutoring activities as the unit of analysis provided an appropriate

mechanism to better understand the remote-tutoring process in order to effectively implement

changes identified in action research cycles.

3.5.4.1 Study activities, actions and interactions.

Web technologies offer new choices, opportunities and complications. Since online

learning is spatial in nature, a tutor‘s ability to provide tutoring in online formats poses many

technical, educational and communication challenges requiring they develop a repertoire of new


practices (Anderson, 2004; Jackson, 1994). The shift involves several transitions in instructional

materials (paper text to electronic text), the learning environment (same location to distant

location), and how activities occur through the internet, videophone and email (Meloncon, 2007).

As a result, distance tutoring can provide opportunities for increased interaction, in particular

between instructor and student, which are recognized as an essential characteristic of a quality

education (Williams, Howell, Laws & Metheny, 2006).

During one-to-one remote tutoring activities, actions and interactions originate from

different individuals (subjects-objects) and sources (tools) resulting in a variety of outcomes

influenced by the activity‘s rules and divisions of labor. Using descriptions associated with

asynchronous distance education interactions (Trentin, 2000), I modified and expanded the types

of interactions that occurred in synchronous and asynchronous remote tutoring sessions.

(1) Modified from asynchronous distance education interactions (Trentin, 2000):

learner-content interactions – interacting with course materials online

learner-tutor interactions – students asking questions, responding to feedback, expressing

understanding, etc

learner-interface interactions – students using chat or sign language to communicate

online and for co-constructing on their homework documents

learner-learner interactions –students interacting with one another during remote tutoring

sessions

(2) Three additional types of interactions attributed to synchronous remote tutoring were

identified:

Tutor-content interactions – reviewing course documents and integrating comments on

students‘ documents


Tutor-learner interactions – giving praise, feedback, providing information, etc.

Tutor-interface interactions - using chat or sign language for communication and co-

constructing on student‘s homework documents

(3) Finally, two more types of interactions typically associated with asynchronous distance

learning were also identified.

Learner-email interactions – student-initiated emails to tutor

Tutor- email interactions – tutor responses to student‘s email and tutor‘s emails to class

In addition to the types of interactions that were coded, specific actions were identified

during remote tutoring sessions. These included steps for opening sessions, steps for displaying

documents, interacting with documents, steps for saving and returning students‘ drafts, and steps

for closing sessions. Since technical, educational and communication activities occurred

simultaneously, identifying the various types was necessary for analyzing them as units.

3.5.5 Method of analysis.

The goal of data analysis in action research is to ―enable participants to clearly

understand the nature of events that are the focus of the research process‖ (Stringer, 2008, p. 88).

In order to capture participants‘ perspectives, an appropriate mode of analysis must be chosen so

that remote tutoring outcomes can be used to explain activities and inform theory. I spent a great

deal of time searching for a method of analysis that would help me transform generated data into

meaningful interpretation in a systematic way. In an effort to formulate theory from data, I chose

a form of grounded theory that includes analytic reasoning and reflection inherent in Action

Research. Therefore, in order to analyze the activities that occurred during remote tutoring

sessions, dimensional analysis was used as the guiding framework (Schatzman, 1991). Using this

method of analysis, data can be described according to its attributes (dimensions and properties).


Since it is embedded in symbolic interactionism and the construct of dimensionality, this type of

analysis allows researchers to formulate the dimensions and properties (context, conditions,

actions/processes and outcomes) associated with complex social phenomena using participants‘

perspectives (Bowers, Esmond & Canales, 1999; Kools, McCarthy, Durham & Robrecht, 1996).

Through dimensionality, meaning can be interpreted by analyzing the component parts of the

phenomenon resulting in a better understanding of all that is involved. Appendix F contains

definitions of terms commonly used with dimensional analysis.

When applying dimensional analysis, there are three influential steps (Kools, et al.,

1996):

1. First the researcher creates or designates dimensions and their properties and then continues

to subdimensionalize or categorizes them in order to expand data to reveal provisional

concepts. This part of early analysis is concerned with identification and logistics since

codes take the form of dimensions related to a social phenomenon. This process of

dimensionalizing continues until a critical mass of dimensions and properties are reached

(similar to open coding in Grounded Theory).

2. Using these dimensions, the researcher develops an explanatory matrix through

differentiation. Using different perspectives, I attempted to attribute greater value to some

dimensions while dismissing others (similar to constant comparison in Grounded Theory). In

the process of determining the central perspective, each dimension was elevated to that level

and ―The dimension that provides the greatest explanation for the relationship among

dimensions is ultimately selected as the central or key perspective from which to organize or

‗choreograph‘ the data‖ (Kools, et al., 1996, p. 319). Any remaining dimensions are then

relegated as salient, relevant, marginal, or irrelevant‖ (Schatzman, 1991).


3. Finally, the integrated central perspective is used to explain the patterns and relationships

between dimensions of the phenomenon via an explanatory matrix thereby revealing

everything that is involved. Figure 3.3 illustrates these steps.

Figure 3.3. Dimensional Analysis Steps

Step 3 Integrating

(transforming dimensions

into theory)

Narrate central perspective

Select a central perspective

Designate concepts

Dimensions -Properties

subdimensions -properties subdimensions -properties

subdimensions –properties subdimensions properties

subdimensions –properties subdimensions –properties



Step 2

Differentiating (auditioning concepts)

Step 1

Dimensionalizing (designating concepts)

Figure 3.3 This figure illustrates the three main steps of Dimensional Analysis

(Kools, et al., 1996).

3.5.5.1 The Explanatory Matrix.

The process of using remote tutoring with deaf college students can be understood by

illustrating attributes from participants‘ perspectives and showing how they relate using an

explanatory matrix that showcases the central perspective (Caron & Bowers, 2000). In

dimensional analysis, the organization of dimensions is directed by the perspective of

Concept A

Concept BConcept C


participants and the context. Consequently, this influences which dimensions are most significant

for constructing meaning. When selecting the central perspective, the most salient dimension will

depend on the context of the activity, action or interaction. This is best understood through the

integration of context and perspective. Understanding both tutor and tutee perspectives is crucial

in order to interpret meaning for remote tutoring research and practice. By acknowledging and

understanding multiple perspectives via the explanatory matrix, it is possible to develop

meaningful knowledge that informs theory.

3.5.6 Steps of analysis.

To prepare data for analysis, content logs were created from recorded remote-tutoring

sessions (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). Activities (actions and interactions) in each session were

then analyzed using dimensional analysis (Kools, et al., 1996). Initial and pre-existing codes,

identified from providing tutoring to deaf college students, the research questions and relevant

literature, were established prior to conducting the study (Appendix G). These were expanded to

include over 270 codes identified during the first step of dimensional analysis

(dimensionalizing). For example, in this step, the pedagogy dimension was subdimensionalized

to show a range of properties, such as, tutor actions. This was then subdimensionalized to include

instructional strategies, assessment skills, cognitive support, related to site design, and

participation in co-construction. These were further subdimensionalized until their properties

could no longer be reduced. As part of the second step of dimension analysis (differentiating),

each dimension was scrutinized and auditioned for the role of central perspective. In this study,

choices was designated as the central perspective. All other salient dimensions, how they were

selected and integrated into the explanatory matrix, and how they answered the research

questions will be presented in Chapter Four.


In addition to using dimensional analysis to interpret all that happened in the remote

tutoring process, constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) was used to analyze student

interviews, students‘ evaluations, researcher‘s session summaries, and researcher‘s memos.

Constructivist grounded theory assumes the researcher constructs categories and uses

participants‘ views and voices in the analysis. Thus, it takes what people say and looks for

implied meanings with a goal of making actions, interpretations and influences explicit in the

analysis. This was used to supplement and triangulate the data obtained from the actions and

interactions dimensionalized in remote-tutoring sessions.

Researcher‘s memos and ongoing reflection contributed to deriving meaning while

consciously trying to maintain a focus on answering research questions. Consistent with action

research methodology, reflecting on one‘s own practice helps to understand what has occurred.

However, efforts need to be taken to ensure validity and trustworthiness throughout a study to

reduce researcher‘s bias. This included incorporating additional data sources and activities, such

as, researcher‘s reflective journal, memoing during coding, member checking for interviews, and

sharing findings with members of my cohort. In addition, I sought guidance from deaf colleagues

for a variety of areas including: ASL translation, Deaf culture, information technology and

distance learning. This host of critical friends helped to corroborate the data and interpretation

presented from this study.

In summary, twenty-two recorded remote-tutoring sessions were transcribed by the

researcher first using sign gloss and then translated into English. These were then coded and

analyzed using dimensional analysis to better understand all that was happening during remote-

tutoring sessions. In addition, students‘ feedback was coded and compared with interpretations

obtained from these sessions. Transcribed data from students‘ recorded interviews were coded


and analyzed using constructivist grounded theory in order to verify remote-tutoring findings.

The researcher‘s journal and reflections were coded and analyzed to document decisions,

changes and outcomes to the remote-tutoring process as progressions through cycles occurred.

All of this information, along with applicable tenets of sociocultural and activity theories, and

new literacy studies, informed how the research questions were answered.

3.6 Methodology Check

I believe action research was an appropriate methodology for this study. Assessing my

remote-tutoring practices constituted action research in that it addressed a specific area of

inquiry; collected data from users of the service; analyzed it qualitatively with sociocultural,

activity and new literacies studies lenses; and used a reflective process to inform change.

Similarly, data analysis followed analytic circles of describing, categorizing and interpreting

data. An action research methodology allowed me to analyze the remote-tutoring process as it

happened, reflect on its delivery, implement changes and eventually, develop an action plan

which includes sharing the process with others.

3.7 Conclusion

Chapter Three presented an explanation for why action research was the methodology

applied to this study. The overall design of the study and rationale for interventions were

provided. Finally, details on how data were collected and analyzed were given. In the next

chapter, the findings of this data analysis will be reported.


Chapter Four

Findings

4.1 Introduction

This chapter details the evolution of the explanatory matrix created from the data

collected in this study using Dimensional Analysis (Schatzman, 1991). This method was used to

identify the range of activities and the outcomes involved in remote tutoring with deaf college

students using attributes of the phenomenon. These were then abstracted into concepts which

ultimately formed into theory. To this end, remote tutoring with deaf college students is narrated

to reveal a plausible explanation unbeholden to pre-existing assumptions or theory. In this

chapter, I will first describe the general findings that emerged. This includes necessary

background information related to participants, the remote tutoring platforms and the types of

interactions that occurred during remote-tutoring sessions. Then, I will narrate the dimensions

that emerged from constructing the explanatory matrix to provide a summary of how using

remote tutoring with deaf college students affected my tutoring practices. In sum, I will explain

all that is involved in remote tutoring with deaf college students in order to answer the research

questions (repeated below) and design an action plan that will inform and enhance remote-

tutoring practices (Kools, McCarthy, Durham & Robrecht, 1996).

4.1.1 Research questions.

To serve as a reminder, the overarching research question for this study is, How does

using remote tutoring with deaf college students affect my tutoring practices? Sub-questions

include:


environment?




3. What instructional strategies satisfy the needs of students participating in tutoring remotely?



4.2 General Findings

When analyzing data, findings emerge that are general in nature and do not adequately

address the research questions nor pertain to the explanatory matrix identified through

dimensional analysis. However, they establish context from which to present findings that inform

theory and therefore are important to the study. For this study, these included the characteristics

of participants and their utilization of remote tutoring.

4.2.1 Characteristics of eligible participants

In order to understand the impact the remote tutoring experience had on participants, it is

necessary to provide an overview of students‘ characteristics, their access to technologies and

their prior thoughts about it. There were twenty-four (24) eligible participants (seven females,

seventeen males) originally enrolled in my English classes. Prior to week four, three male

students withdrew from the course, none of whom had accessed traditional or remote tutoring

from me prior to withdrawing. Data collected during the first week of the study from the Remote

Tutoring Questionnaire (Appendix A) provided the following information. First, all twenty-four

students stated that they either planned to use tutoring (50%) or might use tutoring (50%) in this

class. Specifically, twenty-two (92%) indicated they either wanted to or might want to receive

traditional tutoring from the instructor (14 and 8, respectively) and one student, who said he did

not want to receive traditional tutoring from the instructor, indicated he wanted to try remote


tutoring. Second, seventeen students (71%) expressed willingness to try online tutoring with the

instructor (5 – yes, 12 – maybe). This high percentage of willingness was encouraging since I

was unsure how students would respond to remote tutoring given this option. Third, sixteen

students (67%) reported they had used traditional tutoring in high school or another college.

Additionally, three students (13%) also indicated they had used remote tutoring in high school or

college. Of these three students, only one (Saba) accessed remote tutoring from me during this

study. Upon interviewing him, it was discovered that his prior online tutoring experience

involved completing homework assignments on a computer, similar to computer-mediated

tutoring often used in mathematics or grammar practice. In his words, ―I didn‘t contact the tutor

through the computer. The computer was the tutor, not a person‖ (Interview with Saba). In sum,

this concludes relevant information collected from the Remote Tutoring questionnaire regarding

students‘ characteristics, past use of tutoring and their thoughts about using traditional and

remote tutoring.

4.2.2 Utilization of remote tutoring.

In total, twenty-two (22) remote-tutoring sessions were provided to nine different

students (38%). Specific information about students‘ perspectives will be presented when

narrating the explanatory matrix; nevertheless, the frequency and remote-tutoring format

information shared in Table 4.1 is intended to provide a framework for understanding utilization.

Particularly helpful, when comparing formats, was feedback received from three students

(Preslee, Tabby and Aarin) who experienced remote tutoring using both systems (Adobe®

Connect Pro 7TM

and IdeaTools TM

). Further details regarding these two webconferencing

systems will be provided in Chapter Five (Impact of Action Research).


Table 4.1

Participant Utilization: Number of Sessions and Remote-tutoring System

Participants

(Pseudonyms) Adobe®

Connect Pro

7 TM

system

IdeaTools TM

system

Email-only Video-

phone

only

1. Lyrik (once) Session 1

2. Saba (five times) Sessions 2 &

3

Sessions 8, 9 &

22

3. Preslee (twice) Session 4 Session 12

4. Tabby (six times) Sessions 5, 6 Sessions 11, 13, 17 &

20

5. Aarin (twice) Session 7 Session 10

6. Fabi (once) Session 14

7. Ryver (once) Session

15

8. Kadren (three

times)

Sessions 16, 18 & 19

9. Easton (once) Session 21

Table 4.1. All participants‘ names are pseudonyms.

4.3 Research Findings

What follows are the results and interpretations of the data collected from the twenty-two

remote tutoring sessions, five interviews, student evaluations, researcher summaries, field notes

and memos. I begin by addressing the assumptions I held about tutoring in my office and

remotely; and then present the relevant dimensions and properties that emerged from

dimensional analysis to explain all that happened during remote tutoring with deaf college

students in my English classes and to address the research questions.


4.3.1 Researcher’s assumptions.

Prior to embarking on this study, I held numerous assumptions related to students‘

opinions of tutoring in general, and remote tutoring, specifically. Anecdotally, my twenty-seven

years of teaching deaf undergraduates had revealed that fewer than twenty percent of students in

my classes took advantage of tutoring with me. When asked ―Why don‘t students use tutoring?‖,

participants responded: embarrassed, lazy, asserting independence, problems with lab tutors, and

want tutoring from teachers. In addition, I assumed students did not take advantage of tutoring

for the following reasons: stigma, poor time management, indifference, inexperience, they didn‘t

see a need for it, they didn‘t know about it or they were performing well in the class. One thing I

did know was that students who had accessed tutoring in high school were more apt to continue

using it in college (Eilers-crandall, 2009); therefore, I was anxious to see if this held true for my

participants and if it might make them more willing to try tutoring if it were offered remotely.

With regards to remote tutoring, I assumed that most of my students had never accessed it. I also

assumed that those who had accessed it would have likely used Instant Messaging, emailing or

videophoning with their tutors or instructors when seeking help. Finally, I assumed some

students might be wary of remote tutoring because they had no concept of it.

Additionally, through the process of reflecting on my tutoring practices, I realized the

importance of shifting mindsets. That is, my own – established through almost three decades of

providing tutoring to students in my classes as well as my students, who are mostly ―digital

natives‖ (Prensky, 2001, p. 1) who have grown up with computers and communication

technologies. As a result, I have to recognize the differing mindsets brought to the remote-

tutoring experience knowing they can be used to help adapt to this environment. I offer this

information to articulate the biases I held prior to analyzing remote-tutoring sessions. What


follows is the narration of why, when and how students accessed remote tutoring and how it

affected my practices as well as theory that emerged as a result of Dimensional Analysis.

4.3.2 Central perspective – Choices.

Interpretation of the social construction of remote tutoring with deaf college students

begins with a description of the central perspective of Choices and three relevant dimensions:

(1) Transitioning, (2) Benefits, and (3) Sharing Experiences. Figure 4.1 illustrates the

explanatory matrix created from dimensional analysis. In this section, I will first discuss the

central perspective of Choices and its properties. Then I will describe the three relevant

dimensions and their properties to further explain the activities, actions and interactions from

tutor and student perspectives. The central and relevant dimensions will be narrated and

supported by participant‘s quotes and actions from data sources. The narration of this analysis

captures the core dimensions of the process of remote tutoring with deaf college students and

answers the overarching research question, How does using remote tutoring with deaf college

students affect my tutoring practices?

It should come as no surprise that people like choices. Businesses spend millions of

dollars each year advertising products in the hopes that consumers will select theirs over their

competitors. In the same respect, college students want choices as well. They want to be able to

choose their course schedules, their teachers, their roommates and who, where, how and when to

receive tutoring. What follows are the attributes that define the central perspective – Choices.


Figure 4.1. Explanatory Matrix

Explanatory Matrix

Central Perspective

Choices

Dimensions

Choice of times

Reasons for choosing remote tutoring

Choice of remote tutoring mode

Choice of remote technologies

Technical configurations that affected choices

Choice of communication mode

Offering additional choices/suggestions

Relevant Dimensions

Transitioning Benefits Sharing Experiences (Table 4.3) (Table 4.6) (Table 4.7)

Figure 4.1. This figure indicates the central perspective and its dimensions as well as the

three relevant dimensions identified through dimensional analysis.

4.3.2.1 Central perspective - Dimension 1: Choice of times for tutoring

Knowing students‘ preferred times for tutoring is helpful so that the service can be

offered at times that meet students‘ needs. On the Remote Tutoring Questionnaire, eligible

participants could ―check all that apply‖ when selecting days (8 am – 5 pm), nights (5 pm – 11

pm) and weekends for preferred times for tutoring. As a result, their responses varied with the

highest number preferring nights (54%) and weekends (46%). Only 4 out of 24 students (17%)

indicated a preference for tutoring during the day which typically is when most instructors offer


traditional tutoring to students enrolled in their classes. With this in mind, remote tutoring for

this study was offered Monday through Wednesday evenings (7 pm – 9 pm) as well as by

appointment on Sundays. This was in addition to the eight hours of office tutoring on weekdays.

All tutoring options were presented to students during the first week of the course/study and

throughout the course. When asked specifically about optimal times for tutoring, Tabby offered

the following preference in his interview [brackets indicate English translation],

Researcher: [This quarter, I offered online tutoring at night from 7 – 9 pm.

Would you prefer daytime also or is night better?]

Tabby: [Well, I prefer night better because I‘m in classes all day plus doing other

things so I don‘t have time so I prefer night time better.]

It should be noted that on-campus tutors, who know sign language, were also available to

students at specified hours days, nights and weekends. To keep students aware of all tutoring

choices and times offered to them, they were reminded regularly throughout the 10-week course.

In doing so, it was my hope that as we progressed through the course, students who wanted help,

would take advantage of tutoring because they had a variety of choices that could meet their

schedules and they would perceive some benefit from it.

4.3.2.2 Central Perspective - Dimension 2: Reasons for choosing remote tutoring.

The reasons students might choose remote tutoring and the actual reasons students

accessed it were also considered. In interviews, when asked, ―Why would students use remote

tutoring?‖, the following reasons were given: to get feedback, for encouragement, when campus

Learning Center tutors are busy, and to save time. In this study, students‘ actual motives for

choosing remote tutoring were (parentheses indicates number of coded sources): questions about

homework (19), for support (4), to inquire about grade (2), understand better (2), get


clarification (3), make up class (2), improve confidence (1), request redo (1), friends encouraged

me (1), and ―curious‖ (1). For example, in his online evaluation after session 2, Saba chose

tutoring for the following reason,

Question: Why did you come to tutoring today?

Answer: I came to online tutoring because I needed some help for my homework.

In a fact, it helped me a little bit. I'm sure I will come to online tutoring more

often whenever I need.

In his interview, referring to session 5, Tabby chose tutoring for a different reason,

[indicates English translation]

[I think I was working on English, finishing a draft and reading it and not feeling

confident about the spelling or other mistakes so I prefer to contact you and send

you the draft to make sure it‘s right. We read it to make sure it was correct which

is better than sending the draft and it has a lot of mistakes that affect my grade.

I prefer to take advantage of the online tutoring so I know it‘s right.]

While the majority of students in this study chose remote tutoring to get help with homework,

their specific needs varied. Some simply needed reassurance. Upon reflection, I hypothesized

that the reason some students may not submit homework is they are unsure if they are doing it

correctly or not sure what to do next. A simple note of reassurance or clarification from a tutor

could be enough to satisfy their concerns and result in homework being completed on time.

4.3.2.3 Central perspective - Dimension 3: Choice of remote-tutoring mode.

The range of student‘s preferred remote-tutoring mode exceeded my expectations. The

assumption that students would want to use video features, such as, webcams or videophones


during remote-tutoring sessions was quickly negated when a few students chose chat-only (no

webcam or videophone) and email even though they had access to webcams and videophones.

Using remote tutoring with chat-only proved to have advantages and disadvantages. On

one hand, constructing a message using chat allowed the sender to review statements prior to

posting them which may help to construct clearer sentences and avoid misunderstandings.

However, the disadvantage is the length of time it took to post exchanges using chat. Likewise,

email tutoring felt disconnected, was less interactive and was not the best means for co-

constructing documents. In addition, the amount of time elapsed between emails tended to

interrupt the flow and increase the length of time it took to meet tutoring objectives. Delays

between emails naturally occurred due to the fact I was tutoring others remotely and only

addressed emails when I was available in-between sessions. For example, during session 8 with

Saba, sixteen emails were exchanged over an hour-and-eleven-minute period. In spite of this, he

wrote in his evaluation,

Emailing each other is the best way for me to understand much better to do well on my

homework. Yes, it was helpful. I preferred email over online tutoring because that's what

I always use emails for some helping.

During session 8 with Saba, I suggested we chat online in my second emailed response to

him (8:15 pm) but he politely retorted, ―Well, not tonight. I have a lot of things to do for my

homework right now. Can we email each other for just now?‖ (8:18 pm) after which we

continued our session asynchronously through email. Notably, he had chosen remote tutoring

using chat-only twice earlier (sessions 2 & 3) and later chose tutoring through email two

additional times (sessions 9 & 22). Perhaps he was multitasking or simply liked the fact he could

access email anytime and anywhere without having to maintain a chat connection. Rather than


questioning his judgment, I accepted this as evidence of students exercising their choice and how

it can vary depending on their immediate needs.

As a practice, I routinely asked students for their preferred mode of remote tutoring as

part of each session. The following is the opening exchange from Saba‘s session 3 transcript

(chat- only):

Action/

interaction

Transcript of chat Researcher’s comments

Starting

session; LB

posting in

chat

Hi Saba! His 2nd time; opening of session

LB posting in

chat

What’s up? Requesting reason for tutoring

Saba posting

in chat

hi linda!

Saba posting

in chat

im about to do my homework

now

Reason for tutoring –

question about homework

LB posting in

chat

Do you want to add vp or

webcam?

Clarifying preferred RT mode

Saba posting

in chat

no webcam. Is that okay?

LB posting in

chat

Is chat okay? Or do you

want to use vp too?

Trying to establish optimal

communication while honoring the

student‘s request.

Saba posting

in chat

yeah, just chat.

Saba posting

in chat

i do not need to use vp

though

Confirming his choice of just chat

From this exchange, I realized while it is important to provide options and remind students of

features, it is ultimately up to them to choose the mode of tutoring they prefer to use. As digital

natives, they should be allowed to learn through a medium that supports their learning style. At

the same time, it is still the tutor‘s responsibility to routinely assess and remind students of

alternatives and follow-up options especially when considering fluctuations in access to

technologies and their improvements over time.


4.3.2.4 Central perspective – Dimension 4: Choice of remote technologies.

In this study, students accessed a variety of remote technologies when receiving tutoring

from me. Responses from the Remote Tutoring Questionnaire showed all 24 students owned

computers or laptops, 20 students owned webcams for their computers and 21 students owned

videophones or videophone computer software. Students who did not have webcams were

informed of where they were provided on campus. Thus, students in this class had adequate

access to computers in order to enter the webconferencing site, if desired.

In reality, the majority of students (78%) used webcams or videophones during remote-

tutoring sessions unless something prevented them from accessing it. For example, Lyrik

(session 1) indicated she did not have her webcam set up yet and two students initially had

trouble connecting their webcams to the webconferencing video pod (sessions 4 & 5); therefore,

they chose to use chat-only during those sessions. A fourth student (Aarin – session 7) came to

the webconferencing site because her attempt to contact me through videophone failed. During

that session, she posted in chat: ―it say phone # is not found‖ (05:31 video counter). Fortunately,

she did not end her quest there and chose to access the webconferencing site for assistance. A

fifth student (Ryver – session 15) was unable to access the webconferencing site and asked me to

contact him through videophone (VP). As a result, we held our session using VP. What follows

is a portion of the transcript from that session‘s opening (session 15), [brackets indicate English

translation],

Action/

interaction

American Sign

Language (ASL) used


video

counter

Researcher’s comments

Opening of

session.

Dialing VP

number and

00:37/

Start


waving hello

LB signing [I’m sorry it didn’t

work. I don’t know

what the problem is.]

00:42 Apologizing

Ryver

signing

[It wouldn’t let me in.] 00:44

LB signing [on ideatools?] 00:46 Clarifying

Ryver

signing

Yes 00:46

LB signing [Did you open the link

under “Chat Room”?]

00:50 Confirming

Ryver

signing

Yes…not successful 00:54

LB signing [I see…How can I

help you with your

homework?]

00:54 Asking reason for tutoring

After completing the videophone tutoring session, I initially thought this student had been

underserved since we had not reviewed his homework online; however, in hindsight I feel that

meeting the student through videophone was an effective alternative. The session lasted

approximately five minutes, there were no technical problems and we successfully discussed the

details of his ―classification‖ outline. In addition, sign language was clear and natural. In fact,

the session felt similar to one I would have with a student in my office. Nevertheless, even

though videophones were used to deliver remote tutoring one time in this study (session 15),

integrating videophone with webconferencing software was not examined. Therefore its affects

on my tutoring practices and on students‘ choices needs further exploration.

4.3.2.5 Central perspective - Dimension 5: Technical configurations that affected

choices. Research sub-question 1: In what ways do technical configurations

contribute to a satisfying remote-tutoring environment?

Simply having technology that allows face-to-face communication through remote

technologies does not guarantee success. Technical problems influenced students‘ choices. For


example, when Preslee attempted to access remote tutoring during session 4, she tried to get her

webcam to connect for over six minutes. Consequently, the remote tutoring session was aborted

in exchange for tutoring with me in my office,

Action/

Interaction

Transcript of

chat

Video

counter


Preslee

posting in

chat

Can you see

from me?

05:13 Problem connecting webcam

LB posting

in chat

No 05:26

LB posting

in chat

Can you see

me?

06:51 Length of time (1:26)

Preslee

posting in

chat

I can see u 07:06 There is something wrong with the way

her webcam is set up on her laptop.

LB posting

in chat

The webcam

opened but I

don’t see you…

09:07 Changed her status to Presenter to see if

that would allow her to access her

webcam. The webcam window opened,

but unfortunately, it was still a blank

screen.

Preslee in

chat

can u see me? 09:47 Preslee continues to try to activate her

webcam to no avail.

Preslee

posting in

chat

it isn’t work 11:03 Frustration

LB posting

in chat

Do you want to

come to my

office?

11:12 Suggested alternate form of tutoring.

Preslee

posting in

chat

Yes, I do 11:30 Accepted

LB posting

in chat

Okay…I will

wait for you

Affective orientation

When students could not connect their webcams, they got frustrated. Therefore, the

choice to meet in my office was offered or requested. The researcher‘s session notes provided

valuable information regarding problems encountered. As depicted in session 4 notes, the

following assessment and solution to the problems illustrate the sequence of events and the


complexities involved with meeting students‘ preferences and more importantly, their

instructional needs.

Session 4 – Researcher‘s evaluation

Description of technical problems encountered:

Preslee was unable to get her webcam to connect. This distracted her from making

progress in the session. She also had difficulty reading the displayed document

because the font was too small.

Description of communication problems encountered:

We were limited to "chat" because her webcam didn't work. [Chat] is not her

preference which added to frustration, lost time and dissatisfaction with the

experience.

Conclusion: Preslee came to my office for the remainder of the tutoring session.

After we completed discussing her homework, we attempted to find out why her

webcam wasn‘t working. Apparently, her camera is automatically ―assigned‖ to

her videophone software. I will find out what she needs to do to ―reassign‖ it to

her laptop webcam for future tutoring sessions.

While this analysis is helpful for addressing the cause of problems, it is more important

that tutoring meet the student‘s needs. If remote tutoring is not satisfying to students or if it is

frustrating them, it is imperative to have an alternate form for them to choose from. In fact,

Preslee had indicated on the Remote Tutoring Questionnaire that she was not interested in trying

remote tutoring; yet she accessed it two times during this study. When she had difficulty

connecting her webcam in session 6, she was offered the opportunity to meet me in my office.

When asked in her interview how we could make remote tutoring more successful, she did not


have any ideas; however, when asked about her feelings towards remote technologies, she signed

the following, [English translation]

Researcher: [Do you think it‘s a good idea to offer tutoring using VP or

computers, or do you think it should always be face-to-face?]

Preslee: [I prefer face-to-face over VP because the P3 software (videophone

software) has problems like it gets blurry or the screen goes black. Technology is

frustrating.]

With this in mind, remote tutors should not assume that this tech-savvy generation is expert at

using technologies in academic settings (Oblinger, 2003). However, digital natives are

motivated to learn with technologies and ―It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous

environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today‘s students think and process

information fundamentally differently from their predecessors‖ (Prensky, 2001, p. 1).

In addition to webcam connection problems, there were issues associated with

understanding sign language using webcam video regardless of webconferencing system. The

typical webconferencing tool is designed to support spoken communication which relies heavily

on audition. Currently, the quality of the video playback can vary depending on the quality of

the webcam and the bandwidth of the internet connection. Consequently, the video feature does

not produce optimum playback to understand sign language. Even the fastest connections

produce insufficient video quality to support naturally-paced sign language conversations. As

reported here, Kadren provides his opinion of webcams for signing and speechreading during his

interview, [English translation]

Researcher: Can you think of anything you didn‘t like? Were there any problems

you can recall?


Kadren: [Sometimes I didn‘t like the signs on the webcam, I don‘t understand

them sometimes and I don‘t like that. I like using the webcam with earbuds…that

works.]

Researcher: Good, good…so you mean the sign is not clear?

Kadren: [Sometimes it‘s not clear and so I misunderstand. With the webcam, I do

understand when I read lips.]

Researcher: Yup, so when you see the face plus hear it, it‘s much easier to

understand?

Kadren: Yes

Despite poorer video quality using webcams, video playback allows communication

using sign language to occur. Depending on the quality of the webcam, computer bandwidth and

internet traffic, sign language can appear choppy and spatial cognition is hampered by the 2D

interface (Cockburn & McKenzie, 2002). Even with these drawbacks, compared to chat-only

and email sessions, video-supported sessions felt more natural, had more frequent exchanges,

and seemed to cover more material and in more depth. In his interview, Saba expressed his

desire for including sign language to support remote-tutoring sessions for deaf people even

though he preferred using email for remote tutoring,

Researcher: Imagine if you could design tutoring online…what would you want it

to look like?

Saba: [It needs more signing to make it clearer for deaf than writing, which is

confusing, you know?]

Researcher: More signing….

Saba: [More face-to-face than typing]


Nevertheless, determining exactly how poor video quality specifically impacts students‘

satisfaction with the remote tutoring experience was difficult to determine since

webconferencing produces a host of activities simultaneously, such as document sharing, co-

constructing on documents, using chat in conjunction with webcam, and using speech with

webcam for sign and speech together (SimCom). Several comments were made regarding the

advantages and disadvantages of webcams. Lyrik felt it was important to have webcams as a

backup; Tabby felt sign language via webcam was unnatural because you had to slow down to

make it clear; and Kadren, in his interview, reported improvement when he used headphones

with video during tutoring as follows,

Researcher: Remember, I used a microphone and you used your earbuds and

plugged into the computer… what did you think about that?

Kadren: [It worked]

Researcher: It worked how?

Kadren: [because without sound it‘s hard to understand sometimes. I try my best

but hearing what you say is much better.]

Researcher: Better, ok...

Kadren: [speech and hearing together improves what I‘m doing.]

Researcher: So you have listening and visual together…

Kadren: Contact

Researcher:...and typing and that seems to work?

Kadren: Yes

Regardless of these opinions, use of video enhances the tutoring experiences by

facilitating a connection. Mallory and Laury (2001) also reported success using Desktop Video


Conferencing with a QuickCam™ Desktop camera for viewing facial expressions and gesturing

with their deaf college students. In the ten years since their study, high-quality

videoconferencing and telepresence tools have emerged. Consequently, there is hope that web-

based video quality has the potential to improve as well. The advantages of incorporating

webcam or videophones into remote-tutoring sessions with deaf students are relevant to new

literacies studies perspectives as tutors and tutees traverse boundaries when teaching and

learning through the increased use of multimodal formats and technologies (Kress, 2010).

During the study, remote tutoring was delivered using email, webconferencing with chat-

only, webconferencing with webcam and chat, and through videophone-only. Factors such as

students‘ format preferences, access to peripherals (i.e., webcams and VP), and success

contacting the instructor affected which type of configuration was used. In this study, there were

problems with webcam connections, accessing the webconferencing site, and webcam clarity due

to limited bandwidth. Despite these drawbacks, webcam-supported sessions allowed access to

sign language and speechreading otherwise unavailable. It also seemed to shorten the length of

time between exchanges and gave a feeling of connectedness between tutor and tutee. Given

options, students can choose which technical configuration contributed to a satisfying remote

tutoring environment for them; thus alleviating perceived shortcomings experienced when using

alternate configurations and formats. In sum, this dimension addressed, In what ways do

technical configurations contribute to a satisfying remote tutoring environment? (sub-question

1).

4.3.2.6 Central perspective - Dimension 6: Choice of communication mode.

Research sub-question 2: In what ways do the diverse language and communication

practices of deaf students influence the remote-tutoring process?


In addition to meeting students‘ needs by offering choices in remote tutoring format, the

remote tutor must also consider the deaf students‘ preferred mode of communication and attempt

to accommodate it when delivering tutoring via webcams, email and videophones. The 24

participants‘ preferred modes of communication with the instructor, obtained from the Remote

Tutoring Questionnaire, indicated 14 students preferred ASL (58%); 8 students preferred sign

and speech together - SimCom (33%); 1 student preferred both ASL and SimCom (4%); and 1

student preferred using speech because he did not know sign language (4%). Critical to

understanding the provision of tutoring as an academic support service with this population is to

consider their communication diversity and to accommodate as much as possible. Assessing

students‘ preferred choice of communication for remote tutoring is needed to offer optimal

communication features on the remote-tutoring site and to utilize students‘ preferred

communication/language mode during remote-tutoring sessions. This will require tutors to have

multimodal skills (ASL, SimCom, spoken and written English) and to acknowledge the value

communication diversity has on the learning process.

In this study, several factors determined which communication mode could be used in

remote-tutoring sessions. In some cases, students‘ communication modes were limited by their

access to technologies (videophone-only, webconferencing with webcam and chat, or chat-only)

as well as their choice of remote tutoring (asynchronous or synchronous). For example, when a

student did not have access to a webcam, or chose not to use it, accommodations included

tutoring using webconferencing with chat-only or using email. If a student could not access the

webconferencing site, videophone tutoring was used or vice versa. Often, the remote-tutoring

format dictated which communication modes were available. Table 4.2 shows the range of

communication and language choices accommodated by varying remote-tutoring formats. In


sum, this addresses, In what ways do the diverse language and communication practices of deaf

students influence the remote-tutoring process?

Consequently, when explaining choices for remote tutoring to students, tutors should also

explain how communication preferences can be accommodated or limited depending on the

format. While webconferencing with webcam and chat features provides the broadest

communication and language choices, there are technical challenges as previously described.

However, unless students have equal access and are trained in all technologies, choices should be

given to meet their communication preferences and learning needs in order to provide them with

a satisfactory remote-tutoring experience.

Table 4.2

Communication and Language Choices for Varying Remote-tutoring Formats.

Remote-tutoring choices Communication choices Language choices

Webconferencing with

webcam and chat

1. American Sign Language

(ASL)

2. Sign with speech/mouth

movements (SimCom)

3. Speech

4. Chat (Instant Messaging)

1. ASL

2. English word order

3. English

4. Written English

Webconferencing with

chat only (no webcam)

Chat (Instant Messaging) Written English

email Writing Written English

Videophones for

deaf users

1. ASL

2. Sign with mouth

movements (SimCom)

3. Chat (Instant Messaging)

1. ASL

2. English word order

3. Written English


4.3.2.7 Central perspective - Dimension 7: Offering additional choices/suggestions.

In some instances, students received additional choices during remote-tutoring sessions.

For example, in session 7, Aarin was given contact information in case she needed additional

help with her homework that evening (Session 7 with Aarin – chat only),

Action/Interaction Transcript of chat counter

LB posting in chat Do you have any questions about it? 04:20

Aarin posting in chat nope 04:26

Aarin posting in chat that’s all I want is redo on Grammar 3

(Homework)

04:33

Aarin posting in chat to get upgrade on my grade 04:39

LB posting in chat ok…I’ll be here until 9 04:48

Aarin posting in chat alright 05:13

LB posting in chat you can also VP me at (VP phone number)

if you want.

05:19

In addition to offering participants remote-tutoring choices, preferred communication and

language modes, and follow-up assistance, students expressed desire for other choices too. For

instance, students wanted remote tutoring offered in other classes as well as English as evidenced

by Tabby‘s, Lyrik‘s and Kadren‘s interview comments [brackets indicate English translation],

1) Interview with Lyrik,

Researcher: Would you like to see (this college) offer online tutoring as an option

for students?

Lyrik: Yes, I would like to see that.

Researcher: What courses would you suggest?

Lyrik: [Not just for one course…I would suggest for general courses. That way,

if a student has a problem in a general course or in their major, I could suggest

they go online for support.]

Researcher: So it could be any course?


Lyrik: [YES]

2) Interview with Tabby,

Researcher: [Can you think of anything else….not just for English online tutoring

but other classes? Do you have other ideas?]

Tabby: [Yes, in general, we need English, but we should add math too and

others…suppose there are students who transfer into a major and don‘t

understand, they can go online and sign to get explanations. They can VP for

explanations, email or sign easily…in general, we have English (online tutoring)

so we need to add math too.]

3) Interview with Kadren,

Kadren: [could be math…show your work and that you can follow directions or

follow a lab. Most labs should have (tutoring) because you have to follow

directions. And English same thing, to get higher (grade), need to do the same

thing…]

Additionally, Kadren wanted the choice to receive tutoring from his teachers. In his interview he

suggested the following,

Kadren: [I would suggest (this place) offer one-to-one tutoring with the teacher

because if you offer using student tutors … they are not in my class don‘t know

how to (tutor) so you work with them, give it to the teacher and get feedback that

it‘s wrong and that causes problems.]

Researcher: Okay….

Kadren: [I suggest students get tutoring from their teachers because they are

paying for it.]


Researcher: [You want tutoring from the teacher because they know the course

and what they want and expect from you?]

Kadren: [Yes, I notice that some tutors are good and some are not. In my opinion,

some tutors have problems teaching students and they struggle and get it wrong.

I prefer to ask the teacher who teaches the class.]

In sum, offering students options and allowing them to make their own choices regarding

remote tutoring was a prevalent theme that emerged using dimensional analysis. In hindsight,

expecting to offer remote tutoring primarily through webconferencing seemed limiting since

allowing students to choose their preferred mode of remote tutoring could result in greater

satisfaction with the tutoring experience and increase the potential that users would return. When

asked, ―Based on this experience, would you use online tutoring again for this class?‖, the five

students who completed evaluations all responded ―yes‖ or ―maybe‖. Additional comments

included,

(Yes) It a great experience and I always had a dream of hoping one day people would

start doing online tutoring – Lyrik, evaluation from session 1 (chat-only; Adobe®

Connect Pro 7 TM

system).

(Yes) I would like to use online tutoring sometimes – Saba, evaluation from session 2

(chat-only; Adobe® Connect Pro 7TM

system).

(Maybe) If I not understand my homework then I can go to tutoring at [on-campus

site], but I feel not go there then using online tutoring at my dorm, I guess - Tabby,

evaluation from session 6 (webcam with chat; ASL used; Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

system).

(Yes, I would like that.) Because I don‘t have to bring my backpack and walk to LB‘s


office then forget one thing. Have to go back to dorm and get something and walk

back to LB‘s again. I rather tutoring online while I‘m in dorm as already have

everything with me in dorm room – Aarin, evaluation from session 10 (webcam with

chat; ASL used; IdeaTools TM

system).

(Maybe) Do you like this online software better than the first one we tried? Yes, I do.

For online without webcam (referring to the Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

system) the

letter need big for homework online – Preslee, evaluation from session 12 (webcam

with chat; ASL used; IdeaTools TM

system).

Also during interviews, participants were asked for suggestions for designing a system

that met their needs. Lyrik described her desire for remote tutoring to be broad in order to meet

students‘ needs as follows,

Lyrik: [I would want it to be more like teaching people. Giving positive

encouragement on specific things, not general things. But the basic design would

be for teaching. Show students where their mistakes are using computers. Show

them how to send, copy and things like that.]

Preslee provided specific technical requirements needed to support the ideal remote tutoring

system for deaf students during her interview,

Preslee: [Use ideatools and have a backup in case the webcam doesn‘t work.]

Preslee: [also add IM to make talking easier]

And finally, when asked how to promote remote tutoring to deaf students, Lyrik suggested

providing students with choices,

[I would ask others to see if they would like it to see if you should give online

tutoring a try with students. If they are indifferent, try it and like it, then fine.


If they don‘t like it, I would look for other ways to support students other than

online.] – Interview with Lyrik during the 5th

week of the study

In this statement, Lyrik viewed the offering of remote tutoring as one way to reach out to

students and to give them an opportunity to try it. Therefore, if the goal is to increase access to

support services, this can be achieved by giving students a variety of choices to support their

tutoring needs.

4.3.2.8 Summary of central perspective - Choices.

Over the ten-week study period, five students (20%) received tutoring from me in my

office and nine students (38%) accessed tutoring from me remotely for a total of 14 different

students (58% of the class). Remarkably, there was no crossover in use except in cases where

remote tutoring failed. In their study, Scherer and Binder (1989) reported deaf college students

preferred professional tutors over peer tutors, tutors who were able to use a variety of

communication modes (ASL, simultaneous communication and writing), were empathetic, had

good teaching skills and were knowledgeable in the subject matter. This was also true of

participants in this study who received tutoring remotely. Given this information and the fact that

58 % of the students in my course received some form of tutoring from me (38% remotely and

20% traditionally), I hypothesize that offering choices in tutoring types, courses, days and times;

communication mode; and remote tutoring mode and technologies increases the utilization of

tutoring for deaf college students. Thus, Choices was deemed the central perspective of the

explanatory matrix that emerged from analyzed data.

4.3.3 The three relevant dimensions.

The remainder of this chapter will narrate the three relevant dimensions of transitioning,

benefits and sharing experiences, how they relate and connect to the central perspective of


choices and each other, as well as how they answer the research questions. The interpretation

given is intended to become a foundation that can inform remote-tutoring practices with deaf

college students.

4.3.4 Transitioning dimension.

As with any new initiative, there is a learning curve that occurs before users experience

comfort and satisfaction. Transitioning, in the context of remote tutoring, refers to movement

from one stage to another in order to acclimate to the process of teaching and learning in a new

environment. In the transitioning dimension, there are a number of conditions to consider: (1)

the technical and instructional transitions that occur for the tutor; and (2) the technical and

educational transitions that occur for the tutee. Table 4.3 illustrates the properties of the

transitioning dimension. By detailing the properties of this dimension, an explanation of how

transitioning relates to choices and how it affects the process of remote tutoring will emerge.

4.3.4.1 Transitioning dimension – Property 1: Tutor’s perspective of transitioning with

technology.

From the tutor‘s perspective, there are numerous technical activities that occur when

providing tutoring remotely. These include the ability to set up, maintain and close sessions;

display and share documents; co-construct with students on documents; save and return student‘s

work electronically; and troubleshoot technical problems; all while providing quality tutoring

using the student‘s preferred remote-tutoring format and preferred communication mode. Earlier

in this chapter, technical problems related to connecting webcams and reading sign language on

webcams were mentioned by participants. Advantages and disadvantages for varying remote-

tutoring formats were illustrated earlier as well using students‘ experiences and comments. In

order to explain the properties of the transitioning dimension, the discussion will focus on the


technical and instructional practices needed by the tutor to provide remote tutoring as well as the

technical and educational skills and experiences of students as they become familiar with the

remote-tutoring concept. By applying Activity Theory to this analysis, a new theory of tutoring

will emerge.

Table 4.3

Properties of Transitioning Dimension

Context Tutor’s perspective Student’s perspective

Conditions technical and

instructional

technical and

educational

Actions setting up, maintaining

sessions, and closing

sessions; displaying and

sharing documents; co-

constructing on

documents, saving and

returning students‘ work;

troubleshooting technical

problems.

becoming acquainted

with remote tutoring;

accessing remote

tutoring; receiving

instruction through

remote tutoring; co-

constructing on

documents.

Outcomes no technical problems;

technical problems;

offering alternative

tutoring mode;

satisfying/dissatisfying

remote tutoring

experiences; teaching

objectives met.

no technical problems;

technical problems;

requesting alternative

tutoring mode;

satisfying/dissatisfying

remote tutoring

experience; learning

objectives met.

Remote tutors perform many roles including technologist, web designer and facilitator

(Goodyear, Salmon, Spector, Steeples & Tickner, 2001); yet the technical competencies of

online tutors have received limited attention in research (Shelley, White, Baumann & Murphy,

2006). To be effective, tutors need to be comfortable and competent with whatever technology is

used and know when to rely on technical support from more knowledgeable others. From this


experience, I realize that managing multiple tools for communication and instruction in one-to-

one remote tutoring is challenging. For example, the steps for opening sessions, sharing

documents, co-constructing documents and closing sessions during remote tutoring sessions are

listed in Appendix H for both webconferencing systems illustrating the complexities involved in

initiating, maintaining and closing sessions. These are further complicated when considering the

tutor‘s familiarity and comfort with them as he/she transitions to tutoring with webconferencing

technologies, especially one who is a ―digital immigrant‖ (Prensky, 2001, p. 1

As part of Action Research, I would reflect on what transpired after each remote-tutoring

session. In the beginning I had concerns about my technical skills when I began using each

webconferencing system. For instance, after session 2 (Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

system), I

wrote,

I‘m still feeling a bit overwhelmed with sharing documents. Mainly because I

cannot see what the student is seeing. The only thing I know is that I‘m ―sharing‖

something. I don‘t know what it looks like on their screen. Is it big enough? I

need to get in the habit of asking this.

And after session 3 (Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

system), I reflected on the number of steps

needed to close sessions,

There‘s a lot to remember at the end of a session. I first had to remove Saba from

the meeting and then stop sharing his paragraph to maintain his privacy. I had to

copy his conversation from the chat posting to a word document for later analysis

and then clear it from the post. I then waited for another student to enter.

As I was learning how to share and interact with documents, at first I didn‘t know if we

could co-construct on them, so I initially typed students‘ responses into displayed documents. I


later discovered that while we had not been able to co-construct easily using the Adobe®

Connect Pro 7 TM

system, we were able to do it on documents using IdeaTools TM

. When needed,

I contacted the software programmers and IT specialists for information and explanations

involving technical components prior to and during implementation. As the weeks went by, I

never experienced system crashes or lost connections; however, in session 5, I accidentally

―removed‖ the student from the webconferencing site but was able to put him back in within six

seconds. As students returned for recurring sessions, instructing with the technology became

easier, reducing my anxiety and probability of making technical errors. Since I was never able to

predict what might go wrong, I approached each session hopeful knowing that if the student‘s

academic needs were not met, alternate arrangements could be made. Sometimes I initiated an

alternate format, sometimes the student requested it. Regardless, the choice was there, if needed.

As I became more comfortable with the remote-tutoring technologies, I noticed it took

me less time to open sessions, share documents, enlarge fonts, save and return documents, and

close sessions. This improvement allowed me to focus more on the instructional and affective

strategies I was applying in remote-tutoring sessions. The next section discusses the instructional

transitions a tutor experiences when tutoring remotely and addresses research sub-question 3.

4.3.4.2 Transitioning dimension – Property 2: Tutor’s perspective of transitioning with

instruction. Research sub-question 3. What instructional strategies meet the needs of

students participating in tutoring remotely?

Instructionally, the remote tutor goes through transitions as well. As a newcomer to

remote tutoring, attempts to use constructivist learning strategies were accompanied by feelings

of ineptness. At first, I was so preoccupied with the mechanics of delivering tutoring through

webconferencing software that I felt as if I had never tutored before. Once I acknowledged this


hindrance, I consciously began applying strategies and techniques that I would naturally use in

traditional tutoring sessions, such as, facilitating, modeling and collaborating. For example, in

session 1 with Lyrik, we were viewing her draft and reached the part where I asked her to

construct concluding sentences for practice,

Action/

interaction

Transcript of chat Video

counter


LB: Posting in

chat

Good…let’s go back

to your paragraph. I

want you to try to

draft your concluding

sentences.

20:21 Providing encouragement

Assessing her understanding

Lyrik: Posting

in chat

Okay 20:28

LB: Shared her

draft using ‖My

computer

screen‖ and

posted in chat.

Now it's your turn.

What would you write

to restate your topic

sentence here?

21:33 Requesting she construct concluding

sentences for practice.

Lyrik: Posting

in chat

Applebee's is my

favorite resturtant

[sic] for many reason

because it a great

place to go to for

dinner

23:54 Student‘s response

Length of time: 3 ½ minutes

The only difference between this exchange and tutoring that occurs in my office was we used the

chat feature to communicate using a webconferencing site. As a result, this gave her an

opportunity to practice writing and get feedback on her drafted sentences in the remote-tutoring

session prior to submitting her draft on the course management system for homework. In this

way, remote-tutoring is consistent with traditional face-to-face sessions where language is the

mediating tool. The only difference is one occurs in the same physical proximity while the other

does not.


In this study, dimensional analysis allowed me to dimensionalize the instructional

strategies used in all remote-tutoring sessions. To answer sub-question 3 and understand which

instructional strategies met students‘ needs, I reviewed those that were applied in the five

sessions that had student evaluations so I could relate instructional strategies to students‘

feedback . Three of these sessions occurred using the Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

system, two of

which used a chat-only modality and one used webcam plus chat. The other two sessions used

the IdeaTools TM

system with webcams plus chat. This information, along with the session‘s

length of time and languages used, is summarized in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4

Session Characteristics with Student Evaluations.

Session Number 1 (Lyrik) 2 (Saba) 6 (Tabby) 10 (Aarin) 12 (Preslee)

Length of session 31

minutes

8 minutes 19 minutes 13 minutes 15 minutes

Webconferencing

system

Adobe®

Connect

Pro 7 TM

Adobe®

Connect

Pro 7 TM

Adobe®

Connect

Pro 7 TM

IdeaTools TM

IdeaTools TM

Modality chat-only chat-only webcam +

chat

webcam +

chat

webcam +

chat

Language Written

English

Written

English

ASL ASL ASL

As you can see, these sessions varied in length, webconferencing system, modality,

language and student. Did instructional strategies differ based on remote versus office tutoring?

Or by webconferencing system? Or based on modality? To address how tutors transition to

teaching using remote technologies and to discuss the instructional strategies that met the needs

of students receiving remote tutoring using varying modes, I will first discuss the strategies

identified in the five evaluated sessions; then I will present strategies that were unique to remote


tutoring; and finally I will mention those that were applied in sessions differentiated by modality

(webconference, email and videophone).

Coding the five sessions that included student evaluations (sessions 1, 2, 6, 10 and 12),

50 instructional strategies were identified using Dimensional Analysis (Appendix I).

Instructional strategies common to all five sessions were: asking questions, confirming,

displaying documents, facilitating, giving directions and praising. Therefore, regardless of length

of session, system, modality and language, I interacted with students remotely by asking

questions, confirming responses and displaying/sharing materials while assisting and

encouraging their progress. These strategies are consistent with a social constructivism approach

since asking questions is used for assessing what the learner knows, then confirming it using the

knowledge that exists within the social context of tutoring and continuing it through interacting

until a new level of knowledge is acquired (Staupe and Hernes, 2000). With the exception of

displaying documents electronically, these strategies are similar to those applied in office

tutoring sessions, which further supports consistency between the two. When comparing

webconferencing systems, co-constructing on documents occurred only within the IdeaTools TM

system (sessions 10 & 12). This is one of the reasons that prompted the decision to end cycle

one with Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

and deliver remote tutoring using the IdeaTools TM

system in

cycle two.

Coding instructional strategies in all 22 remote tutoring sessions allowed me to identify

activities that were unique to remote tutoring as well. Table 4.5 lists instructional actions and

interactions unique to remote tutoring. For instance, when a student entered the

webconferencing room for the first time, they were greeted with a ―Welcome to tutoring with

LB‖ message posted in the chat feature. When students responded to that posting, I began the


process of checking to see if they preferred alternative modes, such as adding a webcam, by

posting the question using the chat feature before initiating the tutoring session. Other unique

Table 4.5

Instructional Strategies Unique to Remote Tutoring

Asking student to draft in chat feature – to practice writing and give feedback

Keeping chat sentences short; using (…) to indicate continuing.

Adding emoticons (smiley faces) and IM , i.e., lol to chat

Checking connection – can you see the draft?

Checking preferences – do you want to use webcam?

Checking audio – can you hear me?

Sharing documents electronically

Checking view of documents displayed – is it big enough?

Enlarging document fonts, if needed

Co-constructing: highlighting, revising, expanding

Saving student‘s work and returning to course management system

strategies applied through the chat feature included using it to display emoticons (smiley faces)

for affective purposes when using chat-only and using it for emphasis (to clarify, repeat, instruct)

when using sign language with webcams in the webconferencing site. Secondly, I incorporated

varying strategies to alert students to changes in topics or actions by typing ―let‘s move on to the

new information from class‖, when using chat-only; or by asking students to ―hold‖ or ―one

minute‖ to indicate I needed to display or save a document; or by starting questions with ―I‘m

curious‖ to indicate a change in topic. Alerting students to changes in topic or actions was

particularly necessary in the chat-only mode to avoid confusion; however, it is also a common

and polite thing to do in Deaf culture (Mindess, 2006). For example, when breaking eye contact

during a session in order to share a document electronically, it was polite to alert the deaf person

by asking them to ―hold‖ or wait ―one minute‖. This is similar to what hearing people would do


on the telephone when distracted or needing to attend to something else. It is also appropriate in

ASL to begin a question by signing, ―I‘m curious‖ as a topic marker and as a way of alerting the

deaf person to a change in topic. These alerting strategies were employed using chat features,

webcams and videophones during remote tutoring sessions because they facilitated instruction

using digital technologies in a way that is familiar and respectful to deaf people as well as similar

to those utilized in traditional face-to-face interactions. Another instructional strategy unique to

remote tutoring occurred when displaying documents. Regardless of webconferencing system, I

had to verify if students could see the documents and ask if they were displayed properly. In

some cases, fonts had to be enlarged in order for the student to read the displayed document.

This is something I had to remember to check since I could not see how things were displayed on

students‘ computers. Thus, it is important to check remote-tutoring access and preferences,

check webcam and audio connections, use alerting and topic-changing strategies and confirm

clarity of displayed documents when tutoring students using webconferencing systems.

In addition to delivering remote tutoring through webconferencing systems, Saba

received tutoring through email three times (sessions 8, 9 and 22) and Ryver received tutoring

through videophones once (session 15). Similar to chat-only and webconferencing with webcam

sessions, asking questions and giving directions also occurred in email and videophone tutoring

sessions while praising took place less (Also listed in Appendix I). This may have been because

documents were not shared and therefore co-construction did not occur. Knowing this, adding

strategies such as facilitating and praising while requesting clarification and elaboration rather

than providing information could fill this void. Regardless, it is clear that the instructional

strategies used by the tutor are similar, whether in one‘s office or remotely through webcam,


email or videophones. The next section will address how students transition to the remote

tutoring environment.

4.3.4.3 Transitioning dimension – Property 3: Students’ perspectives of transitioning.

Technical and educational transitions occurred for students using remote tutoring as well.

During the first few weeks, they had to become acquainted with the course management system

which was new for many of them. Second, they were expected to produce written evidence of

learning using the processes presented in class. Third, they were being asked to meet with me

remotely using an unfamiliar format. Therefore, I wanted to orient them to remote-tutoring

options and help them with their transition so that they could feel comfortable and satisfied with

the process. Embarking on this study, I realized the majority of my students had never

experienced remote tutoring; therefore, I wanted to acquaint them with the concept by

demonstrating systems in class. Using two computers stationed in the classroom, one that

projected to a screen at the front of the room, I demonstrated how to access the webconferencing

site from one computer browser (Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

in Week 1; IdeaTools TM

in Week 6),

explained the layouts and showed students what it looked like using the other computer. I

believe this helped to minimize the mystery behind the phenomenon as the demonstration

showed students how to access the remote tutoring webconferencing site step-by-step. For

students‘ reference, a PowerPoint presentation was also posted in the course management

system. In addition, the webconferencing URLs were communicated through paper and

electronic sources, including the course syllabus, course management system, teacher‘s office

and weekly email reminders. This helped students to easily gain access, when desired.

During this study, Tabby participated in six remote-tutoring sessions. What follows are

five exchanges from his sessions illustrating his transition to remote tutoring using various


formats. The first is an email exchange requesting tutoring; the second illustrates a problem that

occurred attempting to use the Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

system; the third illustrates his first

experience using the IdeaTools TM

system; the fourth shows his progress in using the system for

learning; and the fifth illustrates interaction that occurred when he was challenged to reach

beyond what he already knew and ventured into his zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,

1978).

I. Email exchange with Tabby, Monday September 27. His first attempt,

Action/

interaction

Transcript of email


email to Tabby;

sent 9:20 pm

LB: I’m tutoring another

student now…I’ll email

you when I’m done.

Was unable to accept him into the session at

that time because I was working with Preslee.

email to Tabby;

sent 9:34 pm

I am available to help

you now and will be here

until 10 pm. You can

contact me at [URL for

tutoring website]. Or you

can VP at [videophone

number]

Sent this email to Tabby letting him know of

my availability and reminded him how to

contact me.

email from

Tabby;

sent 9:50 pm

oh, I never use this

before. I was confused.

Can I meet your office if

you are here…?

Requesting alternate form of tutoring.

Student was tutored in my office - same

evening.

II. Session 6 with Tabby – Adobe® Connect Pro 7 TM

(18 minutes, 56 seconds) – Getting better

with technology. Session begins in chat; moves to combination of webcam and chat.

Interaction Transcription

(SimCom used)

Video

counter


LB posting

in chat

How can I help

you?

00:42 Requesting reason for tutoring

Tabby

posting in

chat

I want to know if

right sentences

about “how to”

01:45 Seeking reassurance


make something

Change

layout to

include

webcam

pod

OK…do you want

to use VP or

webcam?

02:04 Up to this point, I have not been successful

incorporating webcam into sessions. I began

the session with the chat layout which does not

include a webcam pod. I switched to the

webcam tutoring layout hoping this would

initiate an attempt to add webcam. I am

anxious to see how this works with the

delivery and satisfaction of the session.

Tabby

posting in

chat

I have Macpro’s

webcam, but I

don’t know how it

turn on

03:13

LB posting

in chat;

changed his

role to

presenter

Do you have

webcam on your

computer?

03:41 At 04:10, I changed his role to presenter so he

could access his webcam.

Tabby

posting in

chat

yes 04:29 At 05:13, we are both visible on webcams.

Tabby is using a computer in a lab on campus.

LB signing Waving “hello”. 05:13 Tabby‘s face appears in webcam pod

Tabby

signing

Waving “hi”. See

me? Perfect

05:16 Relief showing on both our faces

Tabby‘s evaluation of session 6 mentions his initial struggle with connecting his webcam. In

response to the question, ―Please describe the webcam problems‖, he wrote, ―I can‘t find

webcam turn on because these (referring to the icon) is too tiny that why I search it like 10 or 20

min‖. Based on this experience, he also inferred he would maybe return to online tutoring for

help with homework,

[If I not understand my homework then I can go to tutoring at (on-campus lab), but I feel

not go there then using online tutoring at my dorm, I guess.]

III. Session 11 with Tabby – IdeaTools TM

system (8 minutes, 59 seconds). This is the first night

using this system. We are both getting used to the new layout. Here, he is asking me how to

upload a document showing his initiative to manage the session.


Interaction ASL used


Video

counter


Tabby

signing

[I want to make sure

I did the outline right.

How can I show

you?]

00:15 Reason for tutoring

LB signing You want to look at

it? okay

00:17

Tabby

signing

Share? 00:19 Here, student is asking how to upload his

outline so we can work on it together. I do

not know if this is possible. Need to

investigate.

IV. True to his nature, Tabby returned three more times. We were becoming more comfortable

with the technology and communicating using both webcam, chat and interacting with

documents that we were able to focus more on the writing process. During the remaining three

tutoring sessions, he started each by quickly getting right to the point. My position transitioned

from teacher to facilitator with Tabby taking the initiative. In his writing, he selected

challenging topics (i.e., categorizing video game characters and the effects of hatred) and was

able to apply the correct writing structure successfully. I sensed he was using remote tutoring to

get feedback on his drafts before submitting them. Particularly noteworthy was Tabby‘s fifth

session (session 17) where he contacted me to discuss concluding sentences for his ―cause or

effect‖ paragraph. He set the tone for the session and interacted well with the document--cutting

and pasting, adding sentences, and revising others. He seemed very comfortable with the

environment. During the seventh and eighth minute of this session, there was several quick

exchanges related to adding a transitioning sentence to his concluding sentences. The following

dialogue illustrates the communication, revisions and interpersonal exchanges that occurred,

Action/

Interaction

ASL used [English Translation] Video

counter

LB signing That last sentence? … 07:15


“I prefer people should how to forgive each other and what?”

T signing [It’s messed up…not typed right.] 07:29

Tabby

revising

document

removes “ and because peace” 07:53

LB signing ok 07:54

Tabby

signing

[Do I need the last line or should I get rid of it?] 07:59

LB signing [What do you think?] 08:01

Tabby

signing

[I think…I prefer people should forgive each other and become

peace]

08:10

LB signing Right…. “become peace”...right. 08:15

Tabby

revising

document

changes “there have no peace” to “there will be peace.” 08:26

LB

gesturing &

signing

two thumbs up!

L-O-V-E-I-T!

08:32

Tabby

nodding

Yes (smiling) 08:34

LB signing [that’s challenging…adding another concluding sentence…it’s

challenging. I’m happy you succeeded.]

08:42

Tabby

signing

Yes 08:40

LB signing Understand? 08:44

Tabby

signing

[Thank God!] 08:45

LB signing [I will save it and give your more feedback tomorrow.] 08:55

Tabby

signing

Yes 08:55

LB signing [more feedback tomorrow, ok?] 08:58

Tabby

signing

Fine 08:58

Each time I recall this session, I am awed by the advances he was making both in managing the

online tutoring environment and in the progress he was making in his drafts. I was also

beginning to theorize how tutoring using technologies compared to tutoring in my office

V. In his final session (session 20), frustration surfaced but it was not due to technical or

communication difficulties. In a short period of time (6 minutes, 24 seconds), we co-constructed


an ―opinion‖ outline through numerous exchanges. I served as facilitator, encouraging him to

express his ideas and followed up by confirming and praising. I sensed he was unsure of his

responses since he phrased them as questions. For example, when I asked him if his first reason

for stating why he was against gun control was a fact or his opinion, he signed, ―opinion?‖. This

pattern continued back and forth until we got to his third detail – ―people need guns for hunting‖,

Interaction ASL used [English translation] Video

counter

LB signing [Next ….three…H-U-N-T-I-N-G, right?] 04:24

Tabby signing Yes….need food…‖a‖ - need food. 04:29

LB signing fact 04:30

Tabby signing ―b‖ enjoy… 04:39

LB signing enjoy, right. 04:41

Tabby signing opinion….eat food…ahhhhhhhhhhh…don‘t know…don‘t know! 04:51

LB signing [some people enjoy hunting] 04:59

Tabby signing opinion? 05:00

LB signing [can be opinion, some people enjoy hunting. What do you think?] 05:07

Tabby signing all right 05:08

In this highly interactive session, Tabby sought to express his ideas using another challenging

topic. Scaffolding was used to encourage him to express what he knew about the topic and

verify his understanding. This resulted in a well-developed outline which set the foundation for

a substantiated opinion paragraph.

Thus far, I have discussed the tutor and tutee‘s perspectives as they transitioned to

remote tutoring in an English class. Facilitating instruction and being able to learn remotely in

real time involves complex and demanding tasks (Chi Ng, 2007). During session 10 with Aarin,


she used innovative strategies to facilitate interactions. I share these to illustrate the creativity

and comfort inherent in millennials as we transitioned to this new format.

Aarin is a particularly energetic student who is serious about her studies. She also has a

wonderful sense of humor which she infuses into everything she does. During her second remote

tutoring session involving a combination of webcam for signing and chat on the IdeaTools TM

system, Aarin surprised me with her creative use of artifacts and her interesting communication

style. Session 10 initiated when she asked for clarification for her ―classification‖ outline by

signing this question, [First point, I have Nintendo with ―who plays‖ for ―a‖. Then detail ―b‖ is

the same too, right?]. Since I was having difficulty understanding her question, I asked her to

post it in chat. Instead, she chose to display the outline she had written on a piece of paper to me

using her webcam and posting in chat, ―see it better‖? In this way, she was using the webcam as

a tool to show her draft. I understood her intended message and the session continued.

Approximately seven minutes into the session, I asked her what she wanted to describe next. At

that moment, she signals me to ―hold on‖ and reaches to pick something off the floor. She again

used the webcam as a tool to display a videogame case while pointing to the rating symbol in the

bottom left corner of the case and signed, [What do you call this?]. I was inspired by the way

she naturally used the webcam to communicate her question and marveled in the fact that this

was able to occur because she was physically in her dorm room and had access to the artifact.

Not only was this effective but it is consistent with Activity Theory and New Literacy Studies in

that remote tutoring is not a different form of tutoring but tutoring with a tool and that both occur

face-to-face.

In summary, it is important to note that both the tutor and tutee need time and training to

transition to using remote technologies for satisfying tutoring experiences. Knowing that there


are technical and instructional learning curves and that things can happen to facilitate and

prevent a satisfying experience will help users to remain open-minded when choosing the form

of tutoring that works best for them. The next section addresses the benefits students perceived

from experiencing tutoring remotely.

4.3.5 Benefits dimension. Research sub-question 5: What determines student

satisfaction with the remote-tutoring experience?

This study did not intend to measure the effectiveness of remote technology with deaf

college students. However, students‘ perceived benefits were identified from participants‘

descriptions and actions. The properties that lead to perceptions of benefits, as illustrated in

Table 4.6, will be discussed from both the tutor and students‘ perspectives in order to answer

research sub- question 5: What determines student satisfaction with the remote-tutoring

experience?

Table 4.6.

Properties of Benefits Dimension

Context Tutor’s perspective Student’s perspective

Conditions one-to-one interactions;

opportunity to develop

relationship

making the choice to access

remote tutoring; making the

choice to use face-to-face

instead or as alternate when

remote tutoring failed

Actions discussing students‘ work; co-

constructing on documents;

employing instructional

strategies; engaging in

smalltalk

discovering new knowledge;

applying instructional

strategies; easier; ―worked for

me‖; more confident

Outcomes student growth in cognitive

awareness and development;

strengthening relationships;

students might return

satisfaction with the remote

tutoring experience; better

grade; improved writing;

returning; avoiding or

choosing alternate mode


4.3.5.1 Benefits dimension - Property 1: Tutor’s perspective of benefits.

Having experienced remote tutoring for an average of six hours per week over a ten-week

period, I believe the greatest benefit was being able to interact one-to-one with 58% of my

students outside of class. Most writing teachers would attest that students benefit from

individual writing conferences (Harris, 1986). Tutoring can serve as an opportunity for highly

productive dialogues that are particularly helpful to individual students (Gordon, et.al, 2007).

Whether it is in an office or online, a trained tutor can assist with the writing process, while

focusing on each student‘s unique needs and learning style, accommodating his/her preferred

communication mode while benefitting from enhancements to the tutor-student relationship.

Activity theory posits that ―conscious learning emerges from activity‖ and ―activity is a

precursor to learning‖ (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 62 & p. 64). This can also be used

to interpret the benefits (outcomes) perceived from remote tutoring.

The following researcher‘s notes from session 16 illustrate what I believe a satisfying

session looks like from the tutor‘s perspective,

Kadren came to discuss his outline. We reviewed his points of development and

worked on clarifying them. He was excited about being able to interact with the

document online and expressed it by sharing it with the other two students from

class who were in the dorm room with him. It was evident they all felt it was

successful. Instructional strategies included: facilitating, giving feedback, giving

directions, praising.....Kadren corrected errors, applied feedback, felt assured and

satisfied throughout session (Researcher‘s notes, Session 16).

Witnessing growth in students‘ cognitive awareness and development, and observing

their satisfaction as they display confidence in their work is rewarding. In tutor-student


interactions, tutors also have an opportunity to create and maintain affective states that are

conducive to learning (Porayska-Pomsta, Marvrikis and Pain, 2008). While it is difficult to

assess the affective states of students, the tutoring strategies I used to influence affective

conditions were identified through Dimensional Analysis: enthusiasm, encouragement,

gratitude, welcoming, supportive, approachable, admiring, kind, polite, humorous, apologetic,

honest and proud. These desirable traits transcended modality, webconferencing system and

language used. Examples included:

Waving hello; Hi! How are you?; Sorry I didn‘t see you there….; sorry about

making you wait; Thanks for waiting!; Saying please/thank you; YES!; I like that

one!; You are very convincing! (Now I want to go there); cool! I want to read it!;

I‘m excited to read about your topic!; I look forward to reading it; hands

waving…yeah, it‘s working!; I like it!; Thumbs up!; that‘s nice; Super! You go

girl!; I learned a lot; no problem! Yeah (hands waving); good luck; I am happy

you succeeded; hope so…we‘ll see but I think ―yes‖; I like your enthusiasm; Any

time; I can‘t see me or you….I‘m sad; I will wait for you; fine!; see you soon! OK

– you‘re all set! Thanks for letting me know!; You‘re welcome; See you

tomorrow; CYA; Have a nice weekend!; byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee; bye for

now! Waving good-bye.

In addition, there are tutoring strategies and jargon that indicate praise. Depending on

modality, strategies will differ. For example, in text formats, praise was incorporated not only in

words but by using all-caps and multiple exclamations points (YES!; GREAT! Good!!!!) and

emoticons to show affect (smiley faces). Other examples of praise identified in signed sessions

included: Nice; right; good; wonderful; beautiful; perfect; interesting; wow; L-O-V-E I-T; You


did a good job; good job (thumbs up); It‘s good; Looks good; You did great; Your hook is good;

good topic; good structure; good draft; You are off to a good start. The range and types of tutor-

student interactions that support affective conditions in remote tutoring environments are not

clearly understood. Personally, I believe engaging in affective interactions in remote-tutoring

sessions has the potential to make the experience more enjoyable and increase students‘

motivation to return. In this study, offering students tutoring choices resulted in 58% of them

receiving one-to-one tutoring from me—several multiple times. I am motivated by the

possibilities increasing utilization could bring to learning outcomes and how the tutor‘s affective

orientation plays a role in this, whether it occurs online or in an office.

4.3.5.2 Benefits dimension - Property 2: Students’ perspectives of benefits.

The majority of comments related to satisfaction with the remote-tutoring experience

came from students‘ evaluations and interviews. It was here that perceived benefits were

expressed. For example, even after struggling with accessing the tutoring website and

connecting his webcam, Tabby described his rationale for wanting to use remote tutoring. In his

interview, he signed,

[I decided because I need quiet. If I‘m in the dorm and doing work, I lose

concentration if someone is talking to me, it takes longer so I go to tutoring and I

can pay attention in the quiet and it‘s easier and it saves time so I get things done

quicker.]

When asked why he accessed remote tutoring six times during the class, he signed,

[Because tutoring online is easier than walking over to meet you. It‘s easy and

quick to open my laptop and chat, do the work, and explain than walking over for


it because I feel lazy and I don‘t want to go so I open my laptop and perfect, it‘s

easy. That‘s my opinion.]

Wanting to know his opinion about traditional compared to remote tutoring, I asked Tabby if he

felt the benefits were the same or different? His response not only incorporated his feelings

about both formats, but the benefits of having a choice,

[I feel the benefits are the same but face-to-face is better because you can explain

better than online using webcam but suppose there‘s bad weather, like snow, and

you‘re stuck and can‘t go to tutoring you can easily get online tutoring so they

offer the same benefit in my opinion.]

When asked if he would like to continue using remote tutoring in the future, Tabby‘s response

addressed the transition he experienced as well as his perceived benefits,

[It‘s better than….I never experienced it , never tried it before so I tried it and

after a while got used to it…it‘s nice and easy for me.]

In his interview, Kadren also expressed the unexpected benefits he received from remote

tutoring,

[First I think I was curious to see if it would work for me or not so I decided to try

it and I was surprised…it was my first time and I thought it might be

embarrassing but it was nothing. The three of us, my friends suggested it and

encouraged me so I said ―fine‖…and I didn‘t believe it. I tried it and it worked

for me. I developed my outline and it worked better for me working with a tutor.

I was surprised.]

When asked what he liked about the experience, Kadren stated,


[I liked working on the outline online, typing in the three points. It made my

grade better. I learned more, and improved my writing better over not getting

help.]

Hopefully, benefitting from a remote-tutoring experience will encourage students to continue

accessing some form of tutoring for their coursework.

Notably, some students had personal reasons for not wanting to access tutoring. Since

students are not required to receive tutoring, having an array of choices may motivate them to

access it and reap the advantages. Given options, they may be willing to try it and in return,

receive some benefit. Lyrik articulates her thoughts regarding access to and benefits from her

remote tutoring experience,

Lyrik: [It was my first time using online tutoring in college. I had experienced it

(in high school) but in college, I‘m independent and sometimes I don‘t ask for

help because I‘m smart but it was my first time experiencing online with you and

it‘s a cool idea. I got some feedback and some help so I understood it clearer and

it improved my grades.]

Not everyone felt they received benefits from their remote tutoring experience. Preslee reported

that she preferred in-office tutoring but nevertheless used remote tutoring on two occasions. In

her interview, we discussed what happened during the first session that caused us to abort the

session and meet in my office instead,

Researcher: (referring to attempts to connect her webcam to Adobe® Connect Pro

7 TM

) I remember you were motivated to resolve the problem…you tried and tried

to open the webcam so we could see each other, but it didn‘t work. Finally, we

gave up…we had to give up because it was too frustrating.


Preslee: headnod – [Yes. The webcam didn‘t work. It opened, but I couldn‘t see

my sign, the webcam display didn‘t work.]

Even after having a less-than satisfying remote tutoring experience, Preslee stated that she still

liked the idea of tutoring remotely,

[Yes, I really do. I like the idea of using VP for tutoring to take advantage of

signing, especially when the lab tutors are busy.]

In summary, allowing students to have remote tutoring as a choice may result in greater

satisfaction with the tutoring experience and thereby increase the potential that users would

return. Even though measuring the benefits of remote tutoring was not the goal of this study, it

should be recognized that users expressed satisfaction by returning to remote tutoring and

described benefits to their level of confidence, homework drafts, and grades, and reflected fondly

on the experience. The next section describes the third relevant dimension identified in the

explanatory matrix – sharing experiences.

4.3.6 Sharing experiences dimension. Research sub-question 4: In what ways, if

any, do students’ identities influence their participation in remote tutoring?

The Deaf community is a collectivist society; that is, they are group oriented (Mindess,

2006). A sociocultural view of deafness views language and discourse as components of social

relationships embedded in social practices (Lane, 2005). In this view, learning occurs through

interaction with others and the individual‘s cognitive development is a direct result of interacting

in social groups (Vygotsky, 1987). A language-learning view of deafness highlights the fact that

the language of the Deaf community (ASL) is acquired visually and forms the foundation for a

shared culture and identity. In essence, "sign language binds Deaf people together and

ultimately serves to sustain a community of, by, and for Deaf people" (Jankowski, 1997, p. 38).


For Deaf people, accessibility to communication is paramount and keeping others

informed is an expectation in Deaf culture since ―Sharing information is the norm in the Deaf

community‖ (Smith, Lentz & Mikos, 1988, p. 35) and withholding information is considered

rude (Mindess, 2006). This could include sharing academic successes, such as, receiving

tutoring remotely. Approximately half way through the study, I began noticing occurrences of

students sharing aspects of the remote tutoring experience with others. Some of these acts were

intentional; others were subtle. Nevertheless, recurring instances of ―sharing the remote tutoring

experiences with others‖ was influencing students‘ choice of utilizing remote tutoring in my

classes. The explanation of this dimension, along with its properties illustrated in Table 4.7, also

serves to answer sub-question four: In what ways, if any, do students’ identities influence their

participation in the remote tutoring process?

Table 4.7

Properties of Sharing Experiences Dimension

Context Meeting obligations Informing others

Conditions being in same lab or dorm room; discovering something new;

encouraging others

Actions showing webconferencing space

to others; asking others if they

need access; asking ―others if

they would like it‖

inviting classmates to view site;

showing session to others

Outcomes sharing struggles; sharing

successes; offering access

increased number of users; recurring

use

4.3.6.1 Sharing experiences dimension - Property 1: Meeting obligations.

The first instance of ―sharing with others‖ occurred during session 6 with Tabby. During

the eighteenth minute of our session, I asked him to ―hold‖ while I saved and returned his draft

to him so he could redo it for homework. It wasn‘t until later when I was reviewing the recorded


session for analysis that I noticed the following (Session 6 researcher‘s notes),

While I was focusing on sending his paragraph back to him through the course

management system (idea3), he was showing the webconferencing room to

another student in the class. (They were both in the lab at the same time…she

sitting behind him – kitty corner.) He got her attention and explained to her how

he struggled to get the webcam to work but finally got it. She came over to the

monitor and they viewed it together. He was wearing a look of relief and

confidence. I enjoyed watching him share the experience with another student in

the class. Perhaps this will encourage her to try it too.

In another example, while working with Tabby (session 20), Easton stuck his head in

front of the webcam and fingerspelled, ―H-I‖ and signed something. When I told Tabby that I

didn‘t understand what Easton signed, Tabby signed, ―help-me‖ (referring to what Easton

signed) and then turned to Easton and signed [Do you need help with English?]. In this

exchange, Tabby felt compelled to assess Easton‘s need to access tutoring thereby supporting the

theory of learning as social activity. Incidentally, Easton did access remote tutoring with me

from his dorm room later that same evening.

A third example, alluded to earlier in this chapter, occurred in Lyrik‘s interview when she

stated she ―would ask others to see if they would like it‖ thereby providing a mechanism to

spread the word and let students decide for themselves. In this case, she was meeting her

obligation by suggesting we inform other deaf students about the remote-tutoring service so they

could access it, if desired.

4.3.6.2 Sharing experiences dimension – Property 2: Informing others.

There were two subsequent sessions that occurred as a direct result of students observing


remote-tutoring sessions or being encouraged to access it by others. An example of this occurred

in session 16, when Kadren, after being encouraged by Tabby to try it, discovered how to draft

his document using the IdeaTools TM

remote tutoring system. What follows are the exchanges

that led to this discovery,

Action/

Interaction

ASL used


Video

counter


LB:

highlights

―body‖

[For detail “a”, what do you

mean, body?]

4:25 asking for clarification

1. Cause, Shape up

a. body

b. Examples

Kadren

signs

[Okay. That means keep the

body straight and trim.]

4:52

LB signs;

pointing to

displayed

document

[Can you type it, add it there?] 5:08

Kadren

signs

Points to his monitor (off screen) 5:13 Lack of familiarity

LB signs;

pointing to

monitor

See if you can type it there. 5:14 Encouraging

Kadren

posts in

chat

body keep straight and show

body look good

5:53 Misunderstood directions

LB posts in

chat

Can you type on the screen? next

to the yellow highlight?

5:58 Directing

Kadren

places the

cursor next

to the

highlighted

word and

signs

Perfect (got it). 6:18 Discovery

Kadren

Deletes

BODY

6:27 Revising; applying feedback

LB signs Perfect 6:33 Praising

Kadren

motions for

Kadren types [keep straight];

Signs ―Nice…‖

6:34 Sharing discovery with

Easton;


Easton who looks

over K‘s

shoulder

at monitor.

….looking at Easton, Kadren

signs ―TYPING‖ while pointing

to the monitor

Beginning use of interacting

with content

Tabby joins, also

looks at

monitor (all

three are

viewing

together)…

6:53 Sharing discovery with others

LB posts in

chat

Hi Easton! 6:57 Acknowledging other

classmates in the dorm room.

Tabby signs

NICE!!!! 6:58 Tabby‘s response

Kadren

types and

signs

A. Body keep straight and show

body look good

Good.

7:02 1. Cause, Shape up

A. Body keep straight

and show body look

good.

B. Examples

This episode, with its evidence of discovering, sharing and revising, was a pivotal

moment in remote tutoring for all four of us. In a mere four-and-a-half minutes, Kadren, who

was encouraged to try remote tutoring by Tabby, discovered how to actively revise his work on

the displayed document, and then proceeded to share that discovery with his two classmates. It

was evident that all felt the ability to integrate with the document was beneficial. Perhaps due to

this turning point, Kadren continued to access remote tutoring two more times; Tabby three more

times; and Easton came once before the end of the course. This ripple effect highlights the power

of sharing news with others and reinforces the theory of learning as a social practice.

And finally, in his interview, Kadren referred to the fact that it was his classmates who

encouraged him to try remote tutoring and that he was surprised how much it helped. This

illustrates the role other Deaf people play in letting others know about something they benefitted


from and indicates the influence of deaf identity on participating in remote tutoring.

In summary, informing others and sharing experiences are typical actions by members of

the Deaf community so it came as no surprise to me that students were discussing their

experiences (good and bad) with each other. I was however enlightened from observing this

behavior during actual remote-tutoring sessions possibly indicating how deaf identity may

influence students‘ participation in remote tutoring. Nevertheless, further exploration is needed

to confirm this relationship in order to foster its potential.

4.4 Conclusion

My approach to tutoring has been strongly influenced by the ways Deaf people

communicate and share information which has guided my understanding and support for the

language and culture of Deaf people. I also believe optimal learning can occur when students are

engaged in activities of discovery and meaning making. Knowing that deaf students have

varying levels of literacy skills, language preferences (English vs ASL), and communication

abilities (spoken vs signed) is critical to interacting with them effectively in a classroom or in

tutoring situations. With this knowledge, I expect to learn with my students and share

discoveries with others hoping the message will spread so that others may benefit too.

In this chapter, the explanatory matrix, with its central perspective of Choices and three

relevant dimensions: Transitioning, Benefits, and Sharing Experiences, was narrated to present

the findings of this study as a grounded theory in support of offering remote tutoring as a choice

for deaf college students. In doing so, I have theorized that remote tutoring is comparable to

traditional tutoring using technologies as the mediating tool. Whether it‘s provided in one‘s

office or through a webconferencing site, both are similar in delivery of instruction and

perceived benefits. Offering tutoring choices has the potential to expand opportunities to support


students‘ literacy development. Chapter Five will discuss the action research cycles and in doing

so, will also describe the two remote tutoring systems used in this study. Chapter Six will present

conclusions as well as lay the foundation for continued dialogue and future research

considerations for offering remote tutoring as a choice for deaf college students.


Chapter Five

Impact of Action Research

5.1 Overview

Remote tutoring as a support service to deaf college students involves teaching in a

digital landscape (Meloncon, 2007). In order to become adept, delivering tutoring in unfamiliar

spaces requires planning, acting, observing and evaluating. As a result, the decision to use

Action Research methodology in this study was deliberate. In this chapter, I will provide a

description of the action research cycles that occurred in this study; then I will discuss the next

stage of action research; after that, I will describe the implications of this study on my tutoring

practices; and finally, I will present an action plan for piloting remote tutoring services to deaf

college students in English classes at my college.

5.2 Action Research Cycles

In action research, ―Researchers need to analyze the results of the first phases of the

research process to identify the particular features of the situation affecting the problem, and to

formulate effective strategies for its resolution‖ (Stringer, 2008, p. 149). As described in Chapter

Three, the planning stage of action research cycle(s) involved preparations for securing and

promoting ways for students to receive remote tutoring. The action stage involved the delivery

of remote tutoring and the observation stage involved analyzing data from recorded sessions and

evaluations. This was then taken into consideration during the reflecting stage to determine if

and how emerging technological, pedagogical and/or communications issues affected the remote

tutoring process. In this 10-week study, two action research cycles occurred. Table 5.1 shows

which sessions occurred in each cycle. Embedded in each cycle were mini-cycles that addressed


the adjustments made to the tutoring process. What follows is a description of the two action

research cycles that occurred.

Table 5.1

Remote Tutoring Sessions by Cycle and Format

Format Adobe® Connect

Pro 7TM

(7 sessions)

IdeaTools TM

(11 sessions)

Email & VP

(4 sessions)

Sessions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 8, 9, 22 & 15

Timeframe Weeks 1 – 5

(Cycle 1)

Weeks 5 – 10

(Cycle 2)

Weeks 1 – 10

(Cycle 1 & 2)

5.2.1 Cycle one - Adobe® Connect Pro 7

TM system.

The study began with remote tutoring offered using the Adobe® Connect Pro 7

TM

webconferencing system previously described in Chapter Three. The ―planning‖ part of this

cycle was initiated during the study proposal process. Prior to creating the webconferencing

tutoring room, I became educated in the design and use of this system in order to utilize its

features successfully. This included meeting with online learning specialists, attending

professional development workshops and one-on-one training, and reviewing materials published

by the manufacturer. All of these resources were accessed prior to and during the study, as

needed. The ―acting‖ part of this cycle began during week one of the study, when the online

meeting space was demonstrated and remote tutoring was initiated with students enrolled in my

English classes. The action, evaluation and reflection phases of cycle one continued through

week five of the study. During cycle one, there were problems connecting webcams, problems

with audio wizard and problems reading chat and documents due to small font size. These were

confirmed by student evaluations, researcher‘s session notes and student interviews, and twice,


sessions were aborted and traditional tutoring was provided in my office (sessions 5 & 6). When

reflecting on the size of the font, Preslee commented in her interview held in week 5: [… it was

tiny and I didn’t like it because it was hard to see]. In session 6 with Tabby, it took thirteen

minutes to begin the session due to webcam connecting, document sharing and font-size

problems. In addition to these issues, the fact we had not been able to co-construct on shared

documents felt debilitating. Researcher‘s fieldnotes, session notes, students‘ evaluations and

interviews were used to assess the practicality of using this system as intended. Since one of the

objectives of remote tutoring for this class was that sessions be interactive, the search for a

different webconferencing system began in week 5 bringing an end to cycle one.

5.2.2 Cycle two - IdeaToolsTM

system.

In action research, the researcher uses the knowledge obtained from the previous cycle

and applies it to identified problems. ―Utilizing a reflective process, this transition allows the

researcher to modify actions, look for new understanding from emerging data, reflect on its

interpretation with the hope of improving teaching practices‖ (Stringer, 2008, p. 147). The

planning of cycle two began during week 5 with investigating and learning how to use the video

chat room feature created within the course management system. The IdeaTools™ system was

not originally proposed for this study because it was not yet available. According to its

developers, the IdeaTools™ Video Chat Room was created so that students could meet with each

other to discuss class assignments and projects, as needed. The notion to use the IdeaTools™

Video Chat Room as a remote-tutoring site was not realized until I requested its use from its

developers.

During weeks 6 - 10, the following issues were noted with the IdeaTools™ system:

connecting webcams was easier, shared documents were easier to read, and we were able to


easily co-construct on documents when posted by the instructor. During session 11, Tabby

provided the following unsolicited compliment: [Seeing this tutoring, better than before] (07:37).

When asked to clarify if he liked it better, he signed ―Yes, better‖ (07:43). During his interview

in week 10, I asked him to compare the two systems, [brackets indicate English translations]

Researcher: [I don‘t know if you noticed the two ways. At the beginning of the

quarter, I used one way, the last three times I used a different way…did you

notice a difference, do you remember?]

Tabby: [I understand…yes, I think…the first time I contacted you, we were

typing because the webcam didn‘t work so we texted and I was looking around

and couldn‘t find the webcam…I could see you, but you couldn‘t see me.]

Researcher: I remember that.

Tabby: [Later, I‘m looking for webcam and can‘t find anything then I find a

small, tiny icon and open it…it was frustrating because I couldn‘t see it…then

recently, with the new system it‘s easy…I click and the screen opens and then

click remote tutoring and click open the webcam which is easy to find…so much

better than before looking all over and before trying to send things to show you, I

couldn‘t figure that out but now I can send things to you and they open and we

can type on it much easier than before.]

Preslee also commented that she liked the IdeaTools system better in her session 12 evaluation,

1. Why did you come to tutoring today? Because I did struggle to my homework.

2. Did you have any problems with y our computer or your internet connection

during this session? No, I didn't.

3. Did you have any problems with your webcam? No, I didn't.


4. Do you like this online software better than the first one we tried? Yes, I do

[referring to IdeaTools system]. For online without webcam the letter need

big[ger] for homework online [referring to Adobe Connect system].

5. Based on this experience, would you use online tutoring again for this class?

Maybe

Even though users‘ reactions were mostly positive, there were problems using the

IdeaTools Video Chat Room as well. These included the inability to move and resize features

and the inability for students to upload documents; both of which could be done with the Adobe®

Connect system. When asked for ideas to make remote tutoring better, Tabby summarized his

recommendations as follows,

[I think what you‘re doing is fine where I send it to you and you show it to me

and we type on it, but I would prefer to set it up myself and we look at it together

and type…that would be easier than sending it to you first…I think you can add

that.] (Interview with Tabby)

Thus, being able to collaborate on documents was perceived to be beneficial; and the desire to

upload and save one‘s own documents was seen as desirable.

When the course ended in week 10, action research cycle 2 was terminated. Unresolved

issues included: students uploading documents, being able to limit access to one user at a time,

and disconnecting in fewer steps. If I were to continue investigating the use of this video chat

room for remote tutoring with students in my English classes, I would address these issues with

the system‘s developers as well as pursue other systems with better video capability, document

integration and responsiveness.


5.3 Next Stages of Action Research

Ideally, action research should result in an action plan that will be implemented and

further evaluated. This requires creating a plan to implement changes or directions for further

work based on findings (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009, p. 594). Stringer (2008) discusses how to do

this in a systematic way by listing tasks and resources; developing action steps; defining

problems (i.e., poor video quality); and stating clear objectives (p. 150).

Different kinds of learning demand appropriate strategies, tools and resources (Wagner,

2008). Selecting the right remote tutoring tool is crucial to implementing a distance tutoring

program that will result in improved academic success, retention and satisfaction by its users

(Valdes-Corbeil & Corbeil, 2007). To address issues and problems identified in the action

research cycles, there are several factors to consider: accessibility; costs; ease of use, clear video

for sign language and lipreading; good audio; chat feature; ability to move and resize features;

ability to customize layouts; ability to upload, integrate and save documents; ability to share

desktops; and ability to record sessions. Finding a system that can provide this is challenging.

Duhl (2003, p. 6) lists the technical attributes needed to provide high-quality, interactive

online experiences:

• Utilize a ubiquitous client to maximize the audience reach.

• Run unchanged across the Internet on multiple platforms.

• Execute well across low- or high-bandwidth connections.

• Restore processing power (not just rendering capabilities) to the client.

• Deliver engaging user interfaces with a high degree of interactivity.

• Represent processes, data configuration, and feedback complexity.

• Utilize audio, video images and text in a seamless manner.


• Support the mobile workflow by allowing users to work online and offline.

• Allow the client to determine what content or data to access and when.

• Allow for the incremental addition of new functions to existing web

applications and environments to get the most out of existing web application

investments.

These attributes, coupled with the unique features needed to support the communication

and learning needs of deaf college students, makes the task more complicated indeed. Gallaudet

University, the largest Liberal Arts college for the deaf in the world, has investigated the use of

webconferencing tools but as recently as June, 2010, has not found one capable of producing

adequate video and captioning for this purpose (King & Parks, 2010). ―Efforts to use web

conferencing tools more extensively have typically been stymied by the lack of multi-party video

options, low video quality, accessibility challenges for deaf and hard of hearing students, and

technological complexities‖ (p. 3). They too are searching for the optimal webconferencing

application for distance learning with deaf college students.

Considering these factors and the challenges caused by poor video quality, the next stage

of action research would be to offer remote tutoring using higher quality video conferencing

software, such as NefsisTM

(Nefsis Corporation, 2008), and examine how it affects my tutoring

practices. Advantages include higher-quality video playback through low round-trip latency

using cloud computing. Features include layouts that can be optimized for users; features that

can be moved and resized; desktops, documents and applications that can be shared and

collaborated; and standard audio hardware. A snapshot of this videoconferencing system is also

included in Appendix E. Disadvantages include moderate-to-high initial costs and on-going

licensing costs. Touted as the ―next-generation video conferencing software and online service


solution designed for effortless business-to-business online meetings‖ (Nefsis White Paper,

2010, p. 3), the next phase of action research will investigate its potential as a remote tutoring

system. Thus, utilizing Nefsis videoconferencing with deaf college students in my next English

class is the action plan for the next cycle.

Ultimately, for remote tutoring with deaf college students to be utilized, students have to

perceive benefits. If given the choice to access remote tutoring, ease of use, clear communication

and interactive learning could motivate students to try it. If satisfied, users may inform others as

well as return for additional remote tutoring sessions thereby contributing to a successful

learning experience.

5.4 Implications on My Tutoring Practices

This action research study set out to examine all that was happening in remote tutoring

with deaf college students in order to address the research question: How does using remote

tutoring with deaf college students affect my tutoring practices? In order to respond to the

demands placed by the remote-tutoring environment, remote tutors perform different roles and

need different competencies to fulfill each one (White, Murphy, Shelley & Baumann, 2005

Consistent with New Literacy Studies, I have developed a repertoire of practices pertaining to

the technical, communication, instructional and socio-affective aspects needed for a successful

remote-tutoring experience. The following discussion highlights their impacts on my tutoring

practices.

5.4.1 Technical impacts.

The digital age is characterized by challenge and change. Remote tutors need exposure

and training in using technologies for instruction beyond competencies in basic computing skills

(i.e., basic operating systems, word processing, internet navigation, and email basics). They need


training in the specific software utilized to deliver tutoring online in order to become familiar

with its particular affordances and limitations. Realizing the impact proper technical training has

on successful remote-tutoring practices, I will continue to develop competencies in this area

through training and ongoing professional development. This involves participating in tutorials,

working with support technicians and practicing with technologies prior to delivering remote-

tutoring instruction. Possessing knowledge beyond familiarity is necessary in order to feel

comfortable with technology to facilitate instruction through it. Using a reflective process,

problems can be identified and addressed. Ultimately, this information can be shared with others

interested in providing tutoring remotely, moving online pedagogy beyond ―dealing with

technical problems‖ to delivering student-centered tutoring instruction.

In addition to improving my own practices in technologies related to remote tutoring,

students need to be exposed to and trained in its use due to their varying levels of expertise and

familiarity with remote-tutoring systems as instructional tools. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure

technology does not detract from the learning experience. Therefore, I would include

demonstrations and printed materials as resources, such as, ―how to‖ access the remote tutoring

site, how to upload a document, and how to connect your webcam in order to address some of

the problems that have occurred thus far. All of these demonstrations would be recorded in ASL

with captions and supporting screenshots and posted on the course management system. In an

effort to expose students to the concept of remote tutoring, I would assign a time for interested

students to visit me in the remote-tutoring space, orient them to various layouts and use this

meeting as an opportunity to discuss their preferred format and communication modes.

Hopefully this will raise their awareness of its potential and make them feel comfortable with the

environment. Fundamentally, remote tutoring can only be delivered successfully if the tutor


believes in the benefits technology affords the tutoring process, can manage the technology well,

and is comfortable enough with, and perhaps even excited about it, to encourage students to use

it (Volery & Lord, 2000).

5.4.2 Communication impacts.

Upon reflecting on this study, several questions related to communication modalities and

strategies emerged: Have communication tools been utilized efficiently? Has the choice of

modalities effectively supported activities? Which communication strategies support varying

formats? What have I learned from this experience that will facilitate communication in future

remote tutoring sessions? These are the questions I contemplate as I consider communication

impacts related to remote tutoring with deaf college students.

There are several ways to communicate when tutoring to deaf college students remotely.

Depending on the format used (synchronous or asynchronous) and users‘ access to computer

peripherals, remote-tutoring communication will vary. Therefore, the tutor has to be prepared to

accommodate students‘ communication choices for email, chat, videophone, and webcam (with

and without voice). In this study, I applied what I knew about communicating with deaf students

in my traditional-tutoring sessions to my video-mediated and text-only remote-tutoring sessions.

Minimally, both the traditional and remote-tutoring environments require native or near-native

signing competency, an awareness of deaf students‘ linguistic diversity, and knowledge of Deaf

culture in order to communicate successfully when tutoring with this population.

In this study, I experienced the advantages and disadvantages of text-based remote

tutoring formats. One advantage is it may allow for a more reflective, meaningful message by

both the tutor and tutee. Another advantage is the fact that students‘ answers to questions are

provided in writing, giving the tutor an opportunity to provide feedback to something drafted in


its written form. The disadvantage, however, is the time elapsed between emails and the feelings

of disconnectedness that occur in both email and chat-only formats. Also, since written English

can be difficult for some deaf students to comprehend, tutoring solely through text may cause

misunderstandings that might be avoided if supplemented using sign language. To avoid

misunderstanding using text only formats, I crafted responses by keeping them short and

adapting them to the student‘s language level. I also checked for understanding often and

encouraged students to co-construct as much of their drafts as possible during text-based remote

tutoring sessions.

For sessions using webcams and videophones, the communication strategies used to

repair misunderstandings and miscues included repeating and rephrasing. Both the tutor and

tutee have the responsibility to ensure that signed and spoken communications were understood.

Confirming understanding was done by repeating what was asked or stated. When breakdowns

occurred, rephrasing the question or response was effective. Checking to ensure the student

received the message lets the tutor know they can continue. Consequently, confirming

understanding, rephrasing responses and checking comprehension are used similarly in remote

tutoring as they are in traditional tutoring environments. I recognized the significance of this

when noting 29 references to ―checking understanding‖ associated with 14 different sources

from coded data. Typically, this involved asking students if they had any questions; and

signing/posting ―understand?‖ and ―ok?‖. Also, ―confirming‖ was coded 58 times from 20

different sources indicating the frequency with which information was confirmed during remote

tutoring sessions. This was typically done by repeating signed information; asking students if

they could see the displayed document and if the font was large enough; confirming responses to

questions by repeating them; confirming topics and directions, as needed.


Another strategy that I tended to incorporate into video-mediated communication was

incorporating text in the chat feature when emphasis or clarification was needed. I found this to

be particularly effective when used in combination with signed communication to ensure the

message was understood properly or to add directions to the signed message. For example, in

session 6, I signed to Tabby that I would be sending his draft back to him and then I posted,

―Okay I sent it back…‖ (18:33). ―You can redo it and then submit it to me again!‖ (18:45). This

way, he had clear directions for what to do. I believe it is an effective way to clarify or

emphasize information when using sign language as the main mode of communication,

especially if checking for comprehension or giving directions.

In conclusion, being able to communicate clearly using text, ASL and spoken

communication when delivering tutoring to deaf college students remotely is crucial. Having the

proper skills and strategies takes time to develop and practice. Successfully coping with these

challenges requires that tutors develop their communication skills and strategies to meet remote-

tutoring expectations.

5.4.3 Pedagogical impacts.

How tutors use technology to reach students and impact learning is also critical to

learning successfully. ―Online education is defined as an approach to learning and teaching that

utilizes new technology to communicate and collaborate in an educational context‖ (Aksal,

2009) and in the context of this study, I have reflected on the instructional skills and strategies

needed to successfully deliver tutoring remotely. Pedagogical expertise needed includes: being

able to accommodate students‘ different learning styles, give examples, offer useful models, use

coaching/mentoring skills, use scaffolding skills, and encourage students to locate and use

resources (Gerrard, 2002). Applying social constructivist strategies, the tutor‘s role changes


from authority to facilitator while providing an adequate framework for students to learn. The

remote tutor must choose the right strategy, materials and activities to support the needs of

individual students. Aspects of tutors‘ role encompass answering queries, clarifying points,

diagnosing misconceptions, providing alternative explanations, assisting students to relate

material to their individual situations, and helping with the application and practice of principles

(Chan, 2002). Teaching with technologies also recognizes the importance of literacy as a social

construct whose essential features vary depending on context, ―As with post-structuralist

understandings of language, literacy cannot be understood independently of the context in which

it is situated‖ (Lonsdale & McCurry, 2004, p. 27). This constructivist approach to tutoring

embraces elements of the sociocultural theory as it emphasizes learning with the help of a

mediator regardless of tutoring form (traditional or remote). Shifting from text-based to digital-

based mediums will require remote tutors to receive training in facilitating instruction, evaluating

progress, and managing technology while communicating effectively. This training is critical if

remote tutoring is to be successful.

As a tutor/facilitator, there is a delicate balance between guiding a student when using

text-only modes and providing too much direction. I noticed this particularly in asynchronous

email-tutoring sessions where my responses tended to be less co-constructive as compared to

synchronous sessions. For example, in session 22 with Saba, there were seven emails exchanged.

In this session, Saba was requesting help with his cause and effect outline,

Action/

interaction

Transcript of email Researcher’s comments

Third email

from Saba on

10/26 at 7:33

pm

From: Saba

Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2010

7:33 PM

To: Linda M Bryant

I am not sure what his topic is….


Okay, I didn't catch what you just

said about my homework. I wrote

down saying walk with a dog for

causes and benefits for losing weight

and staying healthy for results. What

should I write down in the sentence

of causes/effect, A and B.

I. walk with a dog, benefiting lose

weight and stay in shape.

a. walking with a dog

b. for example, walking with a dog

would be good for your healthy and

stay in shape.

Fourth email

response to

Saba on 10/26

at 8:19 pm

On Wed, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:19 PM,

Linda M Bryant wrote: Hi Saba!

What is your topic? Are you listing

the causes (reasons why) or effects

(results)?

There was almost an hour between his

last email and this response as I was

busy providing remote tutoring with

other students during that time.

Fifth email

from Saba on

10/26 at 8:22

pm

From: Saba


8:22 PM

Linda, My topic is exercise. I'm

listing the causes.

Sixth email

response to

Saba on 10/26

at 8:25 pm

On Wed, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:25 PM,

Linda M Bryant wrote:

Cause 1 – walking dogs

a. Describe what this means (as it

relates to exercise)

b. Provide an example (perhaps

from personal experience or from

what you know about this cause)

Then do it again for Cause 2 and

Cause 3

Using his details from his email above, I

provided the following response.

Seventh email

from Saba on

10/26 at 8:41

pm

From: Saba


8:41 PM

Okay, thank you! See you tomorrow

Although he seems to have received the

information he was looking for, my

response is more directive than co-

constructive. I will have to think of

better strategies to use for this type of

tutoring.


In the future, I will reconsider my approach to tutoring asynchronously using email. Instead of

providing directions, I need to model, give feedback and/or encouragement and refer students to

course materials. I want to ensure that exchanges go beyond limited, dyadic transactions to

interactive interactions. This could also manifest feelings of connectedness, often lost in text-

only exchanges.

To facilitate student independence and foster students‘ critical thinking and self-directed

continuous learning, tutors should guide students in their thinking, stimulating them to be

reflective, carefully reasoning thinkers and guiding them to become independent learners. The

instructional strategies that have impacted me are: accommodate individual differences, such as,

language level, learning style, communication mode and prior knowledge; encourage

collaboration and keep sessions interactive; motivate students by keeping them engaged in work

that is relevant; and help students feel confident about their work and satisfied with the tutoring

experience. As one can see, these instructional strategies are consistent with delivering tutoring

traditionally and remotely further supporting the theory that remote tutoring is face-to-face

tutoring using technologies as a tool. Given this interpretation, it stands to reason that students

would choose remote tutoring as a support service, garner the benefits and encourage others to

do the same.

5.4.4 Socio-affective impacts.

In general, tutoring becomes a valuable intervention when the time it occurs is deemed

useful or relevant to student‘s current and immediate needs. Remote tutoring, and the choices it

offers, has the potential of providing instruction at times most responsive to students. In addition,

if learning is a social activity structured in interpersonal interactions, the established relationship


between tutor and student should also be favorable to learners. A tutor‘s personality is a major

factor affecting the tutoring experience; however, it is a largely unexplored context in distance

education (Chan, 2002). Therefore, good tutoring requires a repertoire of appropriate

interpersonal practices including an appreciation for the affective orientation needed to promote

a satisfying experience (Scherer & Binder, 1989). Action research allowed me to reflect on the

way I delivered tutoring remotely involving the tutor-student interactions that encompassed the

relational ethic of caring.

In the context of this study, I have learned the importance of creating a positive affective

orientation within the remote-tutoring environment. As such, I paid attention to the desirable

qualities that support this state including: flexible, open minded, enthusiastic, committed, patient,

friendly, respectful, honest, attentive, approachable, empowering, encouraging, supportive,

empathetic, humble and humorous (Murphy, Shelley, White & Baumann, 2006). Due to the

complexities involved in providing tutoring remotely, it is possible to overlook some of these

qualities when attempting to provide instruction using unfamiliar formats and technologies.

However, I found the experience to be more enjoyable and satisfying when these desirable tutor

qualities occurred and resulted in positive tutor-student relationships. For instance, in session 10,

after discussing her classification outline, Aarin showed her appreciation along with her sense of

humor during the closing exchanges,

Action/

interaction

English transcript Video

counter


LB gesturing thumbs up (one hand) 11:36 encouraging

Aarin

gesturing

thumbs up (two hands) 11:37 agreeing

LB gesturing thumbs up (two hands)

O-K?

11:38 confirming


Aarin signing Thanks 12:00 showing appreciation

LB signing Great! Type it and send to me. 12:06 giving follow-up directions

Aarin posting

in chat

Aarin is OUTTTTTTT!!!! 12:08 announcing her departure.

LB posting in

chat

CYA 12:16 saying good bye

Aarin: posting

in chat and

waving

ciao 12:20 –

12:23

showing her humor and personality.

Instead of waving ―bye‖, she types

―ciao‖ and then waves bye near her

face with her right hand – waving

fingers (flirtatiously)

LB signing Thanks….bye! 12:24/

End

closing session

Upon reflection, this kind of exchange occurred because a positive affective orientation

was exercised during the remote-tutoring session. Similar to traditional tutoring sessions, I

believe when students feel that tutors care about their success, encourage their efforts and are

attentive to their needs, they will have a more satisfying experience and are more apt to return.

Thus, successful remote tutoring involves more than simply teaching with technologies. It

requires acknowledging the benefits that providing a welcoming and supportive learning

environment contribute to tutoring outcomes and ensuring these desirable qualities are

incorporated.

In conclusion, my tutoring strategies and techniques have been impacted by this study in

a number of ways. I now believe it is possible to have a satisfying remote-tutoring experience by

giving students choices: when to receive tutoring, how to receive it, from whom and which

communication mode to use. In addition, I realize there is a learning curve for both tutor and

tutee when offering remote tutoring as a support service and thus, initial and ongoing training

must be provided if it is to be successful. With proper training and practice, both tutor and tutee

can benefit from its use. Therefore, as a next step, I have developed a remote-tutoring proposal


incorporating all that I have learned from my remote-tutoring experiences. What follows is an

action plan for the implementation of remote-tutoring services as a choice for deaf college

students in other English classes.

5.5 Action Plan - Piloting Remote Tutoring Services for Deaf Students in English Classes

One goal of action research is to develop an action plan to address identified outcomes

(Aksal, 2009). To this end, I have developed a proposal to pilot the provision of remote tutoring

services as a choice to deaf college students in other English classes at my college. This pilot

will explore the use of deaf peer tutors utilizing distance learning technologies. ―Peer tutoring is

instructional assistance provided by one student to another usually for the general purpose of

academic skill improvement‖ (Foster-Harrison, 1997, p. 9); however, peer tutors also serve to

motivate and empower students as learners (Gordon, 2005). Remote tutoring will be offered in

conjunction with existing traditional tutoring services offered through our college Learning

Center. Using peer tutors, under the supervision of a tutor-coordinator affiliated with the English

Department, facilitates ongoing action research within a community of practitioners. A draft

outlining the implementation of this project is detailed below.

Action Plan for implementing remote tutoring in English classes.

I. Goal To provide remote tutoring as a choice for deaf college students enrolled in

English classes during Academic Year, 2011-2012.

II. Program Objective

To provide one-to-one remote tutoring using webconferencing or

videoconferencing software, email, or videophones as choices using existing peer

tutors employed by the college‘s Learning Center.


III. Instructional Objectives

Provide interactive, student-centered tutoring using digital technologies;

Provide opportunities for reinforcement of course concepts and skills;

Increase the probability of student‘s success using social constructivist teaching

strategies, i.e., modeling, coaching and scaffolding;

Facilitate students becoming independent learners.

IV. Main components

A. Tutors – training on digital technologies and online instruction, tutoring, ongoing support

and training, and evaluation/feedback

B. Tutees – information on choices for tutoring, training on digital technologies,

evaluation/feedback

C. Administration – offer training to tutors and tutees; advertise/promote all services;

provide access to technology to students, if needed (use of lab equipment and loans);

coordinate tutoring schedule; monitor tutoring; evaluate tutoring; collect feedback from

tutors/tutees; evaluate program at 5 weeks and 10 weeks.

V. Recommendations

A. Develop and implement a training program for tutors incorporating the following areas:

(1) program operation related to a project and its goals;

(2) school & site culture, aimed at helping tutors interact with and contribute to the

educational goals;

(3) training in digital technologies, including email tutoring; using chat, webcams and

videophones for remote tutoring;

(4) training in providing remote tutoring in educational content areas; and


(5) training that builds positive relationships with learners.

(6) evaluation of tutor training that takes place immediately after training, in weekly

meetings, and after tutoring sessions. These may include written evaluations, reflection

activities, informal questions, feedback, and discussion, pre- and post-session measures

of participants‘ skills or knowledge and self-assessment checklists.

B. Plan promotional advertisements of remote tutoring services including flyers, posters, and

website announcements. Create a schedule for the program which includes the hours of

operation, locations and remote tutoring options.

C. Instruction: Tutors should engage students through active learning by helping students to

understand course materials; discussing and clarifying assignments; exploring and

organizing their ideas; learning how to check and evaluate their own work; and guiding

students to become independent and successful learners, while providing encouragement

and support.

D. Program Evaluation:

(1) Measure utilization of students who use remote tutoring from lab-based services,

indicating their technology and communication preferences.

(2) Obtain feedback from students after sessions.

(3) Obtain feedback from tutors after sessions.

(4) Evaluate program at midpoint of pilot (week 5)

(5) Submit a final report to stakeholders assessing what worked, what needs to improve

and how changes will be implemented (after week 10).

As you can see, the provision of remote tutoring as a choice to deaf college students is

both exciting and challenging. If approved and successful, further actions would include piloting


the service for other subject areas as well as broadening it to include faculty tutors and

instructors. Additionally, the results of providing remote tutoring with deaf college students

would be shared through publications and conferences with the intention of sharing process and

outcomes with others.

5.6 Conclusion

This chapter provided an overview of the action research cycles that occurred in this

study which involved using two webconferencing software applications. The next stage of

action research will examine the effects of using a videoconferencing software application to

determine if better video quality can be obtained using webcams. The implications of this study

illustrate the technical, communication, instructional and socio-affective skills needed for a

successful remote-tutoring experience. Finally, an action plan to pilot the provision of remote

tutoring was recommended. Since ―Action research merges research and praxis thus producing

exceedingly relevant research findings‖ (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 1998), its continued use as

a methodology can help determine the affects of offering remote tutoring as a choice to deaf

college students in the future. In Chapter Six, I will present the conclusions of this study.


Chapter Six

Conclusions

6.1 Study Highlights

This action research study was conducted to better understand the technical, pedagogical,

communication and interpersonal factors involved with delivering remote tutoring in order to

explain how using remote tutoring with deaf college students affected my tutoring practices as

well as to increase the credibility of remote tutoring as a support service for this population and

to inform others in the fields of tutoring, deaf education and distance learning.

Using Action Research methodology, two action research cycles occurred over a 10-week

period in which nine out of twenty-four students (38%) participated in twenty-two remote

tutoring sessions. Using the activities that occurred in remote tutoring sessions as the unit of

analysis and Dimensional Analysis, an explanatory matrix was created to explain all that

happened in remote-tutoring sessions. The dimensions used to narrate the remote-tutoring

process with deaf college students served to inform relevant theory. Findings pointed to choices

as the central perspective revealing students desired options for supplemental learning. These

included: choice of time for tutoring; choice of tutoring (traditional or remote); choice of remote

tutoring (asynchronous versus synchronous); choice of remote technologies (webcam, chat or

videophone); choice of communication (ASL, SimCom or Speech); choice of tutor; and choice

of course. Relevant dimensions included transitioning, benefits and sharing experiences.

Research subquestions addressed:

1. In what ways do technical configurations contribute to a satisfying remote tutoring

environment? During this study, remote tutoring was delivered using email,

webconferencing wit chat-only, webconferencing with webcam and chat, and through


videophone-only. Factors such as students‘ format preferences, access to peripherals, and

success contacting the instructor affected which type of remote tutoring was used. Technical

problems also influenced students‘ tutoring choices. Problems with technologies were either

tolerated or resulted in substituting remote-tutoring sessions with traditional meetings. Given

options, student can choose which type of technical configuration contributes to a satisfying

remote-tutoring experience for them.


influence the remote tutoring process? Deaf and hard-of-hearing college students

communicate in a variety of ways including spoken English, Simultaneous Communication

(sign and speech) and American Sign Language (ASL). In this study, several factors

determined which communication modes could be used in remote-tutoring sessions.

Specifically, the format accessed (webcam, email, videophone) dictated which

communication choices were available (sign and speech, writing, ASL). Explaining how

communication preferences can be accommodated or limited depending on format and

providing adequate exposure and training to students may facilitate a satisfying remote-

tutoring experience.


Common to the majority of sessions, the following instructional strategies occurred: asking

questions, confirming responses, displaying/sharing materials, and assisting and encouraging

students‘ progress. Instructional strategies unique to remote tutoring were identified (Table

4.5) as well as those that differentiated by format (webcam, email and videophone).

Knowing these variations prepares tutors for utilizing appropriate instructional strategies


depending on format used as well as aids in properly training tutors interested in providing

remote tutoring.


In this study, several instances of sharing the remote-tutoring experience with others

occurred thereby influencing students‘ choice of utilizing it. While feeling obligated and

having a natural tendency to inform others is characteristic of the Deaf community; knowing

if this influenced students‘ choice to participate needs further investigation.

5. What determines student satisfaction with the remote tutoring experience? This study did not

intend to measure the effectiveness of remote tutoring; however, perceived benefits were

identified from participants‘ descriptions and actions. From a tutor‘s perspective, benefits

included having one-on-one conferencing time with students which often resulted in

enhanced tutor-student relationships. Students‘ satisfaction with remote-tutoring experiences

were derived from their sessions, evaluations and interviews. These included improvements

to their level of confidence, homework drafts and grades.

Since the period covering this study ended with these participants, the next stage of

action research will address the use of licensed videoconferencing software that reportedly

delivers HD video quality with different participants. In Chapter Five, an action plan

recommending the delivery of remote tutoring as a choice to students enrolled in English classes

was outlined for implementation in the academic year, 2011. In this chapter, implications for

tutors, deaf educators and distance educators are discussed; the study‘s strengths and limitations

are revealed; and further research considerations are proposed.


6.2 Study Implications

Action Research allows researchers to analyze the impact an intervention has with an

explicit population in a specific context; therefore, it is difficult to ascertain its applicability with

other groups, interventions or environments. However, action researchers have an obligation to

inform others of how one‘s practice was improved and to share good practices with others.

Results will vary depending on the population served, interventions applied and the theoretical

lenses worn by the tutor/researcher. As such, the implications of this study may influence tutors,

deaf educators, and distance educators. What follows is information attained from this study to

assist those who wish to provide remote tutoring, in general; with deaf students, in particular; or

those who want to assess it further:

(a) Professional development and training for tutors/tutees – Provide or become trained in the

chosen remote tutoring system(s). Preferably, this involves hands-on training from

knowledgeable others. Practice communicating using varying webconferencing pods and

layouts in order to become accustomed to instructing through email, videophone,

webconferencing chat-only and webcam-chat formats.

(b) Webconferencing systems and webcams – Directing the webcam to the webconferencing

software was a recurring problem. This is because the webcam can only run in one software

program at a time. If the computer‘s webcam is directed at another program, such as

videophone software, the tutee will have to redirect his/her webcam to the computer‘s

internal camera in order to use it within the webconferencing site.

(c) Orient students – Provide demonstrations to students regarding how to access the remote-

tutoring site and to show how tutoring occurs in the webconferencing system. Provide them

with handouts for reference and remind them regularly about its availability.


(d) Make access easy by providing links to the webconferencing site using the course

management system, email reminders and hard copies of information given to students.

Making it easy to access ensures students can find it when the need and desire arises.

(e) Consider students‘ proficiency and attitude toward using remote technologies to determine if

this type of learning environment meets their needs. This assessment would determine if

students can interact successfully with technologies and learning materials, and subsequently

benefit from the learning experience.

(f) Consider the eight principles of effective learning environments when teaching with

technology: (Julius, 2008, slides 11 & 12)

1. Catch learners‘ attention (intrigue, inspire, confound, personalize)

2. Build on prior knowledge/experience (or lack thereof)

3. Facilitate active, social, collaborative engagement

4. Convey a sense of presence/immediacy among participants

5. Support and challenge diverse learners by providing multiple, accessible methods

of content presentation, student expression, and student engagement

6. Demand practice and provide for ongoing assessment and feedback

7. Challenge students to engage with authentic representations of real situations

8. Facilitate development of process skills and metacognition

(g) Allow the learner to choose areas to work on in tutoring sessions.

(h) Provide access to language adjusted to a student‘s level of understanding.

(i) Allow instructional content to be adjusted to the learners‘ needs.

(j) Utilize sociocultural activities that build on students‘ prior knowledge.


(k) Employ a constructivist model by using a collaborative writing approach when working with

deaf writers (Livingston, 2000). Through active participation, the mechanics of writing can

be provided to show students how to confirm what they know and encourage them to express

themselves further (Keenan & Bowers, 1988). The frequent use of collaborative conferencing

can also minimize the student‘s sense of isolation often felt when writing alone.

(l) Ask for clarification, give feedback and use modeling techniques during individual tutoring

sessions to help students expand on their own texts.

(m) Reflect on remote-tutoring processes, practices, successes and failures in order to make

changes to the delivery to improve satisfaction of remote-tutoring sessions.

(n) Conduct formative evaluations to obtain student feedback regarding design and instructional

content.

(o) Foster the influence that a student‘s identity has on their willingness to share remote-tutoring

experiences with others as a way of promoting its use.

(p) Consider using remote tutoring as experience that can be applied later to online teaching.

This is not to say that tutoring online trains online teachers; however exposure and practice

with distance technologies and instructional strategies would be beneficial to this

environment.

In conclusion, the benefits of tutoring are well known but remote tutoring will only be

successful if tutors are properly trained and students perceive benefit. To aid the transition to

and acceptance of distance learning and to maximize distance learning environments, remote

tutors need adequate training and skills. These include having proper pedagogical,

communication, managerial and technical practices in order to deliver effective instruction

(McPherson & Nunes, 2004). Specifically, and different from traditional tutoring, online tutors


are responsible for technical as well as content instruction and therefore, a high degree of

comfort with the tools and systems being used are required. In addition to being competent in the

content area and able to tutor online, the remote tutor must be able to demonstrate skills in

planning and organizing the delivery of instruction, utilizing scaffolding in learning activities,

matching diverse attitudes and learning styles, and utilizing effective feedback. All of these need

to be considered when selecting, training and evaluating remote tutors or improving one‘s own

practice (Gerrard, 2002).

6.3 Study Opportunities and Limitations

Action research has its opportunities and limitations. Opportunities reflect the

possibilities for positive change while limitations can interfere with positive outcomes. The

opportunities and limitations noted in this study are discussed below:

(1) In action research, there is opportunity for a researcher practitioner to systematically engage

in research in his/her own professional practice; yet generalizability should be interpreted

within the context of a similar setting to which the theory can be expected to apply.

Regardless, findings may stimulate others to replicate it and may generate ideas for future

research.

(2) As an action researcher studying my own practice, executing a study of this scope within a

10-week timeframe was burdensome. Attempting to gather and analyze data while teaching

classes and tutoring both traditionally and remotely was overwhelming; particularly since I

had no prior experience with remote tutoring. Therefore, in the future, focusing on a single

aspect of remote tutoring, such as, webcam quality using a videoconferencing system, would

be more feasible.


(3) Due to the academic calendar, the length of the study with this group of students was limited

to 10 weeks; therefore, the next cycle would occur using other participants. However, using

action research, feedback collected from a new group of users will be equally valuable as I

continue to assess how delivering tutoring remotely affects my tutoring practices.

(4) As part of my job responsibilities, I scheduled eight hours of traditional tutoring each week.

During this study, I offered these eight hours during my normal work day (8:30 am – 4:30

pm). An additional six hours of remote tutoring were scheduled over three evenings for a

total of 14 available tutoring hours per week. Since it was necessary for me to be online

during posted remote-tutoring evening hours, I was unable to provide traditional tutoring

during those evenings. Whether or how this impacted utilization is not understood; however,

in future studies, I will offer both traditional and remote tutoring during day and evening

hours in order to address this.

(5) Validity, in action research, is expressed by clearly reporting the research process and

demonstrating how and why the intervention worked thereby enhancing the trustworthiness

of the results (Anderson & Herr, 2005; Feldman, 2007). My goal was to provide

transparency in the data gathering, analysis and reporting, so readers would be confident in

the results and consequently want to replicate the study, apply its findings and/or accept the

theory that emerged.

(6) To reduce bias and increase validity, triangulation of data was employed by using multiple

data sources. These included session transcripts, participant interviews, evaluations, and

questionnaires; and tutor evaluations, fieldnotes and memos. In addition, interviews were

reviewed by participants for accuracy, particularly in the translation from ASL to English.


(7) The quality of this study was enhanced by the use of critical friends. I was fortunate to have

access to a cohort and an advisor to discuss progress and receive feedback on findings. I also

accessed colleagues familiar with deafness; technicians familiar with web technologies; and

outside readers.

(8) Ethical principles in research are vital. In this study, respecting the rights of the college,

campus community and teaching profession was a high priority. Therefore, I employed the

principle of confidentiality to ensure the anonymity of participants and data; the principle of

openness that welcomes committee members to review data in order to evaluate findings and

maintain integrity; the principle of freedom that allows participants to control their

willingness to participate; and the principle of empowerment to allow participants to have a

voice in decisions that emerged from the study (McBride & Schostak, n.d.).

In closing, action research can accommodate researcher practitioners whose aims are to

increase the understanding of how changes in process affect social systems within their own

community as well as to generate theory that ultimately enriches the broader research

community. Based on my findings, tutoring remotely affords face-to-face instruction through

technologies. As such, I want to promote it as a choice for deaf college students. I have

witnessed the challenges and pleasures of working with students one-to-one through this medium

and am inspired by its current and future possibilities.

6.4 Further Research Considerations

What are the benefits of more time on task? Is it a predictor of student success? What

factors result in an effective remote-tutoring experience? These are a few additional research

questions addressing the remote-tutoring process and its use with deaf college students.

Identifying the conditions that facilitate successful delivery and satisfaction with the remote-


tutoring experience would further help train remote tutors, promote the service and ensure

students‘ instructional needs are met.

In the field of distance education, Trentin (2000) emphasized the importance of

interaction if quality is to be raised in distance education and he particularly saw the ‗third

generation‘ of online technology as a way of increasing interaction and therefore increasing

quality. Richardson (2009) reported no significant differences between students who received

traditional versus online tutoring. This is encouraging when considering remote tutoring‘s

potential applications. Areas needing further exploration include: training remote tutors using

distance technologies to raise their awareness and develop skills through direct experience in

distance learning and then exploring the ways tutor attributes develop and change as they instruct

remotely; and identify which affective states of tutors and learners are relevant to the remote-

tutoring experience.

Does looking at the frequency of behaviors in transcripts really inform which strategies

are most effective? In this remote tutoring action research study, the frequency in which specific

tutoring behaviors occurred were noted; however, ―There is no guarantee that the moves that

account for most of the variance in learning outcomes are necessarily the moves that occur most

frequently‖ (Ohlsson, DiEugenio, Chow, Fossati, Lu & Kershaw, 2007, 2.2, para 2). Further

studies comparing tasks and learning outcomes are needed to determine efficacy of tutoring in

general, and remotely. Therefore, in order to determine if a tutoring behavior is causally related

to a learning outcome, future research should investigate how learning occurred and then

determine which tutoring interactions were used to produce outcomes. Ohlsson, et al, (2007)

suggest researchers use the tutoring session as the unit of analysis and multiple regression that

looks at learning outcomes as the predicted variable and tutoring behaviors as the predictor


variable to examine and prove causal efficacy. This would require measuring all known variables

that affect learning outcomes, such as prior knowledge, time on task, and how learning occurred

(e.g., student detected and corrected errors; performed a task). Webster and Hackley (1997), who

reported that reliability and quality of the technology was positively related to learning

outcomes, suggest researchers consider other measures of effectiveness for online learning

including: student participation and cognitive engagement, student interaction with technology

and perceived usefulness of technology used; and students‘ perceived benefits of instruction.

Thus, a study measuring effective tutoring might include using pre/post measures of learning as a

result of tutoring sessions, students‘ evaluation of the experience and multiple regression

analysis.

How do tutor attributes and expertise develop and change as they enter new

environments, such as remote tutoring? This needs to be explored along with investigating the

relationship between tutor reflection and practice. Included in this is the relationship between

how tutors reflect on and articulate their attributes and expertise and how this relates to what

actually happens during tutoring interactions. Further exploration is also needed regarding how

critical reflection on tutoring practices can best be incorporated into professional development

opportunities and tutor support networks (Shelley, White, Baumann & Murphy, 2006).

Finally, staying on top of developments in webconferencing technologies can be

overwhelming but it is important to continue to evaluate them in hopes that the best solution will

someday evolve to include high-quality multi-point video, sophisticated data collaboration tools,

cross-platform capability and built-in captioning modules. (King & Parks, 2010). Hopefully,

future video technologies that maintain the video signal within a web-based conferencing

application will emerge and it affects can be explored. Also, investigating how videophone


software can be better utilized with Deaf students who use ASL could inform the delivery of

remote tutoring. Currently some videophone software programs have chat features and ―show‖

features that allow users to share desktop documents. Whether it is possible to interact using the

documents was not evaluated during this study and thus remains to be investigated. Ongoing

research in creating and evaluating these digital tools for teaching is paramount to utilizing them

effectively. Once this is achieved, measures of satisfaction related to students‘ perceptions of

online environments can also be assessed. Through ongoing exploration, knowledge can be

enhanced, changes can be implemented, and findings can be shared.

6.5 Final Thoughts

As digital technologies evolve, they will continue to change the manner in which

knowledge is acquired; where and how people learn; and how people interact with each other

(Jefferies, Carsten-Stahl & McRobb, 2007). Similar to traditional tutoring, an ideal approach to

remote tutoring would incorporate sociocultural principles of direct instruction with new literacy

principles of effective learning environments when teaching with technology while addressing

the diverse needs of a multicultural student body. Opportunities to deliver tutoring remotely

exist; yet, their benefits and effectiveness with deaf college students is not fully understood. In

this study, theory suggesting remote tutoring as tutoring with a tool as well as theory relating to

students‘ desire for tutoring choices emerged. Providing remote tutoring as an option may

increase utilization of this important support service. With properly trained tutors, the potential

for studying and measuring its efficacy is within reach; thus, giving relevant fields additional

tools and justification to supplement learning through a range of remote-tutoring technologies.

As a result of this Action Research study, my tutoring practices have changed. The

process of analyzing my practices has strengthened my conviction regarding the benefits tutoring


has on students‘ confidence, motivation, and quality of work; as well as on the tutor‘s skills with

technology, instructional techniques and affective orientation that lead to improved relationships

with students. No longer is tutoring supplemental to my instruction but an extension of it. The

choice to access it remains up to the student; however, the message emphasizing its merit

bellows: Wow. I never use this before, but cool. (Tabby, posting in chat, Session 5).

As online education relies on the acquisition of knowledge and skills through mediated

information and instruction, it encompasses all technologies and supports the pursuit of

lifelong learning. Fahriye A. Aksal, 2009 (p. 34)


References

Adobe Systems Incorporated (2011). Retrieved from http://www.adobe.com/products/

adobeconnect.html.

Aksal, F. A. (2009). Action plan on communication practices: roles of tutors at EMI Distance

Education Institute to overcome social barriers in constructing knowledge. The Turkish

Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 8(2), 33-47. Retrieved from

http://www.tojet.net/articles/823.pdf

Albertini, J. (1993). Critical literacy, whole language, and the teaching of writing to deaf

students: Who should dictate to whom? TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 59-73.

Albertini, J., & Schley, S. (2003). Writing: Characteristics, instruments, & assessment. In M.

Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and

education. (pp. 123-138). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online Nation. Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. New

York: The Sloan Consortium.

Anderson, J. J. (1993). Deaf student mis-writing, teacher mis-reading: English education and the

deaf college student. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.

Anderson, T. (2004). Teaching in an online context. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory

and practice of online learning (pp. 271-295). Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University

Creative Commons Online Book.

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Albany, NY: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

Bach, S. (2007). Online learning and teaching in higher education. Berkshire, England: Open

University Press.


Baker, S. (2010). Remote tutoring of deaf and hard of hearing students using video and web

based technologies. Journal of Deaf Education & Technology, 1(1), 1-7.

Baskerville, R., & Wood-Harper, A. T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research

methods. European Journal of Information Systems, 7, 90-107.

Bat-Chava, Y. (1994). Group identification and self-esteem of deaf adults. Personality & Social

Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 494-502.

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student

interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2).

Bello, A. D., Knowlton, E., & Chaffin, J. (2007). Interactive videoconferencing as a medium for

special education: Knowledge acquisition in preservice teacher education. Intervention in

School and Clinic, 43(1), 38-46.

Berent, G. (1996). The acquisition of English syntax by deaf learners. In E. Ritchie & T. Bhatia

(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. (pp. 469-506). New York, NY:

Academic Press, Inc.

Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., Aldersley, S., Schmitz, K. L., Khalsa, B. K., Panara, J., & Keenan, S.

(2007). Focus-on-form instructional methods promote deaf college students‘

improvement of English grammar. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 8-24.

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and

sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K.

S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy,

apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Bosso, E., & Kuntze, M. (1994). Literacy for deaf students: Freire and Macedo's model. In B.

Snider (Ed.), Post Milan ASL and English literacy issues, trends and research. (pp. 37-

44). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University College for Continuing Education.

Bowe, F. (1991). Approaching equality: Education of the deaf. Silver Spring, MD: T.J.

Publishers.

Bowers, B., Esmond, S., & Canales, M. (1999). Approaches to case management supervision.

Administration in Social Work, 23(1).

Braden, J. (1992). Intellectual assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A quantitative and

qualitative research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 82-94.

Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Research, 23, 4-12.

Bryant, L., Caccamise, F., Nelson, S., Scott, L., MacLeod, J., Wellin, D., & Weymann, T.

(March, 2010). Language/Communication background questionnaire (L/CBQ) AY09-10

distribution, uses, and revisions report. (3rd ed.). Rochester, NY.

Buisson, G. J. (2007). Using online glossing lessons for accelerated instruction in ASL for

preservice deaf education majors. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(3), 331-343.

Bullen, M., & Janes, D. (2007). Making the transition to e-learning: Strategies and issues.

Hershey, PA: Information Science Publication.

Burch, S. (2000). In a different voice: Sign language preservation and America's deaf

community. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 443-464.

Burgess, J. (2006). Participatory action research: First person perspectives of a graduate student.

Action Research, 4(4), 419-437.


Burrell, S. C. (2000). Planning and implementing an e-business strategy: Administrative,

instructional and web portal systems., from

http://faculty.saintleo.edu/burrell/ebusiness.htm

Caron, C. D., & Bowers, B. J. (2000). Methods and application of dimensional analysis: A

contribution to concept and knowledge development in nursing. In B. L. Rodgers & K. A.

Knafl (Eds.), Concept development in nursing: Foundations, techniques, and

applications (pp. 285-320). Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.

Chan, B. (2002). A study of the relationship between tutor's personality and teaching

effectiveness: Does culture make a difference? International Review of Research in Open

and Distance Learning., 3(2), 1-21.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing, Inc.

Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M.

Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing

grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.

Charrow, V. R., & Wilbur, R. B. (1975). The deaf child as a linguistic minority. Theory into

Practice, 14(5), 353-359.

Chi Ng, K. (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online technologies:

Challenges and pedagogical implications. International Review of Research in Open and

Distance Learning, 8(1).

Cockburn, A., & McKenzie, B. (2002). Evaluating the effectiveness of spatial memory in 2D and

3D physical and virtual environments. Paper presented at the CHI2002 Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems., Minneapolis, MI.


Commission on Education of the Deaf (1988). Toward equality: Education of the deaf.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Coogan, D. (1995). E-mail tutoring: A new way to do new work. Computers and Composition,

12(2), 171-182.

Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008).

Internet-based learning in the health professions. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 300(10), 1181-1196.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). 'Multiliteracies': New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An

International Journal, 16(2), 1-30.

Crump, E. (1994). A dialogue on OWLing in the writing lab: some thoughts on Michael

Spooner's thoughts. Writing Lab Newsletter, 18, 6-8.

DeLana, M., Gentry, M. A., & Andrews, J. (2007). The efficacy of ASL/English bilingual

education: Considering public schools. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(1), 73-87.

Duhl, J. (2003). Rich internet applications, IDC Report #3906: Macromedia and Intel.

Eilers-crandall [sic], K. (2009). Learning behaviors related to deaf students' success in college.

L1 - Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 10(1), 23-40.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to

developmental research. Heleski, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work.

Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974.

Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing

instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of

writing research. (pp. 208-221). New York, NY: Guilford Press.


eTutoring.org. (2010). A collaborative online tutoring program & platform, from

http://www.etutoring.org/

Evans, C. J. (2004). Literacy development in deaf students: Case studies in bilingual teaching

and learning. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(1), 17-27.

Feldman, A. (2007). Validity and quality in action research. Educational Action Research, 15(1),

21-32.

Ferrance, E. (2000). Themes in education. Action Research Booklet. Providence, RI: Northeast

and Islands Regional Education Laboratory at Brown University.

Foster-Harrison, E. S. (1997). Peer tutoring for K-12 success. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa

Educational Foundation.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education.

(Seventh edition ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2004). Connecting students to culturally relevant texts. National

Council of Teachers of English: Talking Points, 15(2).

Frydenberg, J. (2007). Persistence in university continuing education online classes.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3).

Fuks, H., Gerosa, M. A., & Pereira deLucena, C. J. (2002). The development and application of

distance learning courses on the internet. Open Learning, 17(1), 23-38.

Gannon, J. R. (1981). Deaf heritage: A narrative history of deaf America. Silver Spring, MD:

National Association of the Deaf.

Gardner III, R., Nobel, M. M., Hessler, T., Yawn, C. D., & Heron, T. E. (2007). Tutoring system

innovations: Past practice to future prototypes. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(2),

71-81.


Gallaudet Research Institute (November, 2008). Regional and national summary report of data

from the 2007-08 annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth.

Washington, DC: GRI, Gallaudet University.

Geoffrion, L. D. (1982). An analysis of teletype conversation. American Annals of the Deaf,

127(6), 747-752.

Gerrard, C. (2002). Promoting best practice for e-tutoring through staff development. Paper

presented at the Networked Learning 2002: Third International Conference., Lancaster

University and University of Sheffield.

Gertz, E. (2003). Dysconscious audism and critical deaf studies: Deaf crit's analysis of

unconscious internalization of hegemony within the deaf community. (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text Database. (UMI AAT

3100674)

Gilbert, J., Morton, S., & Rowley, J. (2007). e-Learning: The student experience. British Journal

of Educational Technology, 38(4), 77-81.

Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1989). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and

instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.

Glickman, N. S. (1993). Deaf identity development: Construction and validation of a theoretical

model. Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Amherst. (AAT 9329612)

Goldman, R. (2007). Video representation and the perspectivity framework: Epistemology,

ethnography, evaluation, and ethics. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. J. Barron & S. Derry

(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for

online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research & Development,

49(1), 65-72.

Gordon, E. E. (2005). Peer tutoring: A teacher's resource guide. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow

Education.

Gordon, E. E., Morgan, R. R., O'Malley, C. J., & Ponticell, J. (2007). The tutoring revolution:

Applying research for best practices, policy implications, and student achievement. NY:

Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Gourgey, A. F. (1994). Tutoring practices that promote cognitive and affective development. In

M. Maxwell (Ed.), From access to success: A book of reading on college developmental

education and earning assistance programs (pp. 87-90). Clearwater, FL: H & H

Publishing Company, Inc.

Gutierrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture,

difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research

in Education, 33, 212-245.

Hall, R. (2007). Strategies for video recording: Fast, cheap, and (mostly) in control. In S. J.

Derry (Ed.), Guidelines for video research in education: Recommendations from an

expert panel. (pp. 660-668): Prepared for the National Science Foundation, Interagency

Education Research Initiative, and the Data Research and Development Center.

Hands & Voices. (2009). Beyond high school, from

http://www.handsandvoices.org/articles/education/ed/V13-1_beyondHS.htm


Hanna, D. E., Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Conceicao-Runlee, S. (2000). 147 practical tips for

teaching online groups: Essentials of web-based education. Madison, WI: Atwood

Publishing.

Harris, M. (1986). Teaching one-to-one: the writing conference. Urbana, Il: National Council of

Teachers of English.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and

faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hewett, B. L., & Ehmann, C. (2004). Preparing educators for online writing instruction:

Principles and processes. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Hobbs, D. L. (2002). A constructivist approach to web course design: A review of the literature.

International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 60-65.

Holcomb, T. K. (2010). Deaf epistemology: The deaf way of knowing. American Annals of the

Deaf, 154(5), 471-478.

Holcomb, T., & Peyton, J. (1992). ESL literacy for a linguistic minority: The deaf experience.

Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Literacy.

Houge, T. T., & Geier, C. (2009). Delivering one-to-one tutoring in literacy via

videoconferencing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(2), 154-163.

Houge, T. T., Peyton, D., Geier, C., & Petrie, B. (2007). Adolescent literacy tutoring: Face-to-

face and via webcam technology. Reading Psychology, 28(3), 283-300.

Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.

Humphries, T., & Allen, B. M. (2008). Reorganizing teacher preparation in deaf education. Sign

Language Studies, 8(2), 160-180.


IdeaTools, (2011). Retrieved from http://idea3.rit.edu/.

Israelite, N., & Ewoldt, C. (1992). Bilingual/bicultural education for deaf and hard-of-hearing

students: A review of the literature on the effects of native sign language on majority

language acquisition. Toronto, CA: Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., . . . Tripp, L. (2010).

Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Jackson, J. B. (1994). Discovering the vernacular landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Jankowski, K. (1997). Deaf empowerment: Emergence, struggle, and rhetoric. Washington, DC:

Gallaudet University Press.

Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky's sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of

constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133-140.

Jefferies, P., Carsten-Stahl, b., & McRobb, S. (2007). Exploring the relationships between

pedagogy, ethics and technology: Building a framework for strategy development.

Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), 111-126.

Johnson, H., Griffith, P., & Barton, L. (1988). Problems and solutions in the cognitive, academic

and linguistic instruction of hearing impaired students. In J. Rogus & W. Wiersma (Eds.),

Monograph: Instructional programming for the disabled student. (pp. 75-123). Toledo,

OH: University of Toledo Press.

Johnson, R., Liddell, S., & Erting, C. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: Principles for achieving

access in deaf education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.


Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of

learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning

environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing

constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 47, 61-79.

Jordan-Henley, J., & Maid, B. M. (1995). Tutoring in cyberspace: Student impact and

college/university collaboration. Computers and Composition, 12, 211-218.

Julius, J. (2008). Enhancing learning with technology in higher education., from

http://www.slideshare.net/jjulius/enhancing-learning-with-technology-in-higher-

education

Kannapell, B. (1982). Inside the Deaf community. Deaf American, 34(4), 23-26.

Keenan, S. K., & Bowers, L. G. (1988). Integrating theory and practice: A process writing

approach for secondary deaf students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages., Chicago, Il.

Kemmis, S. (1982). The action research reader. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University

Press

King, C. (1981). An investigation of similarities and differences in the syntactic abilities of deaf

and hearing children learning English as a first or second language. Doctoral

Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

King, C. M., & Parks, E. (2010). Bilingual web conferencing with multi-point videos. Paper

presented at the International Technical Symposium for the Deaf, Rochester, NY.


Knight, P., & Swanwick, R. (2002). Working with deaf pupils: Sign bilingual policy into

practice. London: David Fulton.

Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J., & Soeffner, H. (2006). Video analysis: Methodology and

methods. New York: Peter Lang.

Ko, S., & Rosen, S. (2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Komesaroff, L. (2008). Disabling pedagogy: Power, politics, and deaf education. Washington,

DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Kools, S., McCarthy, M., Durham, R., & Robrecht, L. (1996). Dimensional analysis: Broadening

the conception of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 312-330.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.

New York: NY: Routledge.

Kuutti, K. (1991). The concept of activity as a basic unit of analysis for CSCW research. Paper

presented at the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative

Work, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of Deafhood. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual

Matters Ltd.

Lane, H. (1984). When the mind hears. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.

Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, ethics and the deaf world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf

Education, 10(3), 291-310.

Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the deaf-world. San Diego, CA:

DawnSignPress.

Lang, H. G. (2002). Higher education for deaf students: Research priorities in the new

millennium. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(4), 267-280.


Lang, H. G., Biser, E., Mousley, K., Orlando, R., & Porter, J. (2004). Tutoring deaf students in

higher education: A comparison of baccalaureate and subbaccalaureate student

perceptions. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(2), 189-201.

Lang, H. G., & Meath-Lang, B. (1992). The deaf learner. In S. Foster & G. Walter (Eds.), Deaf

students in postsecondary education (pp. 67-88). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom

learning. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Lankshear, C., & Snyder, I. (2000). Teachers and technoliteracy: Managing literacy,

technology and learning in schools. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Lantolf, J. P., & Throne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language

development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Leigh, I. W. (2009). A lens on deaf identities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new

literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication

technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of

reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York, NY: Harper and Rowe.

Lieberth, A. K. (1988). Teaching functional writing via telephone: A TDD-based project for

teens and teachers-in-training. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook

of deaf studies, language, and education. (pp. 10-13). New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.


Lippi-Green, R. (2004). Language ideology and language prejudice. In E. Finegan & J. R.

Rickford (Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century (pp. 289-

304). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Livingston, S., Duda, D., & Lucas, K. (2000). Supplemental instruction as LaGuardia

Community College. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 106, 241-246.

Long, G. L., Mallory, J. R., Fasse, R., & Marchetti, C. (July, 2010). Link between online course

enrollments and academic achievement (GPA) of deaf students in mainstream settings.

Paper presented at the International Symposium, Technology and Deaf Education:

Exploring Instructional and Access Technologies., Rochester, NY.

Lonsdale, M., & McCurry, D. (2004). Literacy in the new millennium. Adelaide, AU.

Luckner, J. L., Sebald, A. M., Cooney, J., Young III, J., & Muir, S. G. (2005/2006). Evidence-

based literacy research in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(5), 443-456.

Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1982). A philosophy for assessing the language proficiency of hearing-

impaired students to promote English literacy. American Annals of the Deaf, 127, 844-

851.

Maki, R. H., Maki, W. S., Patterson, M., & Whittak, I. (2000). Evaluation of a web-based

introductory psychology course: Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture

courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 230-239.

Mallory, J. R., & Laury, D. J. (2001). Desktop video conferencing for remote tutoring/teaching

of deaf students. Paper presented at the International Symposium, Technology and Deaf

Education., Rochester, NY.


Marschark, M. (2002). Foundations of communication and the emergence of language in deaf

children. In G. Morgan & B. Woll (Eds.), Current developments in child signed language

research. (pp. 1 - 28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to

practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Marschark, M., Sapere, P., Convertino, C., & Pelz, J. (2008). Learning via direct and mediated

instruction by deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(4), 546-

561.

Maxwell, M. (1994). From access to success: A book of readings on college developmental

education and learning assistance programs. Clearwater, FL: H&H Publishing

Company, Inc.

Mayer, C. (2009). Issues in second language literacy education with learners who are deaf.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(3), 325-334.

McAnally, P. L., Rose, S., & Quigley, S. P. (1987). Language learning practices with deaf

children. Boston, MA: College-Hill.

McAnally, P. L., Rose, S., & Quigley, S. P. (1999). Reading practices with deaf learners. Austin,

TX: Pro-Ed.

McBride, R., & Schostak, J. (n.d.). Chapter 3: Researching action and change, from

http://www.enquirylearning.net/ELU/Issues/Research/Res1Ch3.html

McFarland, K. P., & Stansell, J. C. (1993). Historical perspectives. In L. Patterson, C. M. Santa,

C. G. Short & K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action. Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.


McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten

dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.

McPherson, M., & Nunes, M. B. (2004). The role of tutors as an integral part of online learning

support. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Maggie_MsP.html

Meloncon, L. (2007). Exploring electronic landscapes: Technical communication, online

learning and instructor preparedness. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 31-53.

Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in

distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231-252.

Meredith, S., & Newton, B. (2003). Models of elearning: Technology promise vs learner needs

literature review. The International Journal of Management Education, 3(3).

Michaud, L. N., McCoy, K. F., & Pennington, C. A. (2000). An intelligent tutoring system for

deaf learners of written English. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth

International ACM SIGCAPH Conference on Assistive Technologies, Washington, DC.

Miller, J. W., Martineau, L. P., & Clark, R. C. (2000). Technology infusion and higher

education: Changing teaching and learning. Innovative Higher Education, 24(3), 227-

241.

Mindess, A. (2006). Reading between the signs: Intercultural communication for sign language

interpreters. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.

Moores, D. E. (1996). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles, and practices. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer

interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Nash, J. E., & Nash, A. (1982). Typing on the phone: how the deaf accomplish TTY

conversations. Sign Language Studies, 36, 193-216.

National Center for Educational Statistics (1994). The survey on deaf and hard of hearing

students in postsecondary education, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs94/94394.pdf

Nefsis Corporation, (2008). Retrieved from http://www.nefsis.com.

Nefsis Corporation, (2010). Multipoint video conferencing (White paper 121410). Retrieved

from http://www.nefsis.com/pdf/nefsis-video-conferencing-white-paper.pdf.

Neidle, C. (2002). SignStream annotation: Conventions used for the American Sign Language

Linguistic Research Project. Report No. 11.

Neidle, C. (2007). SignStream annotation: Conventions used for the American Sign Language

Linguistic Research Project. Report No. 13. Boston, MA: Boston University.

Newport, E. L., & Meier, R. P. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In D. Slobin

(Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data (pp. 881-939).

Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nichol, J., & Watson, K. (2000). Videotutoring, non-verbal communication and initial teacher

training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 135-144.

Nieto, S. (2006). Language, literacy, and culture: Intersections and implications. In H. Luria, D.

M. Seymour & T. Smoke (Eds.), Language and linguistics in context: Reading and

applications for teachers. (pp. 315-332). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, gen-xers, and millennials: Understanding the "new student".

EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 37-47.

Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental

pragmatics (pp. 43-72). New York: Academic.


Ohlsson, S., DiEugenio, B., Chow, B., Fossati, D., Lu, X., & Kershaw, T. C. (2007). Beyond the

code-an-count analysis of tutoring dialogues. Paper presented at the AIED07, 13th

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education., Marina Del Rey, CA.

Online Tutoring World, (2006). Choosing a webconference provider: Web-conference review.

Retrieved from http://www.onlinetutoringworld.com/webconferencing/

web-conference-review.htm.

Orlando, R., Gramly, M. E., & Hoke, J. (1997). Tutoring deaf and hard of hearing students: A

report of the National Task Force on Quality of Services in the Postsecondary Education

of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. Rochester, NY: Northeast Technical Assistance

Center, Rochester Institute of Technology.

Padden, C. (1980). The Deaf community and the culture of deaf people. In C. Baker & R.

Battison (Eds.), Sign language and the Deaf community. (pp. 89-104). Silver Spring, MD:

National Association of the Deaf.

Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America: voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the

virtual classroom. (Second ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Parasnis, I. (1991). Cultural identity and diversity in deaf education. American Annals of the

Deaf, 142(2), 72-79.

Paul, P.V. (1998). Literacy and deafness: The development of reading, writing, and literate

thought. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Paul, P. V. (2009). Language and deafness. (Fourth ed.). Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett

Publishers.


Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken language: Implications

for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 32-50.

Porayska-Pomsta, K., Marvrikis, M., & Pain, H. (2008). Diagnosing and acting on student affect:

A tutor's perspective. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, 18(1-2), 125-173.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Quigley, S. P., & King, C. M. (1980). Syntactic performance of hearing impaired and normal

hearing individuals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(13-30).

Quigley, S. P., & Paul, P. V. (1987). English language development. In M. Wang, M. Reynolds

& H. Walberg (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research and practice. (Vol.

1-3). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Rabinovich, M. (2009). iPASS: An online tutoring system. Innovate Journal of Online

Education, 5(4).

Reagan, T. (2002). Toward an ―Archeology of Deafness‖: Etic and emic constructions of identity

in conflict. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1(1), 41-66.

Redding, T. R., & Rotzien, J. (2000). Comparative analysis of SDL online training with

traditional classroom instruction. Paper presented at the 14th International Symposium

on Self-Directed Learning.

Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in

distance education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 8, 69-85. doi:

10.1177/1474022208098303

Richardson, T. E., & Woodley, A. (1999). Approaches to studying people with hearing loss.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 533-546.


Ritter, G. W., Barnett, J. H., Denny, G. S., & Albin, G. R. (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer

tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of

Educational Research, 79(3), 3-38.

Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. J. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist

classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rose, M. (1985). The language of exclusion: Writing instruction at the university. College

English, 47(4), 341-359.

Rose, M. (July 8, 2008). Teaching remedial writing. Blog Retrieved from

http://mikerosebooks.blogspot.com/2008/07/teaching-remedial-writing.html

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. Sterling, VA: Kogan

Page.

Schatzman, L. (1991). Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative approach to the grounding

of theory in qualitative research. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social

process (pp. 303-314). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Scheetz, N. A. (1993). Orientation to deafness. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Scherer, M. J., & Binder, G. E. (1989). The Department of Science and Engineering Support: A

Phase 2 report on student perceptions. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(2),

189-202.

Schmitz, K. L. (2005). Evaluating deaf students' writing fairly: Meaning over mode. Teaching

English in the Two-year College, 32(4), 370-378.


Schmitz, K. L. (2008). The academic English literacy acquisition experiences of deaf college

students. Ph.D. dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo.

Schnettler, B., & Raab, J. (2008). Interpretive visual analysis: Developments, state of the art and

pending problems. Qualitative Social Research, 9(3).

Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. In P. D. Pearson

& A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education. (pp. 217-234). Washington,

DC: American Educational Research Association.

Shelley, M., White, C., Baumann, U., & Murphy, L. (2006). 'It's a unique role!' Perspectives on

tutor attributes and expertise in distance language teaching. International Review of

Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2), 1-15.

Shepherd, C. (2003). E-Learning's greatest hits. United Kingdom: Above and Beyond Ltd.

Siegel, L. (2000). The educational and communication needs of deaf and hard of hearing

children: A statement of principle on fundamental educational change. American Annals

of the Deaf, 145(2), 64-77.

Simms, L., & Thumann, H. (2007). In search of a new, linguistically and culturally sensitive

paradigm in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 152, 302-311.

Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of

web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3),

623-664.

Smith, C., Lentz, E. M., & Mikos, K. (1988). Signing naturally - Level one. Berkeley, CA: Dawn

Sign Press.

Spencer, P. E., & Marschark, M. (2010). Evidence-based practice in educating deaf and hard-of-

hearing students. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


Stahl, N. A., Simpson, M. L., & Hayes, C. G. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for

teaching high-risk college students. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(1), 2-10.

Staupe, A., & Hernes, M. S. (2000). How to create a learning environment on the internet, based

on constructivism and sociocultural approaches. Paper presented at the Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, San Diego,

CA.

Stringer, E. (2008). Action research in education (Second edition ed.). Columbus, Oh: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Swisher, M. V. (1989). The language-learning situation of deaf students. TESOL Quarterly,

23(2), 239-257.

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., &

Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational

Research, 76(1), 93-135.

Traxler, C. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition: National norming and

performance standards for deaf and hard of hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and

Deaf Education, 5, 337-348.

Trentin, G. (2000). The quality-interactivity relationship in distance learning. Education

Technology, 17-27.

U.S. Department of Education, (2003). 25th annual report to Congress on the implementation of

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, from

http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html


Valdez-Corbeil, M. E., & Corbeil, J. R. (2007). E-tutoring for e-learning: A guide for selecting

the right tool for the right job. In C. Crawford (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2121-

2127). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., & Chen, R. (1996). Cognitive

profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Intervention as a

vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic cause of

specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, II, 601-638.

Video Conferencing Review (2008). Comprehensive guide to video conferencing. Retrieved

from www.videoconferencing-review.com.

Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The International

Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216-223.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thought and word. In R. W. Reiber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected

works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York, NY: Plenum.

Wagner, E. (2008). Delivering on the promise of eLearning. San Jose, CA: Adobe Systems

Incorporated.

Walter, G. G. (2010). Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in transition: Demographics with an

emphasis on STEM education. Rochester, NY.

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring:

A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179-200.


Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance

learning. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1282-1309.

White, C., Murphy, L., Shelley, M., & Baumann, U. (2005). Towards an understanding of

attributes and expertise in distance language teaching: Tutor maxims. In T. Evans, P.

Smith & E. Stacey (Eds.), Research in Distance Education 6 (pp. 83-97). Geelong,

Australia: Deakin University.

Wilcox, S. (1989). American deaf culture: An anthology. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.

Williams, P. B., Howell, S. L., Laws, R. D., & Metheny, E. (2006). Should tutoring services be

added to our high-enrolling distance education courses? Online Journal of Distance

Learning Administration, 9(4).

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of

child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Woods Jr., R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. The

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), 1-13. Retrieved

from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/186/801

Wrigley, O. (1996). The politics of deafness. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Yager, R. E. (2000). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 67(44-45).

Zucchermaglio, C. (1993). Toward a cognitive ergonomics of educational technology. In t.

Duffy, J. Lowyck & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructivist

learning. (pp. 249-260). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.


Appendix A

Remote Tutoring Questionnaire

Directions: Please answer the following questions about tutoring.

1. I used face-to-face tutoring in high school or in another college.

YES

NO

2. I used online tutoring (through a computer) in high school or in another college.

YES

NO

3. I plan to use tutoring to help me in this class.

YES

NO

Maybe

4. I want face-to-face tutoring from the instructor.

YES

NO

Maybe

5. I want face-to-face tutoring from on-campus tutors.

YES

NO

Maybe

6. I want to try online tutoring with the instructor from my dorm room, apartment or lab using a

computer (and VP, if possible).

YES

NO

Maybe


7. The best time for me to go to tutoring is...(Check all that apply)

during the day (between 8 am – 5 pm)

at night (between 5 pm – 11 pm)

on weekends (Saturdays and Sundays)

8. I have my own computer or laptop in my dorm room or apartment.

YES

NO

9. I have a webcam for my computer.

YES

NO

10. I have a videophone (VP) in my dorm room or apartment.

YES

NO

11. I prefer to communicate with the instructor using:

Speech

ASL

Sign and speech together

12. I am member of the Deaf Community

YES

NO

Don‘t know

Thank you for completing this tutoring questionnaire!


Appendix B

Student evaluation form

Directions: Please give me your feedback on today's remote tutoring session. This information

will be used to plan future remote tutoring sessions.

1. Why did you come to remote tutoring today?

2. Did you have any problems with your computer or your internet connection? (please

describe)

3. Did you have any problems with your webcam or VP? (please describe)

4. Based on today‘s experience, would you use remote tutoring for this class again? (explain

your answer)

5. What would you like to do in future remote tutoring sessions? (please list)

6. What can the teacher do to improve future remote tutoring sessions? (please describe)

Thank you for your feedback.


Appendix C

Tutor evaluation form

Completed after each remote tutoring session

1. Assessment: Describe what the student wanted to work on and issues identified based on

this request.

2. Instruction: Explain what occurred during the session and what instructional strategies

were used.

3. Describe technical problems encountered:

4. Describe instructional problems encountered:

5. Describe communication problems encountered:

6. Evaluation: Include a statement about where the work ended how the student can

continue to make progress. (action plan)


Appendix D

Glossary of terms

American Sign Language (ASL) – Sign language used by culturally Deaf people in the United

States and Canada.

ASL glossing – Since ASL has no written form, ASL glossing can be used for analysis purposes.

Asynchronous remote tutoring – Refers to distance tutoring via computers or telecommunication

technologies where tutor and tutee do not meet at the same time (opposite of synchronous).

Cued Speech – A system of 8 handshapes to represent consonant phonemes and 4 hand

placements to represent vowels used in conjunction with mouthing to aid in speechreading.

Culturally Deaf – Refers to members of the Deaf community whose primary language is ASL.

Distance learning – Instruction that occurs when the teacher and students are in different

locations.

Hard of hearing – Refers to people with a hearing loss whose primary language is English and

who depend on lipreading, speech and audition for communication.

Mainstreamed program – Refers to the type of schooling where students with disabilities

integrate into some or all academic classes.

Prelingually deaf – Refers to people who became deaf prior to age three.

Profoundly deaf – The highest degree of hearing loss typically resulting in an inability to hear

spoken language and most environmental sounds without the aid of amplification.

Signing Exact English (Manually Coded English) – A form of sign language where prefixes,

suffixes, and verb tense markers are added to signs and English word order is followed.

Simultaneous Communication – The simultaneous use of ASL vocabulary and spoken English

with attempts to include ASL grammatical markers such as use of space and classifiers.

Synchronous remote tutoring – Real-time distance tutoring via computer or telecommunication

technologies (opposite of asynchronous).


Appendix E

Snapshots of Webconferencing systems

Adobe® Connect Pro

TM meeting room (Adobe Systems Incorporated, 2011).


IdeaToolsTM

Video Chat meeting room (Ideatools, 2011)


NefsisTM

meeting room – Future pilot project (Nefsis Corporation, 2008)


Appendix F

Dimensional Analysis definitions

Dimensionality: an individual‘s cognitive ability to address the complexity of a phenomenon

(facts or circumstances of something observed) by noting its attributes, context,

processes, and meaning.

Attribute: an inherent characteristic of a phenomenon; includes dimensions and their properties;

Dimension: an abstract concept; a component of a phenomenon;

Property: the quantitative or qualitative parameters or descriptors of a dimension

Designation: the naming or labeling of concepts; the development of a vocabulary to conduct the

cognitive work of analysis;

Differentiation: the limiting of data by determining the salience of dimensions and organizing

them into a logical configuration that provides them with meaning;

Explanatory matrix: an organizational prototype that further differentiates the innate

characteristics of identified dimensions into various conceptual components such as

context, conditions, processes, or consequences;

Context: the boundaries for inquiry; the situation or environment in which dimensions are

embedded;

Condition: a salient dimension that has an impact on actions and interactions by facilitating,

blocking, or in some other way shaping them;

Process: an intended or unintended action or interaction that is impelled by specified conditions;

Consequence: the outcome of specific actions or interactions;

Perspective: the dimension that is most central to the developing theory; one that provides the

researcher with the most fruitful explanation of a phenomenon. Used to configure the

explanatory matrix.

Integration: the final synthesis of dimensions within the explanatory matrix into a theory.

(Kools, McCarthy, Durham & Robrecht, 1996, p. 329)

Used with permission from Sage Publications.


Appendix G

Initial (phase I) and pre-existing (phase II) codes.

Research

Question:

Phase I codes:

(initial)

Phase II codes:

(pre-existing in literature)

How does using

remote tutoring with

deaf college students

affect my tutoring

practices?

1. Technical issues

2. Pedagogical issues

3. Diverse communication issues

4. Identity issues (d/Deaf)

5. Overall satisfaction

Related to distance technologies

and webcam/videophones use.

Related to distance education

and best tutoring practices.

Related to the diverse forms of

communication used with this

population.

Related to how students identify

with deafness

Related to students overall

satisfaction and reasons for

accessing remote tutoring with

instructor.

Sub-question 1 Phase I codes: Phase II codes:

In what ways do

technical

configurations

contribute to a

satisfying remote

tutoring

environment?

(Activity Theory)

Impacts on students:

Evidence of ease of use

Evidence of difficulties or

complications with use

Evidence of satisfaction

w/technology (successes)

Evidence of dissatisfaction

w/technology (problems)

Familiarity with technologies;

Lack of familiarity; beginning

use;

Suggestions for improving

design;

Frustrations with technologies.


Impact on practice:

Internet issues

Webconferencing software

issues

Course management issues

Webcam issues

Videophone issues

Evidence of changes in

practice

Unstable or broken connections;

Manipulating pods;

Accessing and displaying

components;

Clarity and bandwidth;

Clarity and integration with

web technologies.

Brought about by changes in

technologies and their use.


In what ways do the

diverse language

and communication

practices of students

influence the remote

tutoring process?

(Knowledge of Deaf

education, culture &

ASL)


Evidence of requests for

certain types of configurations

based on preferred

communication needs

Evidence of successful

communication interactions

Evidence of communication

breakdown

Evidence of using repair

strategies for communication

breakdowns

Students expressing their

preferences or needs based on

their preferred communication

modes;

Students expressing satisfaction

or dissatisfaction with

configurations;

Students requesting other forms

of configurations or tutoring;

Affirmations/dissatisfaction

with remote tutoring

communication, examples from

interviews.

Can‘t understand sign, speech

or hear audio;

Therefore student needs to

request repeat, rephrase, write


Impacts on practice:

Evidence of strategies used to

support or enhance

communication


communication practices due

to limited remote tutoring

configurations/tech.

Students expressing satisfaction

or dissatisfaction with the

communication delivery;

Needing to use repair strategies

due to communication

breakdown (repeat, rephrase,

write to student)


What instructional

strategies meet the

needs of students

participating

tutoring remotely?

(Sociocultural

Theory; New

Literacy Studies)


Evidence of understanding

Evidence of not

understanding or

misunderstanding

Evidence of discovery

Applying strategies,

Applying feedback;

correcting errors;

Errors in applying strategies,

Recurring errors;

Not correcting errors;

Identifying errors


Evidence of reading

instruction strategies

Evidence of writing

instruction strategies


practice

Phonologic decoding strategies,

Context strategies, strategies for

comprehension.

Sociocultural practices of

facilitating, modeling,

scaffolding; evidence of

providing feedback: corrective

(fixing), suggestive (hinting)

and reinforcing (praising).

Brought about by changes in

instructional strategies and

techniques



What determines

student satisfaction

with the remote

tutoring experience?

(from sessions,

interviews and

evaluations)


Evidence of satisfaction

w/tutoring sessions

Evidence of dissatisfaction

w/tutoring sessions;

Evidence of students reasons

for accessing remote tutoring

i.e., time management issues,

missing class, accessibility,

flexibility

Evidence of students

returning to remote tutoring

Students expressing preference

for remote tutoring over other

past tutoring experiences;

Flexibility;

Accessibility.

Students expressing

dissatisfaction and therefore,

not returning or using f2f

Affirmations, examples from

interviews and evaluations.

Accessing remote tutoring due

to times offered


Evidence of changes to

technology, instruction &/or

communication due to

identified issues.

Evidence of decisions made to

make changes to delivery based

on AR model


In what ways, if any,

do students’

identities influence

their participation in

the remote tutoring?

(Knowledge of

identity development

for deaf/hoh; deaf

culture)


Awareness of identity

Types of identity

Identity development


Preferred communication

mode

Relationship with tutor


Appendix H

Tutor actions related to remote-tutoring systems.

Opening sessions Displaying

documents

Interacting

with content

Closing sessions

Adobe

Connect

1. logged into

Adobe Connect

Pro

webconferen-

cing site

2. opened

―tutoring with

LB‖ room

3. accepted student

into session

4. welcomed

student into

session

5. selected

appropriate

layout

1. selected – My

computer

screen‖

2. accessed

―Windows‖

for the screen

sharing

option

3. located

student‘s

work on

idea3

4. selected

window from

desktop

5. selected

Share

(90 seconds)

1. opened

―Writing

good

concluding

sentences‖

link on course

schedule;

2. displayed

document

using ―my

computer

screen‖

3. highlighted

first 6 lines

4. asked student

to read it

1. pulled down

meeting menu

2. selected End

Meeting

3. copied chat to

word

document.

4. stopped

recording

5. sent online

evaluation to

student

IdeaTools 1. logged into

course

management

system (idea3)

2. selected

Remote

Tutoring in

Video Chat

Room

3. ―pushed‖ the

idea3 course

into the remote

tutoring

session using

VPN

4. displayed

student‘s work

in control

center

5. acknowledged

student using

chat or waving

1. in idea3,

opened tools

2. switched to

instructor

mode,

3. selected

student from

list

4. selected

coursework

5. selected

student‘s

paragraph

6. increased the

font size for

easier

viewing

7. placed

document

into display

screen

(80 seconds)

1. highlighted

―body‖ in

student‘s

outline

2. asked

student to

elaborate

3. student

placed

cursor next

to

highlighted

word in

document

4. deleted

―body‖ and

typed ―keep

straight‖

1. saved

student‘s work

2. copied chat to

word

document

3. closed

webcam

4. closed session

5. stopped

recording

6. opened Video

Chat Room

again

7. ―pushed‖

course into

session again

to await next

student


Appendix I

Instructional strategies used in select sessions:

1, 2, 6, 10 and 12 (webconferencing); 8, 9, and 22 (email) and 15 (videophone)

Instructional strategies identified in nine remote-tutoring sessions. The number posted after each

strategy indicate the session(s) they were applied. Italicized strategies indicate they were utilized

in the five sessions that included student evaluations. Bolded strategies indicate they were

utilized in all nine sessions listed above.

Adapting to student‘s language level 1, 10

Affective orientation – 1, 2, 10, 12, 9, 15

Alerting student 1, 6, 12

Apologizing 15

Asking reason for tutoring 6, 10 12

Asking questions 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 15, 8, 9, 22

Asking for clarification 10

Asking for elaboration 2

Answering questions 1, 2, 6

Brainstorming 10

Checking connection 12

Checking preferences 6, 12, 15 Checking student understands 1, 2, 10, 12, 15

Confirming 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 15, 8

Clarifying 1, 10, 15, 8

Clarifying assignment 2

Co-constructing 10, 12

Confirming 9

Displaying documents 1, 2, 6, 10, 12

Displaying emoticons 2

Enlarging documents 6, 12

Explaining final exam structure 12

Facilitating 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 15, 22, 9

Giving feedback 6, 15, 9

Giving directions 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 15, 8, 9, 22

Giving thanks; thanking student 1, 6, 15

Highlighting documents for emphasis 1, 12

humor 1, 10

Modeling – showing example 1, 8, 9

Offering additional assistance 8

Offering alternative RT mode 6, 12

Praising 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 9

Providing information 1, 2, 10, 15, 22, 8

Referring to classwork 2, 10, 12, 15

Requesting clarification 1, 2, 15, 22, 8

Requesting confirmation 15

Requesting elaboration 1, 6, 10

Requesting student write details in chat 10

Responding to email 8, 9, 22

Returning saved draft to student 6, 10

Reviewing course materials 1

Reviewing homework 6, 10

Reviewing structure 1, 12, 15, 8

Scaffolding 10

Sharing student‘s draft 6,

Showing comprehension 10

Suggesting alternate form 15, 8

Summarizing 10, 12

Transitioning to a new topic 1, 6

Understanding grammar acquisition 10

Using chat with webcam for emphasis 6, 10

Verifying connection


Permissions:

Permission to include Action Research cycle diagram

Martin Huntley

to me

show details 1/14/10

On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Linda Bryant wrote:

I am a doctoral student at the University of Rochester in Rochester, NY. I am writing to ask

permission to use the Action Research Cycle diagram illustrated on page 9 of the Themes in

Education: Action Research booklet by Eileen Ferrance, 2000.

A quick response would be most appreciated. Thank you, Linda Bryant

------ form data ------

fname: Linda

lname: Bryant

email:

phone:

page: Staff Directory

refererURL: http://www.alliance.brown.edu/staffdir.php

Linda:

You have permission. Please note explicitly that it's used by permission of The Education

Alliance at Brown University. Also, if possible please provide the URL for the online version of

the publication: http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf.

Thanks for your interest.

Martin

__________________________________________________________________

Martin Huntley Director of Technology

The Education Alliance at Brown University

222 Richmond Street, Suite 300

Providence, RI 02903-4226 Web: http://www.alliance.brown.edu

Ph: 401-274-9548 800-521-9550 Ext. 234 Fax: 401-421-7650

The information contained in this e-mail from The Education Alliance

at Brown University may be confidential and/or legally privileged.

Permission to reproduce appendix

http://www.alliance.brown.edu/staffdir.php

http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf

http://www.alliance.brown.edu/

tel:401-274-9548

tel:800-521-9550

tel:401-421-7650


Sent: Tue 12/28/2010 11:23 AM

To: '[email protected]'

I would like permission to include the Appendix (verbatim) in the journal article below in my

doctoral dissertation. If granted, please include information on how it should be referenced.

Thank you!

Title: Dimensional Analysis:

Broadening the Conception of

Grounded Theory

Author: Susan Kools, Marianne

McCarthy, Roberta Durham,

Linda Robrecht

Publication: Qualitative Health Research

Publisher: Sage Publications

Date: 08/01/1996

Copyright © 1996, Sage Publications

Logged in as:

Linda Bryant

Gratis

Permission is granted at no cost for sole use in a Master's Thesis and/or Doctoral Dissertation.

Additional permission is also granted for the selection to be included in the printing of said

scholarly work as part of UMI‘s "Books on Demand" program. For any further usage or

publication, please contact the publisher.

Remote Tutoring A Choice for Deaf College Students ...

Documents

Transcript of Remote Tutoring A Choice for Deaf College Students ...