Impact of Tutor Running head: IMPACT OF TUTOR FEEDBACK ON LEARNER PARTICIPATION

1

Impact of Tutor Feedback on Learner Participation in Open Education Jennifer Maddrell Indiana University - Bloomington

Impact of Tutor Impact of Tutor Feedback on Learner Participation in Open Education Overview of Open Education A major “open education” movement is underway at numerous educational institutions around the world. A key objective of this movement is to make existing educational courseware and resources available for non-enrolled learners to access for free. At the recent 2007 Open Education conference in Logan, Utah, over 150 representatives from major universities and funding institutions came together to discuss the most efficient and sustainable means of releasing open educational courseware and resources to learners to use free of charge. While motivations vary, most institutions cite support for lifelong informal learning as a major reason for releasing their courseware and resources for free (Geser, 2007).

2

Currently, over 200 higher education institutions make available an estimated 2,500 open access courses (Wiley, 2007). In addition, open education directories and repositories outside of higher education link learners to thousands of free vetted learning objects, including those found at Rice’s Connexions (http://cns.org). However, these numbers pale in comparison to the millions of freely licensed articles, syllabi, web sites, and separate pieces of digital material which a learner can access at any time on the Internet. Open education represents a unique subset of education. Comparison to traditional instruction is difficult as open education is self-directed, non-tutored, delivered fully online, delivered outside of traditional educational institutions, participated in by individual learners who may or may not choose to participate in learning with peer learners, and undertaken for reasons other than mandates or accreditation. Each independent learner is free to come and go and participate purely for the sake of his or her own learning.

Impact of Tutor Given these unique features, the effectiveness and sustainability of these massive open education projects is being called into question. With millions of dollars of foundation, government, institutional, and personal funding supporting the current development, there is growing scrutiny over what open educational resources and practices best support this unique form of self-directed, non-credit, online, and informal learning (Geser, 2007). A key concern is the effect of offering open courseware without the tutor support that is typically made available within the traditional learning environment. Beyond access, what is the usefulness of the open

3

courseware and resources to learners without tutor feedback and guidance? Does the lack of tutor support matter to self-directed learners in an informal non-credit learning setting? Would tutor support impact learner participation within open education courses? As stated, open education represents a unique subset of education. While there is a lack of research specifically addressing the impact of tutor feedback on learner participation in open, self-directed, non-credit, and online courses, there are points of comparison within 3 separate research threads, including self-directed learning, learner self-regulation, and open and distance learning. As there are few examples of intersecting research across these threads, each thread is explored separately. Self-Directed Learning Open education is the ultimate form of self-directed learning. It is learning taken on and controlled by the learner for his or her own specific goals, needs, and wants. Over the past 4 decades, a vast amount of research has been conducted in the area of adult self-directed learning, including the desired learning and instructional practices to support self-directed learning. In a literature review of adult education research covering a period of 19 years from 1980 to 1998, about 1 percent of the total articles dealt with self-directed learning, peaking in 1986 at 3 percent,

Impact of Tutor but dropped to as few as zero in the most recent years (Brockett et al., 2000). Some attribute the decrease to a misinterpretation that self-directed learning is synonymous with isolated learning which makes self-directed learning seem out of step with recent research involving the social aspects of learning (Cho, 2002). To this last point, it is important to note that in a separate literature review of self-directed learning in adulthood, Owen (2002, p. 10) highlights the multitude of theoretical approaches to self-directed learning, including humanism, personal

4

responsibility orientation, behaviorism, neobehaviorism, critical perspectives and constructivism. Given this vast body of research and the array of theoretical approaches, it is little surprise that there is a broad range in research emphasis and findings. Candy’s Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning (1991) attempts to synthesis hundreds of studies over decades of self-directed learning research. Candy cites findings of research addressing the effect of learner support on self-directed learning and suggests that self-directed learners: … almost invariably turn to others for various forms of help. The research reviewed in this chapter suggests that those helping self-directed learners need to recognize … the success of a self-directed learning project depends largely on the extent and type of assistance obtained by individual learners, and on the quality of the personal relationships established between the learner and his or her helper(s). (Candy, 1991) There are many parallels between the goals for self-directed learning that have evolved over the past 4 decades of research and what is happening in open education practice today. Unfortunately, as noted above, the amount of research in adult self-directed learning to address these and other questions is far less than it was in years past. It is even more unfortunate when one considers that open education has just recently gained momentum. Open education would seem to be the perfect place to take up Brockett’s (2000) call for further research to explore self-

Impact of Tutor directed learning from a “naturalistic perspective”, as well as the fresh research to expand our

5

understanding of what comprises the “critical practices of self-directed learning” as called for by Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007). Self-Regulation and Feedback A vast amount of research has also been conducted on learner self-regulation. Research in this area explores the factors which influence the ability of a learner to set personal goals for learning, to self-monitor progress, and to regulate motivation, and to otherwise influence and structure his or her own learning environment (Driscoll, 2005). These factors are of particular interest to open education where the learner takes ultimate responsibility and control over his or her learning. Of specific interest to the question at hand is the effect of tutor feedback on the learner’s self-regulation. This was the focus of a comprehensive research review in the mid-1990s. Following this review, Butler & Winne (1995) suggest that, in terms of self-regulation, difficulties arise when learners “examine information about a task’s structure, adopt or set their own goals, select and implement the cognitive tasks and strategies that constitute learning, and monitor their performance” and that feedback is information with which a learner can “confirm, add to, overwrite, tune or restructure.” This sentiment is similar to that expressed by Artino (2007) following a recent comprehensive research review of self-regulation in online learning environments. In summarizing his review, Artino suggests that research of self-regulation in online environments mirrors the findings in traditional face to face classroom and … some of the highest quality research in online education seems to indicate that providing students with self-regulatory scaffolding can be an effective instructional

Impact of Tutor method—one that instructional designers might do well to consider including as integral to their online courses. (Artino, 2007) Online and Distance Learning While an abundance of research is available involving formal online and distance

6

educational programs in for-credit educational institutions, there is less research addressing open and distance learning in informal contexts. It is unclear if research regarding tutor support and learner participation in for-credit education is applicable to informal learning contexts where learners have motivations other than grades, educational mandates, and accreditation. The closest body of research to the open education is found within the Open Learning journal. Of particular interest are research reports from the Open University which include extensive studies involving their for-credit student participation and retention rates. As reported in a 2004 study of withdrawal rates at the Open University in the United Kingdom (UKOU), 13 percent of students dropped out before the class start date and in some courses the withdrawal rate between the start date and first assignment was as high as 30 percent (Simpson, 2004). The diverse student body within these open for-credit courses is found to regularly “mix and match” courses, leave and come back to the same or different program of study, skip exams and assessments, and leave entirely when they perceive they have learned enough (Tait, 2004). In addition, the Open University Institute of Educational Technology Student Research Centre reports that after the first tutorial session less than one-third of UKOU students generate additional contact with their assigned tutors and advisors (Simpson, 2004). Given that open education is non-credit, subject to open admission, and outside of a traditional educational institution, it is difficult to know what inferences can be made from the for-credit participation levels and retention rates. As a high level of choice and “openness” is the

Impact of Tutor goal of an open education program, it may not be appropriate to characterize the noted traits as necessarily bad or even fickle within the context of open education. Rather, learners may have gotten what they need and desire from the experience and moved on to their next educational endeavor. One could assume that the participation rates in non-credit open education courses would be at or below the rates of for-credit traditional online institutions. Learners have little stake, so they take what they want and leave. However, it is also plausible that informal learners who actively seek the educational resources come with relatively high intrinsic motivation for the topic and may engage at an even higher rate than for-credit learners. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the level or reasons for an open learner’s participation, including participation with a tutor. A lack of participation could be due to faster fulfillment of their need than expected or learner dissatisfaction with the experience. Following an extensive review of distance education research, Bernard (2004) suggested further exploration into learner “task choice, persistence, mental effort, efficacy and perceived task value” is needed. The same is true with regard to distance delivery of open education. Purpose of Research There are many parallels between open education and the key goals for self-directed

7

learning that have evolved over decades of study. The objectives of enhancing the ability of adult learners to be self-directed in their learning, fostering transformational learning through critical reflection, and promoting emancipated learning (Merriam et al., 2007) are goals shared by those in the open education movement. However, it appears further research is needed to explore selfdirected learning from a “naturalistic perspective” (Brockett, 2000) and to evaluate the critical practices of self-directed learning (Merriam et al., 2007). Certainly, this would apply to open

Impact of Tutor

8

education, as well. While the goals of self-directed open education are clear, the critical practices to support them are not. While research suggests that most self-directed learners reach out for help (Candy, 1991), that feedback can support a learner’s self-regulation (Butler & Winne, 1995), and that selfregulatory scaffolding can be an effective instructional method (Artino, 2007), tutor support data from the UKOU suggest that the vast majority of open education learners do not take full advantage of tutor support when it is offered (Simpson, 2004). Therefore, does it makes sense to spend time and money offering tutor support service that open education students do not want and may not use? Does the lack of tutor support matter to self-directed learners in an informal non-credit learning setting? Would tutor support impact learner participation within open education courses? A quantitative experimental research study is proposed to address these questions. The hypothesis is that open education learners who are offered tutor feedback support will participate at a higher level than open education learners who are not offered the tutor feedback support within the control group. The independent variable is tutor feedback provided during the course and the dependent variable is learner participation within the course. This proposed study will include registered learners enrolled in specific non-credit free classes at The Open University’s Open Learn Learning Space course management web site (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/). As one of the largest providers of open education, the Open University now offers hundreds of their online self-study course modules to learners free of charge on the Learning Space platform. The courseware and rich learning support options are nearly identical and include learner forums for asynchronous discussion, an instant message platform, free synchronous audio and video web conferencing tools, and space for an online

Impact of Tutor learning journal to post and share assignments. However, a significant difference is that learners at the non-credit Learning Space do not have access to tutors who play a major learner support and feedback role at the Open University. Method Learning Environment All visitors to the Learning Space web site have the option to either browse the course

9

material or register and enroll for any number of free self-directed classes. The course scope and duration varies from 4 to 50 hours across the Learning Space course offerings. Courses in this study will include only the self-directed courses listed in Figure 1. While these courses differ in terms subject matter, they are similar in terms of scope and duration. All are intermediate level self-directed courses designed to be completed in 50 hours over a 120 day period with no set start or end date. Figure 1. Course Name and Current (Not Study Participant) Enrollment Course Unit Name and Number
Key skills assessment unit: Making a difference (U529_1) Key skill assessment unit: Working with others (U077_1) Key skill assessment unit: Problem solving (U076_1) Key skills assessment unit: Application of number (U075_1) Key skill assessment unit: Information literacy (U074_1) Key skill assessment unit: Information technology (U073_1) Key skill assessment: Communication (U072_1) Key skill assessment: Improving your own learning and performance (U071_1) Active learners in all key skill assessment courses

Number of Active Learners as of 11/01/2007 53 44 24 17 15 18 31 37 239

Participants Participants in this study will include only those learners who select to register on the Learning Space course management system and enroll within the self-directed courses listed in

Impact of Tutor Figure 1. For a two month period, all learners enrolling in one of the courses in Figure 1 on the Learning Space web site will be randomly assigned to either the experimental (tutor) or the control group (no tutor). The initial registration process for participants involves completion of less than ten fill in and check boxes in an online registration within the Moodle course management system, including required fields for the participant’s first name, last name, town,

10

country, e-mail address, desired password. Other items and questions appear on the registration form, but participants have the option of leaving the remaining sections blank. Upon registration, the learner sets a unique log on ID which must be entered each time the student logs onto the Learning Space web site in order to gain full access to the site and enrolled courses. Enrollment into individual course units involves an additional step of selecting the enrollment hyperlink and then making a selection within a pop up box that instructs the learner to either a) “Click ‘Yes’ below if you want to add this unit to your list and participate in the associated activities and discussions”, or b) “Click ‘No’ just to browse the material.” Actual participant enrollment for the study is not known as it is dependent upon the rolling registration and enrollment during the period of the study. Current learner enrollment provides a sense of the participant level in each of the classes, as shown in Figure 1. It is important to note that if a learner does not visit a unit for more than 60 days he or she is automatically unenrolled. Therefore, the active learner enrollment numbers shown in Figure 1 include only registered and enrolled learners who visited the online unit between 09/01/07 and 10/31/07. The participation goal for the study is enrollment at the current course enrollment levels. However, since actual enrollment during the period of the study cannot be predicted, a minimum participation level of 100 enrolled learners will determine whether or not the study is conducted.

Impact of Tutor

11

Design of Study A quantitative experimental research study is proposed with a single variable, tutor feedback. Learners in the study will either be provided tutor feedback or not. Independent variable. Tutor feedback will be offered to the learners in the experimental group for a period of 120 days after enrollment. Tutor feedback will not be offered to learners in the control group. A tutor from the pool of tutors currently employed to tutor courses within the Open University will be randomly assigned to support the learner. The tutor will be instructed to respond only to direct inquiries and feedback requests initiated from the learner about content covered in the unit. The tutor will review and provide feedback on items sent directly to the tutor by the learner for review, but the tutor will not review items posted in the learner’s personal online learning journal nor will the tutor engage in the full group discussion forum or in group synchronous text, audio or video sessions. For each inquiry received from a learner within the experimental group, the tutor will tally the number of feedback responses he or she makes and record the total time it took to prepare the response. This information will provide data on the level of tutor engagement for each learner in the experimental group in terms of both a) frequency of feedback (the total number of feedback responses) and b) depth of feedback (the total time required to prepare the response). Dependent variable. Learner participation will be measured for both the experimental (tutored) and control (non-tutored) groups. The registered and enrolled learners in both the experimental and control groups will have free access to the course material, an online learner forum discussion board, an instant messaging platform, audio and web based video conferencing, and an online space to prepare an online learning journal within the course management system.

Impact of Tutor At two points in time, first at 60 days from course enrollment and the second at 120 days from course enrollment each learner’s participation data will be collected based on the measurement criteria outlined in Figure 2 and described below. Figure 2. Learner Participation for Experimental and Control Groups No Tutor Tutor Support Support (Experimental) (Control) Days from enrollment in Course 60 120 60 120 days days days days (measured by)Learner Participation
1. Enrolled in Class (Counted as 0=Unenrolled or 1=Enrolled) 2. Participation in Learner Discussion Forum (Total Number of Posts) 3. Participation in Learning Journal (Total Number of Posts) 4. Participation in Instant Messaging (Total Number of Sent Messages) 5. Participation in Web Conferencing (Total Number of Meetings) 6. Frequency of Visits to Web Site (Number of Total Log ins to Web Site) 7. Extent of visits to unit: (Number of Total Page Views in Unit) 8. Participates in Rating the Unit (Counted as 0=Did Not Rate or 1=Rated)

12

Enrolled in Class. On the 60th and 120th day from enrollment, the learner’s enrollment status will be measured. A learner has the option on the course web site to unenroll in a course at any time. In addition, if a learner does not visit an enrolled course unit for more than 60 days, he or she is automatically unenrolled from the course. Otherwise, the learner’s log on ID will remain within the learner roster for the course. The measure will be “0” if the learner is unenrolled from the course or “1” if the learner is currently enrolled in the course. Participation in Learner Discussion Forum. On the 60th day from enrollment (measuring from enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring from day

Impact of Tutor 61 through day 120), the learner’s total number of posts in the online learner discussion forum

13

will be measured. The measure will be the total number of posts the learner makes in the online learner discussion forum during the two time periods. Participation in Learning Journal. On the 60th day from enrollment (measuring from enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring from day 61 through day 120), the learner’s participation in the online learning journal will be measured. The measure will be the total number of entries the learner makes in the online learning journal during the two time periods. Participation in Instant Messaging. On the 60th day from enrollment (measuring from enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring from day 61 through day 120), the learner’s participation in the online instant messaging platform will be measured. The measure will be the total number of sent entries the learner makes in the online instant messaging platform during the two time periods. Participation in Web Conferencing. On the 60th day from enrollment (measuring from enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring from day 61 through day 120), the learner’s participation in online web conferencing will be measured. The measure will be the total number of web conferencing meetings the learner attends during the two time periods. Frequency of Visits to Web Site. On the 60th day from enrollment (measuring from enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring from day 61 through day 120), the frequency of the learner’s log ins to the Learning Space web site will be measured. The measure will be the total number of log ins to the Learning Space web site during the two time periods.

Impact of Tutor

14

Extent of visits to unit. On the 60th day from enrollment (measuring from enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring from day 61 through day 120), the extent of the learner’s visits to course unit will be measured. The measure will be the total number of page views within the course unit content during the two time periods. Participates in Rating the Unit. On the 60th and 120th day from enrollment, the learner’s participation in rating the unit will be measured. The measure will be “0” if the learner has not completed the online course rating form or “1” if the learner has completed the online course rating form. Procedures For a two month period, all learners enrolling in one of the courses in Figure 1 on the Learning Space web site will be randomly assigned to either the experimental (tutor) or the control group (no tutor). Upon enrollment, both the participants in the experimental and control groups will be taken to the course’s main web page which provides an introduction with instructions and recommendations on how to proceed through the lesson. Participants in the experimental group will also receive an additional pop up message informing them that they will have access to a tutor from the Open University and to expect an e-mail with additional information about the tutor support and the tutor’s contact information. An e-mail outlining details of the feedback support, along with the tutor’s contact information, will be automatically generated and e-mailed to both the learner and the randomly assigned tutor. The self-directed courseware module and learning tools for each group will be identical. Learners in both groups will progress through the module at their own pace based on the instructions provided in the unit. Each course covers key life skills. Learners are provided with recommended skill development strategies and are asked to establish detailed plans to improve

Impact of Tutor their skills and performance and to produce a personal portfolio to monitor their progress and evaluate their own strategy. They are also invited to share their ideas, progress, and questions

15

with peers in the course and to seek outside mentors to help them evaluate their individual plans and portfolio. Learners in the control group will complete the module without the offer of tutor support. Learners in the tutor supported experimental group may contact their assigned tutor at any time during the 120 days for feedback on their individual portfolio. Evaluating the Data As described above, for each inquiry received from a learner within the experimental group, the tutor will tally the number of feedback responses he or she makes and record the total time it took to prepare the response. This information will be aggregated and provide information on the level of tutor engagement for all learners in the experimental group in terms of both a) the frequency of feedback (the total number of feedback responses) and b) depth of feedback (the total time required to prepare the response). The level of tutor engagement will be evaluated based on: a) the percentage of learners in the experimental group who requested tutor feedback, b) the average frequency of feedback (the total number of feedback responses divided by the number of learners in the experimental group who requested feedback), and c) the average depth of feedback (the total time required to prepare the responses divided by the total number of feedback responses). While estimates of the frequency and depth of feedback requests and responses are unclear, given the historical tutor support data from UKOU, it is estimated that approximately 30% of the learners offered tutor support will take advantage of it. In addition, at two points in time, first at 60 days from course enrollment and second at 120 days from course enrollment, each learner’s individual participation will be measured based on the criteria outlined in Figure 2. The data for each learner will be aggregated for both the

Impact of Tutor Tutored and No Tutor Support groups to compare participation levels for all learners in all courses in the study, as outlined in Figure 3 and described below. Figure 3. Overall Learner Participation for Experimental and Control Groups

16

Tutor Supported No Tutor Support (Experimental) (Control) Days from enrollment in Course 60 120 60 120 days days days days (measured by)Learner Participation
1. Enrolled in Class a. Total number enrolled during study b. Total number currently enrolled c. Retention rate 2. Participation in Learner Discussion Forum a. Total Number of Posts b. Average participation per learner 3. Participation in Learning Journal a. Total Number of Posts b. Average participation per learner 4. Participation in Instant Messaging a. Total Number of Sent Messages b. Average participation per learner 5. Participation in Web Conferencing a. Total Number of Attended Sessions b. Average participation per learner 6. Frequency of Visits to Web Site a. Total Number of Total Log ins to Web Site b. Average visits per learner 7. Extent of visits to unit: a. Number of Total Page Views in Unit b. Average course unit page views per learner 8. Participates in Rating the Unit a. Total number of completed unit ratings b. Unit Rating completion rate

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Data evaluation at the two snapshots in time will allow an assessment of learner participation at both the anticipated half way point and the completion point of a 120 day course unit. Given the decreasing retention and tutor participation rates over time from the previously

Impact of Tutor

17

mentioned studies, it is anticipated that the level of participation will decline over time for both groups. Yet, given the hypothesis that open education learners who are offered tutor feedback support will participate at a higher level than open education learners who are not offered the tutor feedback support, it is assumed that the participation levels will be higher overall for the Tutored Supported group than the No Tutor Support group at both the 60 and 120 day snap shots. The following further describes the data evaluation and estimated outcome of the participation measures listed in Figure 3. Enrollment and Retention in Course. Total enrollment in the study’s courses will be captured based the total number of students: 1) enrolled during the study period (estimated to be between the minimum study participation level of 100 and the current enrollment of 240), 2) enrolled at 60 days past the original enrollment date, and 3) enrolled at 120 days past the original enrollment date. Capturing the total number of currently enrolled learners at three snapshots in time will allow a comparison of active enrollment and retention rates between the Tutor Supported and No Tutor Support groups over time. Retention rates for both the Tutor Supported and No Tutor Support groups will be determined based on the total enrollment numbers at both 60 and 120 days past the original enrollment divided by the total number of learners who enrolled during the study period. Given previous studies of retention rates in open education courses, it is assumed that retention rates will decline over time for both groups. Yet, given the hypothesis that open education learners who are offered tutor feedback support will participate at a higher level than learners who are not offered the tutor feedback support, it is assumed that the retention rates will be higher for the Tutored Supported group at both the 60 and 120 day snap shots.

Impact of Tutor Participation in Learner Discussion Forum, Learning Journal, Instant Messaging, and Web Conferencing. The total number of learner discussion posts, learning journal posts, sent instant messages, and attended web conferences on the 60th day from enrollment (measuring participation from enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring participation from day 61 through day 120) will allow an analysis of the average participation rates between the Tutor Supported and No Tutor Support groups. Average participation rates per learner will be determined for each measure by separately dividing the

18

total participation levels for each group at the 60 and 120 day snap shots by the respective total number of currently enrolled students. Given the hypothesis that open education learners who are offered tutor feedback support will participate at a higher level than learners who are not offered the tutor feedback support, it is assumed that the average participation rate per learner will be higher for the Tutor Supported group at all participation measures at both the 60 and 120 day snap shots. Frequency of Visits to Web Site. The total number of learner log ins to the Learning Space web site will be measured on the 60th day from enrollment (measuring total log ins from the enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring total log ins from day 61 through day 120) for learners in both the Tutor Supported and No Tutor Support groups. The average visit per learner will be determined by dividing the total log ins for each group at the 60 and 120 day snap shots by the respective total number of currently enrolled students. Given the hypothesis that open education learners who are offered tutor feedback support will participate at a higher level than learners who are not offered the tutor feedback support, it is assumed that the average number of log ins to the Learning Space web site per learner will be higher for the Tutor Supported group at both the 60 and 120 time periods.

Impact of Tutor

19

Extent of visits to unit. The extent of the learner visits to the course unit will be measured based on total number of page views within the course unit for all learners in both the Tutor Supported and No Tutor Support groups. The total number page views for all learners within the course unit will be measured on the 60th day from enrollment (measuring total page views within the unit from the enrollment day through day 60) and on the 120th day from enrollment (measuring total page views within the unit from day 61 through day 120) for learners in both the Tutor Supported and No Tutor Support groups. The average page views per learner will be determined by dividing the total page views for all learners in each group at the 60 and 120 day snap shots by the respective total number of currently enrolled students. Given the hypothesis that open education learners who are offered tutor feedback support will participate at a higher level than learners who are not offered the tutor feedback support, it is assumed that the average page views per learner will be higher for the Tutor Supported group at both the 60 and 120 time periods. Participates in Rating the Unit. The total number of learners who participate in the rating the unit will be measured at both the 60th and 120th day from enrollment. Participation rates for both the Tutor Supported and No Tutor Support groups will be determined based on the total number of learners in the study who rated the unit as of both the 60th and 120th days from enrollment divided by the total number of learners who enrolled during the study period. Given the hypothesis that open education learners who are offered tutor feedback support will participate at a higher level than learners who are not offered the tutor feedback support, it is assumed that more Tutor Supported learners will complete the unit rating at both the 60 day and 120 day snapshots.

Impact of Tutor

20

References Artino, Anthony. (2007). Self-Regulated Learning in Online Education: A Review of the Empirical Literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, Vol. 4. No. 6. Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_07/article01.htm Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovsk, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How Does Distance Education Compare with Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/publications/?id=474 Brockett, R. G., Stockdale, S. L., Fogerson, D. L., Cox, B. F., Canipe, J. B., Chuprina, Larissa, et al. (2000). Two Decades of Literature on Self-Directed Learning: A Content Analysis.. Paper presented at the International Self-Directed Learning Symposium (14th, February 3 – 5, 2000, Boynton Beach, Florida): University of Tennessee. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&ERICExtSearch_Sear chValue_0=Canipe&searchtype=basic&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&_pageLabel =RecordDetails&objectId=0900019b800c2170&accno=ED449348&_nfls=false Brockett, R. G. (2000). Is it Time to Move On? Reflections on a Research Agenda for Self-Directed Learning in the 21st Century. Procedings of the 41st Annual Adult EducationResearch Conference. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/2000/brockettr-web.htm Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245. Retrieved from http://bert.lib.indiana.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=eric&AN=EJ515490&site=ehost-live

Impact of Tutor Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning a comprehensive guide to theory and

21

practice. The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cho, D. (2002). The Connection between Self-Directed Learning and the Learning Organization. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(4), 467. Retrieved from http://bert.lib.indiana.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=eric&AN=EJ658640&site=ehost-live Cox, B. F., Canipe, J. B., Stockdale, S. L., Donagby, R. C., Fogerson, D. L., & Brockett, R. G. (2003). A Collaborative Research Effort in Self-Directed Learning. Adult Learning, 14(4), 20-22. Retrieved from http://bert.lib.indiana.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=aph&AN=23265900&site=ehost-live Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-Learner Interaction in Online Courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79. Retrieved from http://bert.lib.indiana.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=aph&AN=25084207&site=ehost-live Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon. Geser, G. E. (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources. OLCOS Roadmap, 2012: 150. Retrieved from http://www.databeuro.com/acatalog/info_38.html Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in adulthood a comprehensive guide. The Jossey-bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Impact of Tutor

22

Owen, T. R. (2002). Self-Directed Learning in Adulthood: A Literature Review.. Retrieved from http://bert.lib.indiana.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t rue&db=eric&AN=ED461050&site=ehost-live Roberson, D. (2005). Self-Directed Learning--Past and Present. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordD etails&objectId=0900019b800ef762&accno=ED490435&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_ 0=ED490435&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno Simpson, O. (2004). The Impact on Retention of Interventions to Support Distance Learning Students. Open Learning, 19(1), 79. Retrieved from http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=NE5UMNMP4B T9W3T6 Stevenson, K., MacKeogh, K., & Sander, P. (2006). Working with Student Expectations of Tutor Support in Distance Education: Testing an Expectation-Led Quality Assurance Model. Open Learning, 21(2), 139. Retrieved from http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=R541J73T7385T 261 Wiley, D. (2007). On the Sustainability of Open Educational Resource initiatives in Higher education: 21 Paper commissioned by the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/9/38645447.pdf

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times