You are here

Home » Content

A Case Study of E-tutors’ Teaching Practice: Does Technology Drive Pedagogy?

A Case Study of E-tutors’ Teaching Practice: Does Technology Drive Pedagogy?

Journal Name:

  • International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This article presents a case study of e-tutoring teaching practice during a 20-week e-tutoring program aimed at improving the English proficiency of targeted students. The study revealed what and why certain online tools were used by e-tutors and investigated how different technological proficiency and face-to-face (f2f) teaching experience shaped e-tutors’ teaching practices in cyberspace. Data were collected through transcriptions of each recorded synchronous Skype teaching session, interviews of e-tutors, project artefacts, and e-tutors’ weekly memos. Results showed that use of Skype establishes a social presence in e-tutor and e-tutee instructional relationships and that online broadcasting is often equivalent to online teaching for e-tutors who are comfortable and familiar with face-to-face teaching environments. In addition, technology has shaped the teaching practice of e-tutors. This finding implies an adapted framework of technological pedagogical content knowledge for etutors to maximise the benefits of the designed online tutoring environments.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_170075_3_pp_75-82.pdf
  • 1
75-82
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Barker. P (2002): On being an online tutor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(1), 3-13.
Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational
Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., Gregg, J. (2001). The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the
factor structure and concurrent validity. Paper presented at Presence 2001, October 9-11, Philadelphia,
USA.
Chang, W.-C. (2002). Causes of the bimodal phenomena of basic competence test for junior high school
students. Entrance Exam Committee News 16. Taiwan: Taipei.
Chuang, H.-H., Yang, Y.-F., & Liu, H.-C. (2009). What digital divide factors matter in the motivation to use
technology to learn English? A case of low SES young learners in Taiwan. Advanced Distance
Education Technologies, 2009, 721-725.
Denard, H. (2003). E-tutoring and the transformations in online learning. Interactions, 7, 2. Retrieved September
3, 2010, from
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/cap/resources/pubs/interactions/archi...
Denis, B., Watland, P., Pirotte, S., & Verday, N. (2004). Roles and competencies of the e-tutor [WWW
document]. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from
http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/s...
s_et_al.htm
Flowers, A. T. (2007). NCLB spurs growth in online tutoring options. School Reform News, January 1. The
Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20426.
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: Sage.
Heilbronn, M., & Libby, W. (1973). Comparative effects of technological and social immediacy upon
performance and perceptions during a two-person game. Paper presented at the annual convention of
the American psychological association, Montreal.
Johnson, G. M., & Bratt, S. E. (2009). Technology education students: e-tutors for school children. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 32-41.
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing tpck. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.),
The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpck) for educators (pp. 3-29).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lee, M., & Tsai, C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content
knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1-21.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage.
Livingstone, S. (2004). Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies.
The Communication Review, 7, 3-14.
Mason, R. (1991). Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS, 1(19).
Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason.html.
McMann, G.W. (1994). The changing role of moderation in computer mediated conferencing. In The
proceedings of the distance learning research conference covering the world with educational 82 Chuang
opportunities (pp.159-166). College Station, TX: Department of Educational Human Resource
Development, Texas A & M University.
McPherson, M. A., & Nunes, J. M. B. (2004). The role of tutors as an integral part of online learning support.
European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Maggie_MsP.html
Miller, S. M., & Miller, K. L. (2000). Theoretical and practical considerations in the design of web-based
instruction. In B. Abbey (Ed.). Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based instruction (pp. 156–
177). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher
Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Odeh, S., & Ketaneh, E. (2007). Collaborative Working e-Learning Environments Supported by Rule-Based eTutor. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 3(4).
Pyle, R. C., & Dziuban, C. D. (2001). Technology: Servant or master of the online teacher? Library Trends,
50(1), 130-144.
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching (5th edition).
Boston MA: Ally & Bacon.
Salmon, G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online: Routledge.
Taylor, J. C. (1995). Distance education technologies: The fourth generation. Australian Journal of
Educational Technology, 11(2), 1-7.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com