Data arising from interviews with UPLs relating to Student-to-tutor

The first theme that arose from the interviews in relation to NL and the element of interactions with tutors was that tutors’ communications with students were often one directional and that there was not an expectation of interaction. Communications were frequently described as emails in which students were informed of tasks or reading that needed to be completed. The following extract illustrates this point, it also implies that tutors are willing to assume that such interactions will result in learning without the need for students to respond.

I will send them messages, I will reiterate expectations. So, for marking and feedback, I said,

“You are going to be getting your feedback back on this date, this is what you can expect”. So,

it was just reiterating those messages. (Interview with UPL for Preston)

These comments did not exclusively define tutor interactions with students as there were examples where tutors had engaged in sustained conversation with students via email. Where these were reported, they were focussed on pastoral issues rather than directly with

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Placement issues Social contact with peers contact with mentor keeping in touch

How have you used SMS / text to support your learning?

77 student learning. The following extract summarises this. It aligns with the data from student group interviews where there were reports of students commenting on the value of regular email contact with their tutor.

But the follow up has been emails. So, after I have set it up, I have kept contact saying ‘how are things?’ ‘hope they are going well’ ‘let me know’ and they have said, they have responded. So,

there has been a bit of a dialogue. (Interview with UPL for Burton)

It is possible that the majority of tutor communications were reported as being one directional because tutors appeared to recognise the primacy of face-to-face teaching and the importance which students attach to this.

Our time with the students is so much about delivering content. However much we say it about

facilitation, which it is, but it is still ‘this is the session title, these are the learning outcomes, this is what you will get from it’ (Interview with UPL for Preston)

This example shows how, even in the face-to-face teaching, the locus of control rests with the tutor and would be aligned with the one-directional flow of communication between tutors and students.

In addition to interactions around teaching, interactions around the assessment process form an important part of the learning process. Here the use of Turnitin for the assessment and feedback process raised some key points. Some tutors felt that it wasn’t a useful tool for supporting a dialogue about student learning.

But I don’t think it encourages the student to actually respond to any of it. I don’t think there is

an opportunity for a learning conversation. (Interview with UPL for Preston)

Whilst others were anxious about the ability of written comments to truly convey an accurate portrayal of the intended meaning of feedback.

Yeah, and you think you have been really clear in what you have said but it is their

interpretation of it at the end of the day, and, you know, they can interpret it differently. Even if you think you have been really clear! (Interview with UPL for Carlisle)

The students have provided the work, you have given dialogue on it but for them it requires that face-to-face discussion to help the students really understand what is needed. (Interview with UPL for Burton)

This would lead to attempts to engage the students in dialogue about their assignments in order to arrive at a shared understanding of the feedback. Again, this highlights the primacy that tutors give to face-to-face communications. Whilst tutors have offered opportunities for dialogue about feedback, responses from students have been mixed.

78

I have had to say ‘contact me, let me know what you would like’ you know, we can talk on the phone if need be, we can Skype, whatever so it’s, you know you can offer, but there is definitely

some in there who I am thinking ‘you didn’t do well, I hope you understand’ so I have written an email that says ‘you really need to be sure that you have understood fully what the feedback means’ and you don’t get, […] any comment back (Interview with UPL for Fylde)

There is only one who has got in touch and she has arranged a tutorial (Interview with UPL for Carlisle)

In addition to tutors typically engaging in one directional communications and having a greater regard for face-to-face contact, they also place limitations on the format of communications with students. The resistance to interact with students on Facebook is grounded in the need to maintain proper professional relationships with students as acknowledged by the following example.

I’m not part of their Facebook group. In terms of professional distance, I wouldn’t want to be

either. (Interview with UPL for Preston)

Tutors also attempt to model professional approaches to appropriate times during which communications should take place, for example, through the clarification of office hours. This is evidently a different approach to that taken by mentors who students talked about contacting during evenings to discuss planning.

I’ll be perfectly honest, I’ll say to them, ‘right, my working week is 9-6 Monday to Thursday, 9-5

on a Friday (except when I am here with you of course)’ But I don’t work weekends. I do, but they don’t need to know that. I don’t do my emails at weekends (Interview with UPL for Carlisle)

The most common technology tool used to communicate with students is their university provided email account. Again, this is grounded in reasons of professionalism and security.

Q - Email, is that your primary form of communication?

Yeah, that is all I use and all we encourage them to use, partly because you have got that security of it coming through the university system. (Interview with UPL for Carlisle)

But again at induction we say, “Right, from now on, the only emails you will get, will come to your student account. You can forward that to your personal email, that is fine. But, you know,

that is all we are going to use” (Interview with UPL for Carlisle)

In addition to university email accounts, there were mixed views about the use of mobile phone to maintain contact with students. Some indicating that they would never consider it, some that it would be OK if it were a phone provided by the university and others who have given out personal phone details in specific cases. Again, these examples are to be

79 contrasted to feedback given by students about the frequency with which they contact mentors via mobile phone.

Q - Do the students use anything different? Do they have your mobile? No.

But if you are getting a new university phone … ?

I might then give them my number (Interview with UPL for Burton)

In certain cases, where there have been real issues, I have given my mobile number. Because I am not in the office very much. I am very rarely in my office so I either give them my mobile or it is going to be home so it is one or the other (Interview with UPL for Fylde)

Key points that can be drawn from this data are that UPLs readily acknowledge that most of their communications with students are one directional. That is, they are the ones to initiate the interaction and that the nature of the communication does not typically lend itself to a response from students. Despite the availability of a range of technologies to facilitate interactions with students, UPLs will typically select email, citing concerns over

professionalism and privacy in relation to other technologies such as SNS or SMS. One area where UPLs interact strongly with students via technology is through Turnitin, however, even here, tutors will revert to face-to-face interactions if detailed discussions about feedback are required. All of which is suggests that tutors do not see the potential of interactions facilitated by technologies to have great value in learning.