Was it necessary to go all the way to Australia?

Ruth Soetendorp, Bournemouth University, and Bill Childs, University of Technology, Sydney

In this two-handed paper Ruth describes her experience as an online novice, taken into an online teaching team to assist with assessment and stimulate participation in non-graded online activities. Bill describes his work as mentor, providing her with a rich learning and practical (‘hands-on’) developmental experience of the online environment in which he works. Ruth presented an updated version of her part of the paper at the 2003 Society of Legal Scholars annual conference.

Ruth Soetendorp – the online novice’s tale

In 2001 I was a recipient of a National Teaching Fellowship Scheme award. The selection process was in two stages. Stage 1 involved submitting one’s philosophy of learning and teaching, together with supporting evidence from colleagues and students. At stage 2 details had to be submitted of the project on which one would spend the £50K award, if successful.

My discipline is law, my specialism is intellectual property rights (IPR), and my interest in IPR is in how to share it with non-lawyers, the people who should be entitled to understand the basic workings of the rights they will be expecting to generate and use. In 1999 we introduced a Masters in Intellectual Property Management at Bournemouth. “It sounds like a great course. Is it available online? Or do I have to come all the way to Bournemouth?” I was becoming increasingly frustrated at having to reply to potential students in the negative. Online delivery is a faculty strategic aim over 2000-2004, but we do not yet have any courses that are delivered entirely online, with no element of face to face contact. I wanted one element of my National Teaching Fellowship project proposal to include the opportunity to experience online delivery. I wanted it, if possible, to be in Australia, given their unparalleled history of facilitating learning amongst students with no expectation of face-to-face tutor contact.

It took a year from receiving the award in July 2001 to presenting myself in July 2002 at the University of Technology Sydney’s Faculty of Law, at the door of my ‘mentor’ for ten weeks, Bill Childs. Bill, together with his colleague at UTS, Prof Phil Griffiths, teaches a professional intellectual property course almost entirely online. They invited me to join the course delivery team as an ‘online tutor’. Bill would act as my ‘mentor’, to be my guide and safety net in my encounters with the online delivery experience.

As faculty Head of Learning and Teaching at Bournemouth, I was particularly aware of the challenges involved in bringing an entire team, not just the enthusiasts, to engage with new learning and teaching developments. Many lecturers fear the apparent lack of structure in the modern, online environment, whilst not realising that it was said of Socrates, 2000 years ago:

“He didn’t organise a lecture room, sit in a lecturer’s chair, or announce a fixed hour for his seminars or classes with his students.”

— (Ferguson, 1970)

A number of commentators point out that:

“The traditional role of the university lecturer (the sage on the stage) is inappropriate for online courses and units, in which the lecturer quite naturally becomes a facilitator (the guide on the side).”

— (Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, 2002b)

This change of role can be quite intimidating, and I looked forward to the UTS experience allowing me to ‘live alongside’ a faculty team whilst it was being encouraged to engage with online delivery.

The UTS Intellectual Property course

The UTS Intellectual Property course is a professionally accredited programme for aspiring patent and trade mark attorneys. It is the only such programme in Australia, available online. Practising attorneys are required to teach (part time) as unit lecturers and are responsible for the determination of course content, design and delivery. They select the lecture material and post it online, and they are also responsible for devising week by week coursework activities and the setting of summative assessments. Bill Childs is responsible for managing the programme, and one of his challenges has been online delivery, using a teaching team with varying, or no, experience of asynchronous teaching or learning. One method he has developed is to team online tutors with ‘online averse’ practitioners, which has invariably resulted in beneficial peer learning.

UTSOn-line, the principal e-learning tool at UTS, uses the Blackboard virtual learning environment, which provides ‘discussion boards’ for computer moderated conference activities.

Trade Mark Practice unit online discussion group assessment

I agreed to work as ‘online tutor’ on the Trade Mark Practice unit, alongside an Australian trade mark practitioner, Lecturer X (LX). Bill, as, was copied in to all e-mail exchanges between me and LX, and had ‘tutor rights’ to all the unit discussion boards. I had an opportunity to experience at first hand being a member of a distance learning team:

“As (online delivery) team members, instructors often find that far more time and attention to detail are required than for f2f courses.”

— (Kerka and Wonacott, 2000)

LX had taught the course previously, face to face, but had no online delivery experience. S/he had prepared the lecture material for the course and had begun to think about the assessment exercise for the student’s assessable online discussion group. The unit comprised 61 students. I volunteered to manage this assessment exercise, using the question s/he had chosen.

LX intended to post the following to the students’ discussion board, and submitted it first for consideration by Bill and me:

Assessable online discussion group (participation is worth 20% of your result)

A question/discussion topic will be posted by LX by week 3, and students have until Monday 23 September to post a comment or response of 300-400 words. This may include comment on other students’ responses. Students then have until Monday 21 October to post a second response or comment of 100-200 words. A word of warning – with such small word limits, the quality of your comments will be crucial. To keep the online discussion manageable, the class will split alphabetically into three separate discussion groups of roughly similar size, as follows: surnames A – F group 1, G – M group 2, N – Z group 3.

LX’s question:

The role of a trade mark attorney is changing, and these days the attorney is more useful in the marketing department of a business than in the legal department. The Trade Marks Act 1995, and the Registrar’s current practice, mean that work before the Registry has become more clerical paper-pushing. An attorney is really more useful in advising on how to choose, preserve and enforce a business’s trade marks. The registration of trade marks is something that can be done by junior clerical staff these days, and the Registrar is not much more than a rubber stamp.

Discuss the extent to which these comments are accurate. Would such developments be a good or bad thing? Discuss, giving specific examples, including any decisions of the Registrar and/or views of commentators that you consider relevant.

I was mindful of the findings of a major survey undertaken by UTS for the Australian Department of Education. These included that:

“Successful learning outcomes were achieved where the assessment of student learning is modified to reflect any changes made to the content and process of learning as a result of the project. Projects which were unsuccessful included those where did not change the assessment of learning to reflect changed learning outcomes.”

— (Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, 2002a)

Putting myself in the position of the online student, I had four concerns:

1. If I posted my response early, I wouldn’t see much from other students to comment on.
2. If I posted early, other people would benefit from what I had written.
3. What do I do if I prepare a response, and find someone has written exactly the same?
4. Why not be lazy, wait for a few responses from others, then edit and submit them as my own?

These ‘concerns’ have been identified by Salmon (2000 and 2002b) as characteristics of one kind of ‘lurker’, her name for an online course participant who does not make a visible contribution to conference activities:

“The silent thief or freeloader – someone who is happy to use other people’s contributions rather than feeling the need to contribute. These people need a reason – even a requirement – to take part.”

A fifth concern would be, what exactly is being assessed, by whom, and in what proportion will the marks be allocated?

1. timing of my posting?
2. legal/authority of my posting?
3. originality of my posting?
4. evidence my own research?
5. adhering to a word limit?
6. referenced resources?

Dirks (1998) observed:

“There is little point in making extensive comments on learner work if the learner doesn’t receive them before going on to the next assignment; the learner needs to be able to incorporate the feedback into the next assignment.”

I shared my five concerns with LX and Bill. I imagined the students would appreciate tutor feedback on posting 1 before proceeding to posting 2, and suggested a modification to LX’s instructions to students. This would give them the opportunity to prepare something for feedback by the tutor, before going on to prepare something for the online discussion board. I prepared a clear, detailed breakdown of allocation of marks, in line with Mann’s observation (1998) that:

“Weight assigned to different factors in graded assessments (eg 30% for presentation and organisation, 70% for content and relevance) is especially important [to online learners].”

I offered the following to post on the student discussion board:

• posting 1: to submit a response to LX’s question, to the online tutor, unseen by the other students, by…date. This would receive an allocation of marks, as set out below. The online tutor would give feedback to individual students. These postings would, at a subsequent date be posted to an open discussion board.
• posting 2: students are required to respond to or critique by…date one or more of the postings, to the open board. This second posting would be assessed on the extent to which the student has addressed the issues raised in their colleague’s original posting.

Allocation of marks

posting 1

• legal/authority 20%
• originality 10%
• individual research 20%

posting 2

• identification of issues 20%
• authority 20%

postings 1&2

• adherence to word limit and timings 10%

This assessment exercise was planned to take advantage of the potential benefits of using the online medium for assessment. Disadvantages of online assessment were not explored, ie security was assumed to be sufficient, and the exercise made no demands for sophisticated programming.

Wild and Omari (1996) observe:

“The unique characteristics of the Web give online learning environments the potential to facilitate dialogue between learners and materials, their instructors and fellow learners.”

The assessment exercise allowed for the participants’ own material to be used as a resource, and their own reflections to contribute to the learning process. As Rowntree (1995) observes:

“Participants are liable to learn as much from one another as from course material or from the interjections of a tutor. What they learn, of course, is not so much product (eg information) as process – in particular the creative cognitive process of offering up ideas, having them criticised or expanded on, and getting the chance to reshape them (or abandon them) in the light of peer discussion.”

LX responded to my suggestions:

“I found your comments very helpful. As I mentioned on the phone, I am quite new to the online format. If you are happy to have the initial post by students be private, and respond to each one of them, then that would be fine with me. I could not take on the task of responding to 50+ individual postings. The assessment criteria seem very good, except that we might find that there is not much opportunity for students to actually cite case law in the subject, though if they would read a few articles in the area and mention other people’s ideas, showing some individual ‘nouse’, I would be both thrilled and mildly surprised&I will certainly give you some notes and input on my expectations once we get going with this. I will post a message introducing you as the e-tutor, and then leave you to start the forums (is this OK, do you have tutor access to the subject yet?) Will you include an explanation of how the forums will work?”

LX’s honest admission that s/he could not take on the task of responding to 50+ students was prescient. It was a demanding task, even though the hand-in dates were staggered by group. It was made more onerous by having students post to my e-mail address rather than the discussion board. It meant I was responsible for tracking postings and dealing with ‘administrative’ rather than ‘academic’ queries re their safe arrival.

Taking the posting 1 contributions and compiling them as a Word document to put on the discussion board for posting 2 comment was a hugely complicated task. I posted an ‘announcement’ advising students to let me know if their posting 1 had not been included, and several times it was pointed out by students that I’d allocated a surname to its incorrect sub-group. My inexperience with both technology and e-moderation meant I probably suffered more than necessary. Bill had gently tried to steer me away from such a complicated undertaking, but I was resolute.

On reflection, the online participation exercise could have been assessed purely on students’ online participation. The other 80% of their grade could have been awarded for content, analysis, research etc. My log records “never undertake such a complicated exercise again – when it comes to online assessment, KISS (keep it simple, stupid)”. When all the contributions had been marked, marks were entered in the unit ‘grade book’ and sent to LX and Bill for moderation, before being made available to the students.

The assessed online participation was a valuable learning experience, which provided some useful insights, including:

In future, if I were to ask for postings to be sent in for feedback and assessment, it would be in accordance with established faculty procedures.

All the students posted posting 2 responses. They were thoughtful and considered comments on a colleague’s posting 1. In addition, there were several examples of further exchanges between the students.

These indicated an interest in, and support for, each other’s work, as identified by Salmon (2000) as:

“Stage four: knowledge construction. At this stage, participants begin to interact with each other in more exposed and participative ways. They formulate and write down their ideas or understanding of a topic. They read such messages from other participants and respond to them frequently and often successfully.”

‘Introductions’ discussion board

In addition to working on the online participation assessment, I suggested to LX that the Trade Mark Practice unit run a voluntary ‘introductions’ discussion board:

“If you introduce me, I will then post something about myself and invite the students to post something about themselves – that too will be interesting for me – as a different discussion board.”

LX replied:

“We have also been thinking alike – I have just finished posting a message called ‘Introductions’ inviting the students to introduce themselves online. Don’t know how (or if) they will respond.”

The ‘introductions’ board was successful inasmuch as it gave students the opportunity to ‘speak’ in the group, informally, before having to post for assessment. The ‘introductions’ board (see below) was opened two weeks prior to posting 1 being e-mailed to the online tutor, and four weeks prior to posting 2 being posted to the group discussion boards. Without realising it at the time, the ‘introductions’ board provided what Salmon (2000) refers to as an appropriate ‘stage two’ opportunity for “course participants to establish their online identities, and find others with whom to interact”.

It turned out to be good preparation for their involvement in the assessed online participation, which Salmon identifies as ‘stage three’ (of a five stage process) where “participants give information relevant to the course to each other, and a form of co-operation occurs”.

Visiting e-professor guest lectures

A third suggestion made was to play ‘visiting e-professor’, and offer a ‘guest lecture’. I chose the topic of ‘shape marks’ (a recent European Court of Justice decision provided an opportunity for participants to explore an area of substantive trade mark law, and the workings of the ECJ).

LX responded:

“The visiting lecture is fine with me. I think it is great for the students to hear someone other than me, and I have had visitors in previous years…I am concerned that the content re shape marks has probably already been covered in the trade mark law unit (held last semester and a pre-requisite for TM practice)…When I cover shape TMs in this course I generally restrict myself to the Registrar’s application of the law, including the vexed question of how to show the evidence that a shape does function as a TM. You might like to have a look at the Registrar’s Manual on this topic on IPAustralia.”

The UTS survey for DEST (2002a) noted that:

“Projects which were unsuccessful include those which ‘overestimated students’ willingness to engage in higher level learning activities, especially when were not related to assessment.”

I took LX’s comments on board, and discussed them with Bill. On his advice, the lecture was posted as ‘just for fun’, with questions inviting responses and contributions. It was an ungraded activity. There were a good number of responses. The level of debate, engagement and research undertaken by the participants was livelier, and more sustained, than I’d have expected in a f2f seminar discussion. There was a high frequency of reading the posted contributions.

I enjoyed the collegial relationship with LX. Bill created a ‘safe environment’ in which LX and I were able to share ideas and opinions, and experiment without detriment to the participants.

Discussion boards compared

As well as working as online tutor for Trade Mark Practice I offered a ‘visiting e-professor’ guest lecture, with follow up questions, as an ungraded, ‘just for fun’ activity, to two other units: Design Law and Practice and Patent Specifications. It is interesting to compare participation in the ‘visiting e-professor’ guest lecture discussion boards with the other boards on those units.

Trade Mark Practice (total students registered – 61)

Any questions 13 students posted 53 postings first posting read x 82 final posting x 39

Introductions.LX 16 students posted 25 postings first posting read x 49 final posting x 30

e-prof lecture 10 students posted 40 postings first posting read x 134 final posting x 32

Of the three voluntary (ie non-assessed, non-graded) discussion boards, 27 students in total posted to one or more Trade Mark Practice board, whilst only three posted to each. ‘Any questions’ is an opportunity to ask the Unit Lecturer (LX) operational or course content questions. Most of the students who posted to the ‘visiting e-prof’ lecture discussion didn’t post to ‘any questions’, and most who posted to ‘any questions’ didn’t post to the ‘visiting e-prof’ discussion. Postings received a high number of readings.

Salmon (2002b) has called non-contributing participants ‘lurkers’, and there was more evidence of ‘lurking’ present on the other two units. In those units, the visiting e-professor had no other involvement with the participants. In Design Law and Practice, the ‘introductions’ board had not been initiated by the lecturer, in Patent Specifications there was no ‘introduction’ board at all.

Design Law and Practice (total students registered – 82)

Design L&P Q&A 197 postings

Design 35 postings

Getting to know you (online tutor) 7 postings

e-prof lecture (6 students) 26 postings (first posting read x 150)

Patent Specifications (total students registered – 31)

Class discussion board 6 students posted 26 postings

e-prof lecture 2 students posted 3 postings

This suggests that there is a role for the ‘just for fun’ or non-assessed discussion board. More participants will engage, provided the activity is introduced by a lecturer/tutor whose role has some bearing on the participants’ graded assessments.

All the way to Australia?

“Coming to grips with the nature of asynchronicity can prove very demanding for lecturers and teachers new to working online because of the complexity of conferences and forums. All e-moderators have some problems during their training (or if you allow them to work untrained with students). There is no quick and easy way round this problem. They really do need to experience it for themselves.”

— (Salmon, 2002a)

The most valuable aspect of the ten weeks at UTS was being able to experience online delivery for myself. Risk to students was minimised through the close attention played by Bill as mentor, and the frequent opportunities provided for me to talk through what I was planning to do. Bill’s insight into the operationalisation of online delivery in a faculty of law academics was invaluable. Here are three examples:

On ‘whizzy designs’ – online course design is resource driven, which means that the person responsible has to wax his/her ears against requests for whizzy designs, ‘whistles and bells’, latest inventions etc and go for something that will work for the majority – students and tutors.

Not all units are as good pedagogically as each other – once the decision is taken to go online, people have to bite the bullet. Some lecturers are more creative or engaging than others. At minimum, they must have their lecture material available and their independent learning outcomes and assessments worked out. Putting an online tutor alongside an ‘online averse’ lecturer can improve the lecturer’s online skills.

The online course manager for the faculty should be an academic, with technical expertise and enthusiasm for learning and teaching (rather than a technician with academic sympathies).

I still recall Bill’s confession on day one: “Phil and I were talking, and frankly we haven’t got the foggiest idea what we’re going to do with you.” By the time I left UTS, I’d had ten weeks in which to experience, and experiment, hands-on in a live online learning environment, with a participant group scattered throughout Australasia and beyond. I’d had opportunities for conversations, both planned and spontaneous, with UTS faculty members, during which I’d gained insights from their joys and tribulations as they embarked on online delivery in their units. As mentee, I learnt from Bill’s mentoring through our many dialogues.

“Who ever heard Socrates saying “I know something and teach it”? He used to send people off in different directions.”

— (Ferguson, 1970)

Thanks to the generosity of the National Teaching Fellowship award I was able to go off in a different direction, all the way to Australia. Was it necessary to go all the way to Australia? To ensure the depth, richness and vibrancy of my learning experience, most certainly, yes.

Bill Childs – the mentor’s tale

I am a Lecturer and Online Course Designer in the Faculty of Law of the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). As a part time lecturer at UTS for 13 years I had, over a six year period, used e-learning tools in one of the subjects I taught. In that context, in 1999, I was invited to join the faculty on a full time basis with the express purpose of designing and developing the use of e-learning tools in a law teaching environment.

At that time UTS, like most Australian universities, was investing substantial resources and funds in e-learning tools and e-learning strategies. Indeed, the UTS Strategic plan for teaching and learning set a number of goals related to e-learning, including:

• a key objective – to optimise the appropriate application of communications and information technology in support of teaching and learning activities
• a key aim – to have all course materials across the university available online for students by 2003

In 2002, more than 700 UTS subjects used e-learning tools at some level and almost 12,000 students (of approximately 25,000 students enrolled at UTS) were enrolled in subjects that use e-learning tools. More than 15 subjects and courses taught in the Faculty of Law in 2002 used e-learning tools. Those subjects and courses include an online project which I have designed in conjunction with Associate Professor Philip Griffith (Co-ordinator of Intellectual Property Teaching), the Master of Industrial Property (MIP) and the Graduate Certificate in Trade Marks Law & Practice (GCTMLP) comprising nine subjects, seven of which will be wholly online by 2003.

All but one of the MIP/GCTMLP teachers are part time lecturers. In the main, they are senior partners of Australia’s leading patent and trade marks attorney firms.

An additional pressure that I faced in introducing online technology to the MIP and GCTMLP courses was a condition imposed on UTS by the Professional Standards Board for Patent & Trademarks Attorneys (PSB) when we were accredited as an authorised course of study for patent and trade marks attorney registration. The condition was that UTS must make all subjects available to prospective students anywhere in Australia by December 2004. I was challenged to convert a team of traditional face-to-face teachers to online teachers in a very short time frame.

The problems encountered

I think it is fair to say (indeed I say it with a great deal of respect for my colleagues) that many of the team members, as busy persons of relatively mature age, resisted these changes. This resistance was sometimes born of ignorance of the long-term benefits that accrue to online teachers, and sometimes born of fear of the new technologies (technophobia) and a decided lack of e-learning self-efficacy.

I quickly realised that each of my colleagues/mentorees had:

• different levels of commitment to the project
• different views of teaching and learning
• different levels of information technology skills and self-efficacy levels
• varied access to the technology used

I sought to minimise the impact of these factors by:

• providing detailed (graphic rich) hard copy and online written instructions
• initial computer laboratory practical demonstrations
• two interactive trial exercises, designed to lead mentorees progressively through the system – building their confidence – creating minimum competencies in the use of each of the online facilities used to deliver the subject and the assessments comprising the MIP/GCTMLP course

On the whole, we are making excellent progress. We are constantly evaluating our performance in team sessions with a view to ‘lifting our game’. We are heartened by substantial amounts of positive student feedback; the students are happy with our efforts. The profession and the PSB also appear to be satisfied with our performance; our accreditation was recently confirmed and extended.

What makes a good mentor?

As part of the UTS programme to encourage visits by overseas based academics and practitioners, Professor Ruth Soetendorp of the School of Finance and Law, Bournemouth University, visited us on a ten week sabbatical in 2002.

Somewhere in the midst of making the administrative arrangements for Ruth’s visit to Sydney, I was jolted by a sense of ‘reality’ – what was expected of me? what were Ruth’s expectations? Revisiting the e-mails that had flowed between Ruth, our respective deans and myself over a period of some months, I realised that I had actually agreed to act as a ‘mentor’ to Ruth.

As I understood it, the objective of my ‘mentorship’ was to provide Ruth with a rich learning and practical (‘hands-on’) developmental experience of the online environment in which I work. The objective of the exercise was to provide Ruth with an intensive hands-on experience of an e-learning environment in preparation for the introduction of e-learning by the School of Finance and Law at Bournemouth University.

Although I had from time to time mentored friends and colleagues, this was to be my first experience of mentoring a complete stranger, a professor from the other side of the world. What would I need to know about the process of mentoring to be an effective mentor in this context? I was aware of the Greek mythological origins of the word ‘mentor’ (Daloz, 1999), and indeed I took heart from the following conversation between Telemachus (the son of Odysseus) and Athena (Goddess of Wisdom), who had changed her form to become Mentor, the person Odysseus had appointed to guide and teach Telemachus whilst he was way fighting the Trojan war:

“Telemachus: Mentor, how am I to go up to the great man? How shall I greet him? Remember that I have had no practice in making speeches; and a young man may well hesitate to cross-examine one so much his senior.

Athena: Telemachus, where your native wit fails, heaven will inspire you.”

— (from Homer’s Odyssey 1.296, as cited by Carlos Parada Greek Mythology Link)

In a more pragmatic mood, I turned to some of the research and literature that has guided my earlier mentoring of friends and colleagues, which suggested that mentoring in this context is peer, collegial support, and that the model that best suited that style of learning was to be found in the adult learning literature (Childs and Taylor, 2001). In particular, four of Knowles’ (1990) five basic principles of adult learning theory are relevant; adults are motivated to learn, adults’ orientation to learning is life centered, experience is the richest source for adult learning, and adults have a deep need to be self-directing.

Also, providing support and developing a safe learning environment is an important aspect of the mentoring process (Childs and Taylor, 2001). The first of Rogers’ (1951) five basic hypotheses for a student-centered approach to learning is particularly apposite to the mentoring process I was about to undertake with Ruth; we cannot teach another person directly, we can only facilitate their learning.

When involved in the mentoring process I am also mindful of Ramsden’s third theory of teaching: teaching as making learning possible. This theory involves working cooperatively with learners to help them change their understanding; identifying their misunderstandings, and intervening to change them. Learning is applying and modifying one’s own ideas; it is something the mentoree does, rather than something that is done to the mentoree. As Ramsden (1992) puts it:

“‘Transmission’ of existing knowledge is at best a half-true description of education, all knowledge is new and requires to be decoded if you have not met it before, all facts must be interpreted imaginatively.”

— (author’s emphasis)

These principles have assisted me in the mentoring of colleagues I have introduced to e-learning technologies and design, many of whom are part time lecturers whose busy professional practices preclude them from lengthy training sessions. Indeed the majority of the MIP/GCTMLP lecturers give their time in a pro bono context.

The mentoring process must also be extended to administrative and support staff who by choice, or necessity, become involved with the design, delivery or day-to-day administrative duties that e-learning students and academic staff demand. Non-academic staff involved with e-learning projects require as much (if not more) e-learning self-efficacy than academic staff. They should not be forgotten when resources are being allocated for e-learning mentoring or training.

My mentoring approach comprises two distinct phases. First I devote time to building the self-efficacy level of the mentoree in e-learning systems and e-learning design. I then encourage them to take a ‘hands-on’ approach as quickly as possible. My experience is that by taking this approach the mentoree undertakes the e-learning design process and the application of the e-learning process to their students with high levels of confidence and self-efficacy. In this context good learning outcomes can be achieved; and in most instances they are.

I have found that most of the colleagues I have been called upon to mentor, are eager to get involved in e-learning as quickly as possible; they are extremely busy, and time is of the essence. One of the early lessons I learned was to decline to simply show them what I had done – there is a sense that if it worked for me, it must work for them. The general request is “just let me log-in to your online subject and I will look at what you have done; I’ll teach myself”. Busy academics tend to be looking for a ‘template’.

On this issue I take a fairly hard line – I will not grant colleagues access to my online subjects until we have discussed what their particular teaching/learning objectives are, and how e-learning tools might best be deployed to achieve those objectives. I take this approach because in addressing the issues of e-learning, we must be vigilant and heed Ramsden’s warning to beware of “naïve technological determinism”, and his suggestion that the vision of an easier and cheaper form of information transmission may have led some authors to predict the imminent arrival of the ‘completely electronic classroom’.

A further point which Ramsden makes, and which I believe is fundamental to my approach to introducing others to e-learning, is:

rv. “No medium, however useful, can solve fundamental educational problems. Media cannot alter the way teachers understand teaching. In using media sensibly *the least we can do is try not to reinforce existing pedagogical errors” (emphasis added)

Reflections on the mentoring process

Something I discovered in my early research and exploration of e-learning, and in my efforts to communicate the results of that research to colleagues generally and to members of our MIP teaching team is aptly described by Biggs (1994), when he says:

“We are beginning to move away from deficit models, according to which you find out what’s wrong and fix it. Education is not like that. Rather, education is as Schon (1987:3) describes it: “a soft, slimy swamp of real-life problems” to which adding or subtracting things will either have no measurable effect, or worse, will destroy the swamp’s eco-system.”

Approaching the task of mentoring in the e-learning context, I found myself contemplating Daloz’s (1999) description of teaching/mentoring as:

“a special kind of relationship, a caring stance in the moving context of our students’ lives. Of course it involves knowledge; of course the teacher has to know something, but what we know is of value only as we are able to form it such that our students can make use of it for their own evolving ways of knowing&Our students are always in motion∧ our task is to honour that motion, to understand how each student sees education and teachers differently at different times. The job, it seemed, was not so much to individualise instruction as to enrich education so each student could take from it what he or she most needed at the time.”

Or, as Ramsden (1992) puts it:

“effective teaching is not essentially about learning techniques. They are actually easily acquired; it is understanding how to use them that takes constant practice and reflection. And they are useful only in so far as they are directed by a clear awareness of key educational principles – in particular, the principle that the content of student learning is logically prior to the methods of teaching the content.”

One of the truly ‘hidden benefits’ that accrued to me from Ruth’s presence in Sydney (which ensured a close and connected working/mentoring experience), was the fact that she brought to our project a fresh point of view and an open mind. Having someone of Ruth’s calibre and experience around to ask ‘the obvious’ (for example, “why do you do it that way?”) proved to be of immeasurable value to me personally. Such questions prompt reflective thought and analysis of one’s own teaching design and one’s approach to student-centred learning. This reflective activity (which I call ‘reverse mentoring’) meant that I was learning from my student – a useful and productive experience.

Conclusion (or the answer to the question)

Was it necessary for Ruth to come all the way to Australia?

The answer is yes. Partly because had we tried to achieve our objective from afar, the experience for Ruth, the MIP team and, most importantly, for our students would not have been anywhere near as rich and rewarding. Many of Ruth’s contributions are described in Part 1 of this paper.

Additionally, as much as I am an advocate for, and a practitioner of, e-learning and online distance learning, I believe that when it comes mentoring in e-learning theory and practice mentor and mentoree must be co-located.

Accepting, as I do, that a mentor is a special class of teacher, and a mentoree is an equally special class of student, the following anecdote is the point upon which I conclude.

“A couple of months ago whilst watching a documentary film on the treatment of female teachers and female students under Taliban rule, a young Afghani girl provided me with an excellent definition of a mentor/teacher. The reporter asked the girls in the classroom: what is a teacher? The young girl’s answer was: a teacher is a guide.”

That is how I see myself in mentoring situations; I am my mentoree’s guide.

References

• Biggs J (1994) Student learning research and theory: where do we currently stand? in G Gibbs Improving student learning: theory and practice Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development
• Childs B and Taylor (2001) ‘You can lead a horse to water: introducing on-line education’ 3 UTS Law Review 141
• Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (2002a) An evaluation of information technology projects for university learning (executive summary) Canberra: DEST

• Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (2002b) Report 4.1.3 Canberra: DEST

• Daloz L (1999) Mentor: guiding the journey of adult learners London: John Wiley
• Dirks M (1998) How is assessment being done in distance learning? (paper presented at the Northern Arizona University web.98 conference)
• Ferguson J (1970) Socrates: a source book Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Kerka S and Wonacott M (2000) Online assessment: principles and practice (ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education)
• Knowles M (1990) The adult learner: a neglected species Texas: Gulf Publishing
• Mann C (1998) ‘Quality assurance in distance education: the Surrey MA (TESOL) experience’ Distance Education vol 19 no 1
• Ramsden P (1992) Learning to teach in higher education London: Routledge
• Rogers C (1951) Client centered therapy Boston: Houghton Mifflin
• Rowntree D (1995) ‘Teaching and learning online: a correspondence education for the 21st century’ British Journal of Educational Technology vol 26 no 3
• Salmon G (2002a) Hearts, minds and screens: taming the future (keynote speech at the EduCAT Summit, Innovation in e-Education, Hamilton, New Zealand)
• Salmon G (2002b) Understanding lurkers (conference presentation)
• Salmon G (2000) E-moderating London: Kogan Page
• Wild M and Omari A (1996) Developing educational content for the Web: issues and ideas (paper presented at AusWeb96)

Last Modified: 12 July 2010