Tutorials in a distance education system: students' expectations and preferred approaches

Fung, Y. YH & Carr, R.

Context:
On the basis of student survey data, the authors of this selection address several important issues regarding tutorials in open and distance learning. Among the issues are students' expectations and the preferred format of tutorials as well as reasons for attending them.

Source:
Fung, Y. YH & Carr, R. 1999. "Tutorials in a distance education system: students' expectations and preferred approaches," In Ronnie Carr, Olugbemiro J Jegede, Wong Tat-men and Yuen Kin-sun (eds.), Asian Distance Learner, Hong Kong: The Open University of Hong Kong Press, pp.151-163.

Copyright:
Reprinted with permission.

Methods
The study reported here is part of a much larger project which involves courses from all the Schools at the OUHK. In this case, the focus is only on two groups of BEd(Hons) students in the School of Education and Languages, viz:

• Group 1 This comprised all new students who had enrolled in a middle-level course1 on curriculum studies (referred to hereafter as the 'new students').
  
• Group 2 In this case, all the students had studied in the University for at least a year and were taking a higher-level course in educational administration (referred to hereafter as the 'higher-level students').

In both cases, the course lasted for an academic year.

Two questionnaires were administered, one at the beginning of each course, the other towards the end of the academic year. These were followed by semi-structured interviews with eight students to explore more deeply the reasons underlying their expectations and preferences.

The first questionnaire explored what students initially expected to gain from face-to-face tutorials and their preferred tutorial styles by asking them to:

• write down three expected gains from tutorials;
  
• rate (on a 5-point scale) the extent to which they preferred each of six given tutorial approaches.
  

This questionnaire was mailed to 142 new students of whom 45 responded (a 31.7% return rate) and to 300 higher-level students of whom 96 replied (a 32% return rate).

The second questionnaire examined three main issues:

• students' attendance at tutorials, and their reasons for doing so;
• how frequently each tutoring approach had been employed;
• students' overall ratings of the quality of tutorials.

It was sent only to those students who had returned the first questionnaire. In this case, 19 new students responded (return rate = 42.2%) and 57 higher-level students (return rate = 59.4%).

Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and for qualitative data (both from the open-ended parts of the questionnaires and from the interviews) the responses were categorized and the frequencies in each category counted.

Results

Responses to the first questionnaire

What students expected to gain from tutorials
Altogether 96 responses were identified from the questionnaires returned by the new students and 210 from those at the higher level. The responses from the two groups, which shared many common features, were categorized as in Table 1.

Table 1 Expectations about tutorials given by the two groups of students

As can be seen, in general, the highest percentages for both groups related to expectations that tutorials would help them to understand the course better - although only a limited number hoped to go beyond the coverage of the course materials, or gain greater insight into what had been learned. There was also a considerable expectation that such meetings would lead to enhanced achievement, particularly in continuous assessment. Finally, very few students expected tutorials to help them to enhance their study skills or build up social relationships/study groups.

Preferred formats for tutorials
The means and standard deviations of students' ratings of their preferences for six proposed formats for face-to-face tutorials are compared in Table 2.

Although the mean value for each item for the two groups of students varied slightly, none of these differences was found to be statistically significant. For both groups of students, the most preferred mode was clearly for the tutor to 'lecture to the whole group', followed by their 'giving individual guidance to students' and 'leading whole-group discussion using a Oquestion and answerO approach'. Overall, then, the results indicated that students preferred more tutor-centred formats, with approaches requiring more active participation and interaction among them - such as small-group discussion, role play or simulation games and, particularly, student presentations - being much less popular.

Responses to the second questionnaire

Percentage of tutorials attended, and reasons for attendance

Table 3 gives students' attendance rates for the two courses, and Table 4 reports their reasons for attending.

As Table 3 shows, student attendance at tutorials was relatively high, with 95% of new students, and over 70% of higher-level students, attending 75% or more of them.

The percentage of students in each group selecting one or more of ten listed reasons, and the rank order of importance of each reason, are presented in Table 4.

As Table 4 shows, both groups of students attended tutorials mainly for academic reasons, with 'listening to the tutor explaining the course materials' being cited by much higher percentages than was 'discussing course content' and 'sharing experience' with other students. Another very important reason for both groups attending tutorials related to course assessment, though there was a significant difference (p<.01) between the percentage of students in the two groups choosing 'receive guidance from tutors on examinations'. So, in the main, their reasons for attending related closely to their initial expectations; but, exceptionally, 'receiving guidance on study skills' was ranked fourth among the ten reasons for both groups of students - a much greater emphasis on this function of tutorials than had been evident earlier.

Psychological and social factors (the last three items in Table 4) were clearly of much more limited concern to students. However, even these relatively low ratings are significantly higher than was shown in their initial expectations - particularly for new students, where 'building up relationships with other students and forming study groups' did not figure at all (Table 1). The Table 4 findings probably reflect increased student awareness of the need for such psycho-social support during their first year of study, which reduces to some extent with greater experience of distance learning.

Extent to which each approach was used in tutorials
Students were asked to report on the extent to which each tutoring mode had been used during the year using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 'most of the time' to 5 'never'. The mean rank of each approach is presented in Table 5, as follows.

The results indicated that the approach that had been used most frequently with both groups was 'small-group discussion' organized by the tutor. Interestingly, the second most frequent approach with new students - 'lectures' - was ranked last for higher-level students; and the same reversal of order was found for 'whole-group discussion' which was placed second for higher-level students and last for new ones. This suggests that tutors have been adapting their tutoring styles to meet student needs, as the new students would be less familiar with a learning style which demands their active participation.
Overall rating of tutorials
Given students' expectations (Table 1), their preferred tutorial format (Table 2) and their reasons for attendance (Table 4), how did they rate the effectiveness of the tutorials they experienced?

As Table 6 shows, over 50% of students in both groups rated them as excellent or good, with another 37% of new students and 20% of higher-level students viewing them as satisfactory.

The interviews
Broadly speaking, the interview discussions reflected views similar to those indicated in the questionnaires. For example, as in their earlier responses, support for assessment was mentioned frequently. Also, though the term 'lecture' was seldom used, a knowledge-based, tutor-centred approach was generally favoured, at least for part of the tutorial time. A constant theme was the value of listening to a tutor 'providing information', 'picking out and explaining the main points and difficult concepts', and 'summarizing and explaining the content'. As one student said: 'We are accustomed to listening; it is more acceptable to us'. Also, several references were made to 'tiredness after work' - at which they, as teachers, had been 'talking all day' - as a reason for preferring tutors to take a rather directive approach.
However, most interviewees saw 'sharing through discussion' as also being helpful, though several commented on the importance of the order of events, e.g.

The tutor must talk about the main points first, then discussion can follow ... otherwise the discussion is futile.

It was admitted that the significance of this sequence derived in part from the fact that they were not always able to read the relevant materials beforehand because of lack of time, and so wanted an overview of the content to aid their later reading. However, it was attributed also to a need for confirmation that they had fully understood what they had studied, e.g.

We might have misunderstood the content and need someone to clarify it.
We like to listen to tutors to know clearly what is being taught in the course material.

The interviews provided some additional insights, though, given the small sample size, it is difficult to say to what extent the views expressed were shared by the students as a whole. For example, several interviewees appeared to be aware that they should participate more in tutorials than they did, e.g.

We know that we should be more active in discussion ... but some students are shy about talking in groups or giving presentations because they don't know the material well enough.
We understand that this (discussion) is good and correct, but E due to lack of time ... we cannot do it well.

Lastly, it appeared that, for many of the students, it was the quality of the discussion - some instances in which it had failed completely were mentioned - rather than the process of discussion per se which led them to prefer more direct tutor instruction; and even in the latter case, they drew a clear distinction between well-structured, lively and interesting presentations and disorganized ones.

Discussion
The tutorial attendance reported by both groups was high compared to that found in other similar studies (e.g. Hiola and Moss 1990; Morgan and Morris 1994). Not surprisingly, this was affected by the atypical geographical context in which distance education operates in Hong Kong - though it may also reflect Kember et al.'s contention that 'Hong Kong students are keen to attend tutorials'. Certainly, this study illustrated that local students value highly academic support from tutors who take them through the key points of the Study Units and give general guidance on their assignments at tutorials; and their high attendance rates suggest that tutors were meeting this expressed need.

The expectation that tutorials should focus on covering the course content and assignments is not uncommon among distance learners. For example, Stevenson, Sander and Naylor (1996) reported that a high proportion of the UK Open University (UKOU) students in their study expected tutors at tutorials to 'use course materials' and 'devote time to forthcoming course assignments'. Such views are understandable as adult learners are often faced with conflicting demands arising from their study, work and family commitments, and so may become rather 'instrumental' in their attitudes to learning; they tend to look for specific support and guidance from tutors to help them to complete their studies successfully.

The finding that students' first preference was for tutorials using a directive approach, particularly in the form of lectures, appears to confirm the general belief that Hong Kong students are compliant and passive. However, once again, not dissimilar results have been reported elsewhere. For example, eight out of ten interviewees in the UKOU study cited above preferred 'a well delivered lecture, with an opportunity for student questions'. Also Stevenson and Sander (1998) found that higher-level UKOU students wanted a mixture of lecture and discussion - if the latter had a clear focus; and they shared the OUHK students' relative dislike of, for example, 'role play/simulations'.

Small-group discussion was reported as the most frequently used approach in tutorials, although lectures ranked second for new students. It appears, therefore, that - particularly for the higher-level group - tutors often employed approaches which did not fully match students' preferences. In such a context, one might have expected their assessment of the quality of tutorials to be rather negative. However, over 50% of the students in each group rated them as 'excellent' or 'good'. This suggests that their stated preference for lectures may not have been as strong as it originally appeared, or that they had changed their views on suitable tutorial approaches as they progressed through their courses. It seems that most tutors were able to organize fruitful discussions which met the students' expectations of gaining greater understanding of the course materials and receiving clear guidance on assignments.