Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Student and tutor perspectives of on‐line moderation

Student and tutor perspectives of on‐line moderation Purpose – The on‐line tutor or e‐moderator faces a diversity of new challenges, including instructional design, organisation, direct instruction and facilitating discourse. This study aims to contrast the views of students and tutors regarding what factors constitute effective e‐moderation in order to identify key attributes of an on‐line tutor. Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative methodology was adopted. The research utilised a semi‐structured interview technique to collect data contrasting and comparing the views of 35 students and 35 tutors on the constituents of effective e‐moderation. Findings – The paper finds that from a student perspective the quality of feedback, student support and module management were key attributes of an effective e‐moderator. In contrast tutors argued that motivating students, including the provision of constructive feedback and developing an engaging on‐line persona were critical to successful e‐moderation. Comparison revealed that students and tutors have a broadly similar view to what constitutes effective on‐line moderation and any disparities related to how these groups tended to interact with the learning environment. Students were concerned primarily with how moderation enabled them to engage with the learning environment whereas tutors tended to discuss effective moderation in terms of factors that facilitated the learning process. Originality/value – The study recognises the key attributes of an effective e‐moderator that should inform course design and tutor training. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Education + Training Emerald Publishing

Student and tutor perspectives of on‐line moderation

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/student-and-tutor-perspectives-of-on-line-moderation-pF5UPF0UGO
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0040-0912
DOI
10.1108/00400910610671915
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The on‐line tutor or e‐moderator faces a diversity of new challenges, including instructional design, organisation, direct instruction and facilitating discourse. This study aims to contrast the views of students and tutors regarding what factors constitute effective e‐moderation in order to identify key attributes of an on‐line tutor. Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative methodology was adopted. The research utilised a semi‐structured interview technique to collect data contrasting and comparing the views of 35 students and 35 tutors on the constituents of effective e‐moderation. Findings – The paper finds that from a student perspective the quality of feedback, student support and module management were key attributes of an effective e‐moderator. In contrast tutors argued that motivating students, including the provision of constructive feedback and developing an engaging on‐line persona were critical to successful e‐moderation. Comparison revealed that students and tutors have a broadly similar view to what constitutes effective on‐line moderation and any disparities related to how these groups tended to interact with the learning environment. Students were concerned primarily with how moderation enabled them to engage with the learning environment whereas tutors tended to discuss effective moderation in terms of factors that facilitated the learning process. Originality/value – The study recognises the key attributes of an effective e‐moderator that should inform course design and tutor training.

Journal

Education + Training – Emerald Publishing

Published: Apr 1, 2006

Keywords: E‐learning, Higher education, Students, Teachers

References

  • E‐learning developments and experiences
    Alexander, S.
  • Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context
    Anderson, T.; Rourke, L.; Garrison, D.R.; Archer, W.