Skype One-to-One Consultations for Academic Writing Support Durham University September 13 2016 Andy McKay

Skype Consultations Introduced in 2014-2015 to meet equality requirements, demand from disabled students and from those students studying at a distance from Durham Around 5% of total consultations. (1000+ per year) Considering offering the Skype service to all but wished to do some research.

Skype Consultations 45 minutes long: 3 per term Generally cover academic writing UG, MA, PhD. Students send texts for consideration beforehand Delivered by ELC Academic Writing tutors. Consultations handbook, development sessions and research to support consultants, observation system to support quality.

Investigating Skype consultations: Methodology Interviewed tutors to gain their perceptions of Skype consultations Developed interview schedule from existing literature Thematic analysis of interview texts (e.g. Bryman, 2008)

Four Themes Technology issues - Technical issues = low student satisfaction – rated lowest medium (Lee & Astle, 2014). Major issue for tutors + tutees (Salbego 2015) Quality / Interaction – Best practice = tutee engagement, tutor as ‘co-learner’, tutee note taking, issue + strategy negotiation, tutor + tutee peer relationship., ‘tutor as causal enquirer’.(Gillam et al. 1994; Thonus 2002; Thonus 1999; Weigle & Nelson 2004; Williams & Takaku 2011; Williams 2004; Williams & Severino 2004) Administration Service Development

Technology Majority of tutors initially apprehensive about technology All report technical difficulties – slow internet, screen freezing, screen share not working, impossible to send files, connection dropping. Slow computers. Software updates by CIS cause problems Majority of tutors unsure how to deal with tech problems and required assistance from admin or other tutors during consultation .

Technology However Tutees v. tolerant of tech issues – only one complaint – with extenuating circumstances -previous missed appointment Tutees assist tutor in resolving tech issues Less tech problems with home sessions Tech as ‘leveller’ between tutor + tutee? Important for tutor as co-learner, peer relationship

Quality / Interaction (1) All respondents consider Skype at least as effective as face to face All observed more student interaction, a more peer orientated relationship, more student note taking and questioning (Chung et al. 2006) , students ‘seeking clarification’ (Odo & Yi 2014) All considered sessions more ‘focused’, less pressure from students to proofread, less expectation of tutor ‘dominance’ (Thonus 1999b)

Quality / Interaction (2) Home sessions observed to be quite informal – blend of social and academic (Thonus 2008) Satisfaction with ‘outreach’ to distance students More tutor prep needed for Skype – soft copy text mark-up (Odo & Yi 2014) No perceived advantage to video – audio only equally successful

Unforeseen admin problems Administration Admin ( booking sessions, procedural instructions generally satisfactory) BUT Unforeseen admin problems Contact list confusing Lack of correspondence between student names and Skype names Only one Skype account – only one consultation per time slot – one tutor had to use personal Skype account Social messages from student contacts during sessions

Developments (1) Improve hardware Training for tutors -‘mock’ sessions Encourage home sessions - less tech problems, less formal environment more time flexible Individual tutor Skype accounts to improve admin + allow for service expansion

Developments (2) Further research into student perceptions Extend service to all students during vacations and out of hours for distance students Dedicated ‘Skype’ tutors Investigate alternative software i.e Google +

References Bryman, A. 2008 Social Research Methods 3rd Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Chung, G.K.W.K., Shel, T. & Kaiser, W.J., 2006. An exploratory study of a novel online formative assessment and instructional tool to promote students’ circuit problem solving. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(6), pp.1–26. Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-33845476071&partnerID=40&md5=35dd5faac1b1e59115ec315ad57636ff. Gillam, A., Callaway, S. & Wikoff, K.H., 1994. The Role of Authority and The Authority of Roles in Peer Writing Tutorials. Journal of Teaching Writing, 12(2), pp.161–198. Available at: http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriting/article/view/1150. Lee, C. & Astle, R., 2014. Favorable types of medium in corrective feedback on writing: Harness the power of technologies or continue the traditional ways? Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), pp.112–129. Available at: <Go to ISI>://KJD:ART001886805. Odo, D. & Yi, Y., 2014. Engaging in Computer-Mediated Feedback in Academic Writing: Voices from L2 Doctoral Students in TESOL. English Teaching, 69(3), pp.129–150. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Engaging+in+Computer-Mediated+Feedback+in+Academic+Writing+:+Voices+from+L2+Doctoral+Students+in+TESOL#0\nhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Engaging+in+Computer-Medi. Salbego, N.N., 2015. Skype TM Classes : Teachers and Students ’ Perceptions on Synchronous Online Classes in Relation to Face-to-face Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(3), pp.36–45.

References Thonus, T., 1999a. Dominance in Academic Writing Tutorials: Gender, Language Proficiency, and the Offering of Suggestions. Discourse & Society, 10(2), pp.225–248. Available at: http://das.sagepub.com/content/10/2/225.short. Thonus, T., 1999b. NS-NNS Interaction in Academci Writing Tutorials: Discourse Analysis and Its Interpretations. Thonus, T., 2002. Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is “success”? Assessing Writing, 8(2), pp.110–134. Weigle, S.C. & Nelson, G.L., 2004. Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3 SPEC.ISS.), pp.203–225. Williams, J., 2004. Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3 SPEC.ISS.), pp.173–201. Williams, J. & Severino, C., 2004. The writing center and second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3 SPEC.ISS.), pp.165–172. Williams, J.D. & Takaku, S., 2011. Help seeking, self-efficacy, and writing performance among college students. Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), pp.1–18.