 |
 |
I agree entirely with these remarks, Helen – and with Monica’s previous post. The discussion brings into focus once again some of the key features of our work that illustrate the difference between Learning Development – an underpinning strategy for learning higher education - and the various ‘remedial’ interventions that are often envisaged by those in management or private organisations treating HE as a business from which to extract monetary gain. John From: LDHEN List <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Helen Webster <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Helen Webster <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 08:45 To: LDHEN List <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Yourtutor, your job? I entirely agree with Monica - I am mystified as to how having no relationship with a learning facilitator can possibly be 'constructivist'. I've written elsewhere how I feel that one of the invaluable elements of our provision as learning developers is that we are mostly not formally assessing students' work - assigning no marks, we create a non-judgemental space for students to explore their approaches to study in depth. Simply not knowing the students at all and having no relationship seems to be a very reductive way to create this non-judgemental space and hardly likely to develop this trusting, in-depth exploration! There's also the issue of the relationship with academics - we know, being versed in academic literacies, that the discourse of not just the subject but our own institutions is vital. we know our own universities - the variations, the quirks, the ethos, the courses, the individual lecturers, and we can help the student to pick up on this too. We can also feed back into our institutions learning and teaching too, offering our perspective on how their students see teaching and assessment. I'm just off to a meeting to discuss the review of marking criteria for our science faculty, which seems to be a return on the university's investment in having in house, professional provision, not just student attainment and retention. It does also raise issues that were discussed recently at our community keynote - the need to have our professionalism and highly qualified status formally recognised. I know there was some discomfort around this discussion and fears that it might become exclusive, but this discussion surely has highlighted precisely what it is that we need to define ourselves against, in order to demonstrate our value to our institutions and not be undercut by educationally problematic, but seemingly cost-saving provision! As Monica says, just having a degree or even PhD does not qualify you to be a learning developer and we must press this with our own institutions who write our job sepcs and recruit us, who unfortunately often buy into this notion that if you were a good student, you'll be a good learning developer. Would tutors working for such organisations be able to evidence the critera which the ALDinHE professional development working group? I doubt it... best wishes Helen On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Monica Behrend <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hi everyone, I too am concerned about the multiple issues raised around this topic – particularly that the educational claims or ‘facts’ that are presented to purport that these tutors are well-trained and understand education. These tutors may have some understandings, but are they equivalent in quality to university-employed Academic Language and Learning Academics and Professionals who have qualifications as educators and writing specialists? As a long-term educator and teacher educator, I would just like to focus on underlying contradictory educational claims. ‘Our trained writing feedback specialists provide best practice feedback in relation to academic writing only, that is specific, detailed, understandable and ‘feed-forward ... Our constructivist methodology … ’ Given these claims, how can then one also say that is it 'highly beneficial' to have no relationship with the facilitator of the learning? '… even though the tutor and student do not know each other (and this is highly beneficial from a learning perspective)', How can this be? At the basis of constructivist methodology and excellent teaching is the facilitation of thinking, reflection and dialogue, enabling learners to engage on activities which respond to their own developing understandings. I am mystified as to how this can happen with no relationship between tutor and learner. Sadly, having a university degree and even PhD does not mean that people are well-equipped writing teachers. To become a writing teacher involves engagement with the theory and not just the practice. Monica -----Original Message----- From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Alexander Cuthbert Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2017 11:10 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Yourtutor, your job? Hi John Thank you for your detailed clarification. In my naivety, I had not considered that membership of the list may extend to parties that I, speaking personally, would consider to be profiting by undermining the role of institution-based learning developers. In any case, I am more than happy to discuss the threats that any such organisations may present in public. Thanks again Alex ________________________________ From: John Hilsdon<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: 24/05/2017 12:59 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Yourtutor, your job? Dear all As founder of Learning Development in Higher Education Network (LDHEN) and joint listowner of this JISCmail with Sandra Sinfield, I would like to comment on this ongoing discussion. First I’d like to make some general points: 1) The list was established as a forum for those considering themselves to be learning developers (LDs) in HE institutions to discuss issues relating to our work. 2) Subscription to the network (“membership” loosely speaking) is open to all who identify as LDs or those who are interested in our work. That includes individuals in other areas of HE and in related areas of the private sector (e.g. in the publishing industry). 3) The list operates under the terms of operation defined by JISCmail - https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ where guidance on etiquette, ethics, content of messages etc. are outlined. 4) The list has always been an environment where views can be freely expressed and where disagreements are dealt with informally. There have been very few occasions since we began (in 2003) when we have felt the need to intervene. 5) The list is for practitioners and not for commercial organisations. If any commercial organisation seeks to use the list to advertise services for profit, they will be asked to desist. Sandra I reserve the right delete subscribers who contravene this request. Secondly, in the context of this particular discussion about the commercial company “Your Tutor”, http://www.yourtutor.com.au/, so far, I see no need to intervene other than to communicate the contents of this message. I see that views are being expressed in what seems to be a healthy fashion. I do not think the list has been used deliberately to advertise or defame, slander or libel any person or company. Sandra and I will also consult on this. We will not allow the list to be used as a platform to advertise commercial interests, but will not seek to remove posts or unsubscribe individuals in cases where information we deem relevant to our network is being disseminated. Thanks to all who have contributed so far. Best wishes John John Hilsdon Head of Learning Support and Wellbeing Room 104, 4 Portland Mews University of Plymouth Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA +44 (0)1752 587750<tel:%2B44%20%280%291752%20587750> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/jhilsdon From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Sarah Honeychurch Sent: 24 May 2017 12:17 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Yourtutor, your job? “Is it appropriate that someone clearly speaking as a director of a company, and not as a fellow learning developer, is given a voice through this forum?” No, not imo. I don’t consider “colleague” to be an appropriate form of address, either. Sarah Good Practice Adviser Learning Enhancement and Academic Development Service (LEADS) The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 Tel: +44 (0)141 330 3026<tel:%2B44%20%280%29141%20330%203026> @NomadWarMachine From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Alexander Cuthbert Sent: 24 May 2017 11:34 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Yourtutor, your job? Are we now to expect private service providers, employers, and representatives of learning industries from around the globe to search through our posts for the opportunity to correct and clarify comments made in what was perceived to be a ‘safe space’? Is it appropriate that someone clearly speaking as a director of a company, and not as a fellow learning developer, is given a voice through this forum? Alex From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Rowena Harper Sent: 24 May 2017 01:07 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Yourtutor, your job? Importance: High Dear all, I don’t seek to debate the email below, but in the interest of transparency it’s important to note that one slide has been removed from the presentation that was attached to the previous post. The second slide of the original presentation contained the following: ‘Attendance at this conference was sponsored by YourTutor’. A number of other caveats highlighted by the author/presenter in their presentation slides have also been redacted in the attachment: • Slides 27, 29, 33: Students who sought assistance through YourTutor, have a higher mean GPA than those who did not. Analysis not intended to suggest causation. Regards, Rowena Dr Rowena Harper Associate Director: Curriculum Development and Support | Teaching Innovation Unit President: Association for Academic Language and Learning | http://aall.org.au/ Ph: +61 8 8302 5556<tel:%2B61%208%208302%205556> | UniSA City West Campus | GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001 email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> |<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>%20%7C> http://people.unisa.edu.au/Rowena.Harper | CRICOS Provider Number 00121B From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Michael Larsen Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2017 9:03 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Yourtutor, your job? Dear colleagues, I have read this discussion with great interest and some dismay, and would like to clarify what appear to be some misconceptions about how our organisation functions, and how we collaborate and partner with academic support teams within Australian and UK universities. Firstly, I make reference to the document previously posted on this forum titled ‘Analysis of YourTutor’ and authored by colleagues from Victoria University (VU) in Melbourne, Australia. This document purported to be an academically rigorous evaluation, yet it was, in fact far from objective, and contained numerous misquotations and factual errors. This document did not receive ethics approval and has been withdrawn by VU from this forum. VU have advised that the document is the subject of an internal investigation. While we are still awaiting a formal statement from VU to correct the public record, we wish to address the various misunderstandings the document contained. YourTutor’s mission is to support universities to meet the learning support needs of their students. We work alongside existing academic learning support departments, and complement their work, primarily by providing supplemental learning experiences at times when they are not available - evenings and weekends. We do this via digital platforms and technology that contemporary students are increasingly using as a preferred mode of course delivery. Some egregious misstatements contained in the aforementioned document include the following: * Myth: We employ undergraduates to support students at our partner universities. * Fact: Every professional we employ to support our university partners is at least degree (Bachelor’s) qualified. Many have advanced degrees, including PhD’s, as well as other academic qualifications. Although we do employ some undergraduate tutors, they work exclusively with students at the 200+ high schools we support nationwide. * Myth: Our service is more like “peer support” than academic learning support. * Fact: Students use our service to gain assistance from subject matter and writing professionals who are rigorously screened, trained, background-checked, mentored and monitored to ensure they provide professional, consistent and high quality learning experiences that conform to our best practice expectations and standards. * Myth: There is no evidence YourTutor has a measurable impact on learning outcomes. * Fact: James Cook University recently presented the ethics-approved findings of their 2016 pilot study of our service at a UK conference (see attached presentation), which found statistically significant indicators that YourTutor positively impacted engagement and grade point average, and that this impact was increased for students who were less well prepared for tertiary study (i.e. lower entrance scores). * Myth: All YourTutor interactions are anonymous, so there’s no way to know who’s getting helped. * Fact: We integrate our service with each university’s LMS, so even though the tutor and student do not know each other (and this is highly beneficial from a learning perspective), we are able to provide specific data around students who access the service for assistance, including frequency, subject areas and impact of the learning experience. * Myth: YourTutor offers “quick fixes” and “scrubs” essays, which don’t deliver lasting results. * Fact: Our Writing Feedback service is fully transparent, continuously monitored and delivered via a bespoke platform that has a number of inbuilt tools to ensure the integrity and quality of the feedback provided. Our trained writing feedback specialists provide best practice feedback in relation to academic writing only, that is specific, detailed, understandable and ‘feed-forward.’ We do not review content (this is left to the experts within each institution). Our constructivist methodology ensures every interaction results in a sound educational outcome enabling students to use the feedback to amend current and improve future work. Examples of reviewed documents are available on request. * Myth: Providing YourTutor to students will reduce demand for campus-based support. * Fact: Provision of online support has no impact on demand for on-campus support. The James Cook University data conclusively demonstrates this and in fact, was considered to have supported JCU’s commitment to provide equity of access to essential learning support for all their students, including those living in regional or remote locations, online students, as well as other non-traditional student groups. For these learners, who could not access conventional on campus support, an online alternative is often the only choice and fills an important support gap. ……."Using HEPPP funding, many universities are providing academic support through online learning tools. For example, the YourTutor online tool is being used by 11 universities under the HEPPP to provide tutoring support to students after hours. The online tool supports flexibility around work schedules and family commitments, particularly enabling low SES and mature age students to access academic support" - Source: Acil & Allen Consulting, Evaluation of the Higher Education Participation & Partnerships Program. 2017.<https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/final_heppp_evaluation_report_2017.03.16_0.pdf?_cldee=bXByYWRlbGxhQHlvdXJ0dXRvci5jb20uYXU%3d&recipientid=contact-3e24cff9a523e61180e2c4346bb508dc-d3b95887317a4eb68682436367c94ce0&esid=e6e00d28-5a3f-e711-8118-e0071b66a691> In JCU’s case 28% of YourTutor users did not use any other university learning support service, and at other universities the proportion is much larger. There are many errors and claims in the VU document, yet it is extremely disappointing that the authors made no attempt to contact our organisation to address their concerns, or fact-check their assertions. YourTutor has been providing support to students from universities, libraries, high schools and technical colleges for the past 14 years. We have built trust and respect from the academic community with which we partner. I therefore want to close with an open invitation for anyone to contact me directly regarding any concerns you may have about our organisation and the services we provide. You can reach me at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>. Yours faithfully, Michael Larsen CEO, YourTutor ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.