British Journal of Educational Technology doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00805.x

Vol 40 No 1 2009

32–41

Technology education students: e-tutors for school children

Genevieve Marie Johnson and Sharon E. Bratt Genevieve Marie Johnson, an educational psychologist, is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College, Canada. Her research interests include Internet technology and human learning, particularly, empirical investigation of cognitive outcomes. Sharon E. Bratt, an instructional technologist, is a faculty member in the Department of Computing Science and Technology, Grant MacEwan College, Canada. Her research interests include instructional methods and the design and evaluation of technologies that support constructivist teaching and learning. Address for correspondence: Genevieve Marie Johnson, Grant MacEwan College, City Centre Campus, Edmonton, Canada T5J 4S2. Tel: +780 497 4541; fax: +780 497 5308; email: [email protected]. Sharon E. Bratt, Grant MacEwan College, City Centre Campus, Edmonton, Canada T5J 4S2. Tel: +780 497 4685; fax: +780 497 5655; email: [email protected]

Abstract E-tutoring refers to individualised learning support mediated by Internet technology. While increased demand for tutors has led to a surge in commercial e-tutoring services, volunteer e-tutoring programs for children are rare. To test the viability of volunteer e-tutoring for elementary school students, 10 undergraduate students enrolled in a technology education (TE) course provided online with instructional support to children in need of tutoring services. Each e-tutor was assigned a specific child, developed a Web Course Tools course and corresponding online activities to improve teacher-identified skill deficiencies, and provided 8 weeks of e-tutoring. Three video conferences complemented online instructional interaction between e-tutor and e-tutee. Children, parents and TE students expressed positive evaluation of the initiative.

Introduction For many children, classroom instruction is supplemented by personal tutoring. The benefits of tutoring are assumed to arise from one-to-one interaction between a knowledgeable and skilled individual (the tutor) and a less knowledgeable and less skilled individual (the tutee). Recent emphasis on educational standards has led to increased the demand for personal tutors (Gordon, Morgan, O’Malley & Ponticell, 2007). For example, the Australian government recently implemented a program in which tutorial vouchers were provided to parents of children in third grade who failed to meet national literacy benchmarks (Gewektz, 2005). American children who do not make adequate progress in school qualify to receive funding for out-of-school personal tutoring (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Technology education student e-tutors

33

Electronic tutoring (E-tutoring) or Internet tutoring (I-tutoring) refers to individualised learning support provided via the Internet and includes ongoing communication between e-tutor and e-tutee (Flowers, 2007). E-tutoring reflects instructional practices that range from highly structured individualised support to occasional response to specific homework questions (Denard, 2003). Commercial online tutoring services often reflect a remedial paradigm and include: (1) initial assessment to determine specific academic deficiencies, (2) tutoring sessions that target those deficiencies, (3) ongoing assessment following tutoring sessions, and (4) frequent reporting of tutee progress (Chatta, 2006). Meta-analytic studies establish the academic benefits of Internet-based support for learning (Johnson, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2006). In 2004, Cavanaugh, Gillian, Kromrey, Hess and Blomeyer (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of studies published since 1999 that compared the academic achievement of traditional school children with those who received online instruction at least 50% of the school day. Students who learned via the Internet performed as well or better than students in regular school programs. Kulik (2003) conducted a comprehensive synthesis of research published since 1990 that evaluated the instructional effectiveness of Internet technology for children. He concluded that ‘instructional technology is growing increasingly effective in elementary and secondary school applications’ (p. 61). Zhao (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of Internet communication for second language learning. The mean effect size of nine synthesised studies was 1.12, ‘indicating an overwhelmingly positive effect of technology applications on language learning’ (p. 19). The established effectiveness of online support for learning has resulted in demand for e-tutors (Denard, 2003). While commercial e-tutoring services are increasingly available (Flowers, 2007), volunteer programs for elementary school children remain rare. College and university students frequently provide volunteer services, often tutoring and mentoring (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2005). According to Stickler (2004), college student volunteer tutors are a valuable resource for children, parents and teachers. Zenanko and Glover Burrows (2006) reported a successful program in which pre-service teachers satisfied practicum requirements by e-tutoring school children. Particularly popular with college students, the Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada (2004) Digital Heroes program matches at-risk youth with volunteer email mentors, although school achievement is not emphasised. Both school children and preservice teachers potentially benefit from online tutor-tutee instructional interaction. Children benefit by individualised learning support; preservice teachers benefit from authentic instructional experience with Internet technologies.The technical infrastructure prerequisite to e-tutoring is widely available in schools and institutes of higher learning. The current investigation tests the viability of technology education (TE) students e-tutoring elementary school children in need of supplementary educational support. In this context,TE students refer to individuals in teacher education programs who are taking an instructional technology course with curriculum focused on, most notably, software that supports human learning. Specifically, we ask: © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.

34

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 40 No 1 2009

1. Do TE students have the desire and capacity to function as e-tutors for elementary school children recommended for supplementary instructional support? 2. How do TE students approach the task of e-tutoring elementary school children? 3. How do elementary school children, parents and TE students respond to e-tutoring? Methods This study describes the e-artefacts generated by an applied investigation that paired TE students with school children in need of supplementary instructional support for the purpose of e-tutoring. Such artefacts include websites developed by e-tutors, email which included evaluation of the initiative, video conferences and blogs. Participants Children were recruited from an elementary school (enrolment 467) in an urban centre in western Canada. The school was selected because of available technology (eg, video conference system) and because the school-based technology education teacher supported the initiative. Classroom teachers identified 10 children who, in their professional opinion, would benefit from supplementary educational support. Out of the ten identified elementary school children, 8 were male and literacy (ie, reading and writing) was the teacher-identified skill deficiency in 90% of the cases (one child required support with mathematics). Children ranged from 2nd to 6th grade (ie, aged 7–11 years). Education students enrolled in a required instructional technology course (n = 54) were invited to participate in the initiative in lieu of the coursework that contributed 15% to their final course grade. The nature of the initiative was explained and interested students completed an expression of interest that included items that queried Internet competencies. On the basis of extensive experience with Internet technologies, 10 of the 38 students who submitted expressions of interest were selected as e-tutors. These 10 TE students, three males and seven females (consistent with the college ratio), ranged in age from 18 to 25 years (M = 19.7). TE students were asked to commit to the project for approximately 10 weeks (2 weeks to develop a website and 8 weeks to deliver tutoring support via that website). Procedures Web Course Tools (WebCT) is a secure Internet-based course management system that provides instructors and students with a range of synchronous and asynchronous tools including email, chat (real-time text communication), quizzes, whiteboard (real-time writing and drawing on simulated canvas), organiser pages (for grouping course tools), links to other Internet sites and course content (for posting and accessing material). A WebCT course was created for each dyad (e-tutor and e-tutee). E-tutors had designer access and e-tutees had student access. Via weblogs (blog.ca), participating TE students reflected on the professional experience of e-tutoring. Three 10–minute video conferences (VC) were scheduled for each dyad. E-tutors went to a video conferencing suite in close proximity to their college classroom; children were taken from their classrooms by the school-based TE teacher and escorted to a room © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.

Technology education student e-tutors

35

equipped with a video communication system. The first VC had two objectives: (1) develop tutor-tutee rapport, and (2) introduce, demonstrate and promote the WebCT course website. Approximately 4 weeks later, the objective of the second VC was to enhance the quality of online interaction and instruction by increasing/improving, as necessary, e-tutee active website involvement. The third VC occurred at the end of the initiative and provided TE students and school children with project and relationship closure. Technical and instructional support was provided to participants by a team of three professionals (an educational psychologist, an instructional technologist and the school-based TE teacher). E-tutees had face-to-face support from the school-based TE teacher (eg, help with WebCT log on and sending email). The three professionals provided face-to-face, telephone and/or email support to e-tutors. Given that all e-tutors had a high level of Internet competence, their requests for support were typically of a pedagogical nature. At the end of the initiative, e-tutor efforts (ie, websites, VC and blogs) were independently evaluated by the team of professionals. The average of these three percentages constituted the mark that contributed 15% to the final course grade. All e-artefacts generated by participants were archived and organised by the educational psychologist and instructional technologist for subsequent descriptive analysis. Email messages requesting evaluation of the initiative were sent to participating parents and TE students. The parent message included four rating scale items (eg, My child enjoyed the I-Tutor website) with three response options (eg, not at all, somewhat and a great deal) and an opened-ended item requesting comments and ideas for improving the initiative. The TE student email message included four rating scale items (eg, I learned about teaching by participating in the I-Tutor Initiative) with three response options (eg, not at all, somewhat and a great deal). Additionally, two opened-ended items queried the best and worst aspect of the e-tutoring experience. Results and discussion The majority (38/54) of solicited TE students submitted expressions of interest. All students appeared happy to have been selected as e-tutors, and although research ethics required a mechanism for students to withdraw participation without penalty or prejudice, no e-tutor expressed a desire to prematurely terminate his or her commitment to the initiative. Given e-tutor selection criteria, student participation marks were understandably high (M = 80.7%). However, 2 of the 10 TE students received marks of 60% for their e-tutoring efforts, marginally acceptable in the context of the college grading system. Such low marks reflected, according to the team of supportive professionals, marginal demonstration of systematic efforts to determine and address the instructional needs of the child. Results of the current investigation establish that most TE students have the desire to e-tutor elementary school children in need of supplementary educational support. Within the group of motivated and technically-capable students, many, but not all, have the skills and attitudes necessary to e-tutor school children in need of supplementary educational support. © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.

36

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 40 No 1 2009

How do TE students approach the task of e-tutoring elementary school children? The websites developed by TE students, in 70% of the cases, made excessive use of colour and complex pictures. All sites, however, included personalised support for learning. For example, one site used large pictures of dogs as icons because the e-tutee expressed an interest in dogs; another site used a popular movie theme to enhance e-tutee motivation to visit the site. All 10 sites included email, three included synchronous chat, two included the quiz tool and one included the whiteboard. One web site contained only two WebCT tools while most contained four or five. E-tutors used a variety of approaches to support e-tutee learning, for example, grammar worksheets attached to email messages and links to interactive learning websites (eg, interactive reading comprehension exercises such as those available at kidd.net). Figure 1 presents a sample homepage. TE students made extensive use of communication tools. All e-tutors included an email link on their WebCT home page and most made frequent use of email for instruction and explanation. Summarised in Table 1, of the 113 email messages sent to e-tutees by e-tutors, nearly 80% were of an instructional nature. While messages often included

Figure 1: Website developed by technology education student for elementary school child (pseudonyms) © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.

Technology education student e-tutors

37

Table 1: Content of email messages sent by e-tutors (TE students) to e-tutees (school children) Message content

%

Example

Contact

1.8%

Scheduling

5.3%

Instruction

78.7%

Conversation

14.2%

Hi ... I have not heard from you in awhile. How are you? Have you been busy lately? If yes, what have you been doing? I have been pretty busy with school work, as I am sure you will see when you go to college. What did you do on the weekend? Email soon. Hi! If you are online today about the same time as yesterday we can chat for a second. Did you get the Word document open? You can help me to plan your next activity ... maybe some worksheets or something similar? Talk to you in a bit. Hi! ... Attached are the reading comprehension questions for Mallory’s Rainy Day story. Please answer all of the questions in complete sentences and email it back to me. Don’t worry, it’s only for practice! I really enjoyed talking to you yesterday. I hope you cheer up about your friend. I’m sure you two will figure out a way to keep in contact. It would be so neat to take a trip to California to see her!

TE, technology education.

Table 2: Content of email messages sent by e-tutees (school children) to e-tutors (TE students) Message content

Percent

Example

Contact

4.5%

Scheduling

6.3%

Hello, haw are you doing? I hope you had a good weekend. I just went on to tuch base with you. Talk to you soon. Hi!!! I am going to be on the computer Tomorrow ... at about 4:00 to 4:30 and probubly on thursday as well. You can try me then on the chat room. I look forward to talking to you. ... I was wondering if you have set up a stashion whare i can practis me hand writing and my typing on the computer ... WOW!!! lesson #2 helped me so much now I can do my 9s way faster ... ... thaingsgeving was good but my brother got sick. In school I played dujbal today. I Just got a netandow ds light and I got a game for it. It was new super mareow bruther I hafe to go to call now gud bey

Learning needs

13.6%

Instructional reply

38.4%

Conversation

37.1%

TE, technology education.

elements of conversation, the focus was on addressing children’s academic (as opposed to social and emotional) needs. Summarised in Table 2 is the analysis of the 81 email messages sent by e-tutees to e-tutors which revealed a range of intentions including establishing and maintaining personal connection, scheduling synchronous communication and expression of specific learning needs. In 38.4% of the cases, children emailed their e-tutors in response to instruction. In almost the same number of cases, children’s email to e-tutors were conversational. © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.

38

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 40 No 1 2009

During the first conference, e-tutors introduced themselves, explained the project, and demonstrated aspects of their websites. E-tutees were observed smiling and nodding in response to questions and comments from the e-tutor and the school-based TE teacher (who remained in the school VC room with the child). During the second VC, e-tutors queried e-tutee interests and instructional needs, and in 70% of the cases, demonstrated some aspect of the website (eg, navigation). In 40% of the cases, children appeared mildly uncomfortable (eg, avoiding eye contact with the e-tutor). The mother of one e-tutee participated in the second VC and stated that the activities and the website were confusing and too difficult for her child to complete. During the final VC, e-tutors queried e-tutees about their perception of the website and the replies were consistently positive. E-tutors talked to children in positive terms, praising the quality of recently completed online activities. E-tutors demonstrated interest and commitment to synchronous communication technologies (ie, chat, whiteboard and VC). However, scheduling real-time online interaction, to some extent, undermines the benefits of e-tutoring. Real-time scheduling issues were apparent in email between e-tutees and e-tutors and were the most common type of email between e-tutors and the supportive professionals. While the VC appeared fundamental to development of the tutoring relationship, synchronous online interaction removed both TE students and school children from their respective classrooms, not a recommended practice, particularly for children requiring supplemental instructional support (Gordon et al, 2007). Six of the ten e-tutors participated in the blog community. E-tutor blogs collectively contained seven statements of emotional reaction to the initiative. E-tutors expressed frustration that e-tutees were not accessing their websites, stress at increased workload, fear that they would not be successful e-tutors and excitement when their efforts were well-received by their e-tutees. Early in the blogging process, in three separate cases, e-tutors made reference to their websites (eg, ‘my page is inviting and colorful ...’). Reflection on the VC appeared in six blogs. In general, e-tutors were positive about the VC, although two postings described difficulties with scheduling. To illustrate, one e-tutor blogged, ‘My student is totally cool. She was happy to see me, and wasn’t shy’. Another e-tutor blogged, ‘Video conferencing was difficult. I was sick. I still am’. Although e-tutors were in the early stages of teacher education, blog postings revealed pedagogical issues (ie, instructional decisions, assessing e-tutee learning and professional concerns). E-tutor blogs contained 11 references to instructional decisions. For example, note the following professional reflection: I’m enjoying this I-tutor program, there are many different approaches you can take within the activities, all you need is time. Unfortunately, sometimes time is a restraint and the lack of it can lead to un-polished work. I just put up Activity #4. I’ve been trying to find some simple sentence resources, and the link I put up on Activity 4 I found while searching through google.com. I also put up a fun game, it’s called ‘Jet Slalom’. And, lastly, I put up a slightly embarrassing picture of myself playing drums whilst wearing a sheep costume ... I regret nothing. © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.

Technology education student e-tutors

39

Issues surrounding tutee learning occurred in four blogs. For example, one e-tutor wrote, ‘the only thing that confuses me at this point is to know whether he is actually learning anything and getting anything out of this experience. I hope so.’ Another e-tutor reflected, ‘How can I tell if he’s improving? How can I measure his improvement? Is this actually beneficial?’ Finally, there were three blogs that expressed commitment to the profession of teaching (eg, ‘If I was even a little wishy washy as to what I wanted to do, this has totally confirmed that teaching is the job for me. Watching ...’s progress has been a totally new and awakening experience.’ Two blog entries included reflection on the nature of teaching and the importance of face-to-face contact with children, for example: I agree with the idea of internet tutoring because of the ‘wow’ factor and all of the possibilities offered by the internet, but I do still strongly believe that a real live person-to-person meeting is crucial. It’s easier to relate to people when you have that human contact, even if only for a brief while. I would love to be able to walk up to my student and tell her that it has been a pleasure working with her and that I wish her all the luck in the world as she continues with her schooling. For me, personally, in-person communication means so much.

How do elementary school children, parents and TE students respond to e-tutoring? Elementary school children, in general, responded positively to e-tutoring by TE students. For example, one child continued to send conversational email to her e-tutor 3 months after the final VC. Email messages, parental feedback and VC observations evidenced positive affect on the part of e-tutees. However, negative affect was also noted, particularly during the second VC. One interpretation of such observations is that some e-tutors made instructional demands that children were unable to satisfy. E-tutors, in the early stages of teacher education, may have had difficulty reconciling the disparity between children’s grade placement and their actual academic competencies. More advanced preservice teachers may be better equipped to identify, for example, child reading level and adjusted instruction accordingly. There are 4 out of the 10 parents who replied to the email message requesting evaluation of the initiative. Responding parents indicated that they had visited the e-tutor website with their child (two selected ‘a great deal’ and two selected ‘sometimes’). Two parents indicated that they ‘sometimes’ and two indicated that they had ‘never’ visited the I-tutor website without their child. All responding parents expressed the perception that the initiative had helped their child learn. In response to the item ‘My child enjoyed the I-Tutor website’, one parent responded ‘not at all’, two responded ‘somewhat’ and one responded ‘a great deal’. While all parents allowed their children to participate in the initiative, less than half responded to the evaluative email. Such a pattern of parental support may suggest that parents were eager for their children to receive volunteer supplementary educational support but less eager to be actively involved in that support. Nonetheless, 40% of parents reported visiting their child’s I-tutor website and all of those parents maintained that the website helped their child learn. Parents varied in their response to the open-ended item that queried comments and suggestions for improving the initiative. One parent noted that the online activities were © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.

40

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 40 No 1 2009

often too difficult and that ‘easier instructions would be beneficial to allow him to build self-confidence with his reading’. Another parent commented that his or her child’s involvement in the initiative translated into more pressure on a child already experiencing pressure at school. A parent stated that the links to games were enjoyed by the child, but that many activities were technically awkward. Finally, one parent argued for more direct parental involvement and wrote ‘in truth, I had no idea what he was even tutored on’. There were 10 e-tutors and 7 replied to the email message requesting evaluation of the initiative. With respect to the item, ‘Overall, the I-Tutor Initiative was a positive experience’, six respondents selected ‘a great deal’; one selected ‘somewhat’. In response to items querying perception of the extent to which the experience had helped them learn about teaching, children and instructional technology, the majority of e-tutors selected the response option, ‘a great deal’; a minority selected ‘somewhat’. No e-tutor selected ‘not at all’ in response to any of the evaluative rating scale items. In terms of the open-ended items, most e-tutors indicated that the best aspect of the initiative was working with a child; one noted that the best part of e-tutoring was having an impact on a child’s academic skills. Two respondents noted the value of the experience to beginning teachers. Two e-tutors identified lack of face-to-face interaction with their e-tutee as a particularly unsatisfying aspect of the initiative; two noted that the time commitment was unrealistic and unmanageable. Lack of organisation, insufficient support and technical difficulties were identified in single cases. Conclusion A significant proportion of school children are in need of supplementary instructional support. TE students require authentic learning experiences as well as meaningful volunteer opportunities. Results of the current applied investigation establish, at least some extent, the viability of TE students’ e-tutoring school children in need of supplementary instructional support. Participants (ie, TE students, elementary school children and their parents), in general, responded positively to the initiative. TE students were pragmatic and professional in their approach to e-tutoring. Initially, students focused on the technology; website development was the primary concern. By midsession, e-tutor focus, in most cases, had shifted to improving the website and online activities in relation to the learning needs of a specific child. The final VC evidenced frequent use of names within most dyads, suggesting authentic relationships. All but one of the TE students who replied to the evaluative email noted that the best part of e-tutoring was developing a relationship with a child. According to Bullock and Wikeley (2004), the best tutors are ‘naturally inclined to the interpersonal approaches fundamental in supporting students’ learning and well-being’ (p. 23). This may be equally true of the best e-tutors and also explains the seemingly critical role of VC in cultivating the tutor-tutee instructional relationship. References

Brother Brother Big Sister of Canada (2004). Digital heroes. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http://wt.bbbsc.ca/workingtogetherwebsite/wwwEnglish/appendix/appendixA.pdf © 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.

Technology education student e-tutors

41

Bullock, K. & Wikeley, F. (2004). Whose learning? The role of the personal tutor. New York: Open University Press. Cavanaugh, C. S., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: a meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Chatta, M. K. (2006). E-tutoring ... the new buzzword. Press release—stepsedu.com. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from at http://www.stepsedu.com/etutoring/pressrelease.php?id=1 Corporation for National and Community Service (2005). College students helping America. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http://www.learnandserve.gov/pdf/ 06_1016_RPD_college_full.pdf Denard, H. (2003). E-tutoring and the transformations in online learning. Interactions, 7, 2. Available online http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/cap/resources/pubs/interactions/ archive/issue20/denard Flowers, A. T. (2007). NCLB spurs growth in online tutoring options. School Reform News, January 1. The Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http:// www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20426. Gewektz, C. (2005). Tutoring efforts move forward down under. Education Week, 24, 41, 14. 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. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Johnson, G. M. (2007). Restricted versus unrestricted learning: synthesis of recent metaanalyses. AACE Journal, 15, 267–278. Johnson, G. M., & Johnson, J. A. (2006). Computer technology and human learning: review of recent quantitative syntheses. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 4, 287–301. Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: what controlled evaluation studies say? SRI project Number P10446.001. Arlington, VA: SRI International. Stickler, C. (2004). One response to special needs in the classroom: utilizing college students as an untapped resource. New horizons for learning. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http:// www.newhorizons.org/lifelong/higher_ed/stickler.htm U.S. Department of Education (2007). Public Law 107-110, The No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb Zenanko, M., & Glover Burrows, C. (2006). The teaching/learning center and technology. Journal of the Association for the Tutoring Profession, 1. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http:// atp.jsu.edu/Synergy_1/Syn_4.pdf Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: a literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21, 7–27.

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Becta.