Hierarchical tutoring structure for a large first year subject

by

Virginia Slaughter
School of Psychology, University of Queensland

 

Abstract

The two first year psychology subjects at the University of Queensland have combined enrolments of 2000 students per semester, and employ 26 tutors per semester. In the last two years, we have developed a hierarchical tutor structure, in which we designate three tutors in each subject, each semester as "lead" tutors. This system has benefits on all sides: it allows for excellent communication between tutors and lecturers, it provides the "lead" tutors with valuable experience, and it helps to ensure that the large number of students across the subject receive comparable tutorials every week. This paper will describe the implementation of the hierarchical tutor structure, and will examine its benefits as well as potential problems in detail.

 

Introduction

In a recent article published in The Australian Higher Education Supplement, Elaine Showalter made the statement that "Everyone complains these days that we don't train [post]graduate students to teach, but no one seems to do anything about it" (Wednesday, Oct 13, 1999; page 32). This paper will describe a system we have developed that begins to address this well-known issue.

Introductory Psychology is taught in two subjects at the University of Queensland. PY120 covers the topics of history of psychology, physiological psychology, and cognitive psychology and PY130 covers the topics of developmental psychology, clinical psychology, social psychology and applied psychology. Both of these subjects are prerequisites for further study in psychology, and they are required subjects in other disciplines including the therapies and Social Work.

The first year Psychology subjects are the largest classes and most popular electives given at the University of Queensland. The average enrolment for the two subjects combined is over 2000 students per semester. All students participate in weekly small-group tutorials, which fulfil several different functions within the structure of the subjects, including provision of weekly formative assessment, opportunities for discussion and clarification of issues raised in lectures and in the text, and introduction of new material, particularly practicals. For the first year psychology subjects alone, there are 80 tutorials per week. These full-time tutorials are run by a first year tutoring staff of 26 postgraduate tutors.

The sheer size of such a group of tutors presents a host of practical problems, when the aim is to provide first-year students with comparable, high-quality tutorials. First, tutors are inherently different, with different levels of expertise and different attitudes towards teaching and learning. In such a large group, there are naturally wide differences among tutors, which need to be managed in order to provide uniformly comparable tutorials across the first year subjects. Second, the logistics of organising such a large group of tutors is difficult, in that in such a large group, it is almost impossible to schedule weekly meetings that can be attended by everyone. Finally, we have battled the perception, now fading, that tutoring at first year is a relatively low-status position, when compared to tutoring more advanced subjects.

In order to address some of these problems, we have developed a hierarchical tutoring structure, in which three tutors in each first year subject, each semester, are designated as "lead tutors." The lead tutors are explicitly chosen for their experience and skill as tutors. In the lead tutoring position, they act as mentors to younger tutors in the program, they work closely with subject coordinators to develop specific tutorial plans, they present the weekly tutorial plans at subject staff meetings, and they are responsible for making sure that all tutors in the program are prepared for each week's tutorials. On their side, the lead tutors are paid at a higher rate than other tutors, and they (hopefully) gain the valuable experiences of lesson planning, team leading and mentorship.

Thus the program has two major objectives. The first objective is to facilitate delivery of uniformly high-quality tutorials to as many as 2000 students per semester. The second objective is to provide individual lead tutors with some formal recognition of their tutoring skill, and to give them an opportunity to develop their tutoring/teaching abilities by becoming responsible for a significant portion of the tutorial program in the subject.

 

Program Structure

Three lead tutors per subject, per semester are chosen from a pool of about 10 applicants. Successful applicants are typically experienced tutors, who are known to be dedicated and independent, and who also have experience in tutoring at first year. When postgraduates apply for tutoring positions at the start of each semester, they are given the opportunity to put their name in the pool of applicants for the lead tutor positions. The number of lead tutor applications has steadily risen over the four semesters that we have had the program in place. Currently we choose from a pool of around 20 applicants.

At the start of the semester, the subject coordinators set the weekly tutorial topics for the semester, and those are published in the subject handbook. Once the lead tutors are chosen, then they have an initial brief meeting with the subject coordinator, to allocate tutorial topics. In this meeting, the lead tutors divide up the set tutorial topics, typically according to their own interests and experience. For instance, in PY130, tutorial topics include a Practical on Personal Space, and a Discussion of Issues in Clinical Psychology. Typically, the lead tutor most familiar with social psychology takes responsibility for the practical, and the lead tutor most familiar with clinical psychology takes responsibility for the discussion. Each lead tutor typically takes responsibility for 3 tutorials per semester, with the remaining tutorials in the 12 week semester devoted to formative assessment. When the tutorial topics are allocated, then lead tutors make individual appointments to meet with the subject coordinator, to develop the specific tutorial lesson plans.

Lead tutors are responsible for developing a tutorial lesson plan for each topic assigned to them. This is a collaborative process between the subject coordinator and the individual lead tutors, though the lead tutors take the initiative in determining the overall structure and specific content of the tutorial lesson plans. Once the tutorial plan is approved by the subject coordinator, then the lead tutors develop detailed lesson plans, tutors' notes and overheads. For instance, in PY130, the tutor responsible for the Discussion of Issues in Clinical Psychology might locate a suitable short video clip to trigger discussion, then develop specific questions and small-group activities to facilitate the discussion.

Next, the lead tutor responsible for the week's tutorial leads the weekly staff meeting for the subject, presenting the lesson plan to the rest of the subject tutors. The lead tutor is then also responsible for making sure that all tutors understand the tutorial lesson plan, and in that capacity may act as mentor to other tutors.

Lead tutors' other responsibilities include: taking a leading role in marking assignments both by assisting other tutors and by handling difficult cases, being available to subject tutors who need questions answered or problems solved, and coordinating the construction of multiple-choice practice exams for use as formative assessment in the subject.

Lead tutors' extra work is compensated in the following ways: They are paid at a slightly higher hourly rate than the other tutors, they are paid for an extra week each semester, and they are given office space in a dedicated lead tutors' room, which is equipped with a computer. They may also benefit by having the designated title of "lead tutor," which can go on their curriculum vitae.

 

How Is It Working?

This hierarchical tutor structure has been in place in the first year Psychology subjects for four semesters. In order to evaluate the program, this semester I developed a questionnaire that was given to current and former lead tutors. Responses were received from ten of the 13 individuals who were approached. As detailed below, the questionnaire included 11 Likert-scale questions for which respondents indicated agreement/disagreement to specific statements, as well as two open-ended questions. What follows is a synopsis of the responses.

Likert scale questions:

Scale:

strongly disagree disagree uncertain agree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
  1. The monetary compensation for Lead Tutoring was adequate.
    Response Mean = 2.9 ; SD = 1.37
  2. The experience I gained will help me in my future career.
    Response Mean = 4.0 ; SD = .67
  3. As a Lead Tutor, I got stuck with all the crummy jobs.
    Response Mean = 2.8 ; SD = 1.13
  4. As a Lead Tutor, I gained some insight into what it's like to be a lecturer/subject coordinator.
    Response Mean = 3.9 ; SD = 1.10
  5. Being a Lead Tutor made me feel more confident in my tutoring.
    Response Mean = 4.2 ; SD = .92
  6. Being a Lead Tutor developed my leadership skills.
    Response Mean = 3.3 ; SD = .95
  7. Being chosen for the Lead Tutoring position was nice recognition of my tutoring ability.
    Response Mean = 4.1 ; SD = .57
  8. I would like/would have liked more responsibility as a Lead Tutor.
    Response Mean = 3.5 ; SD = 1.08
  9. The workload for Lead Tutors is too high.
    Response Mean = 3.0 ; SD = 1.08
  10. I would like to see this program implemented in other large subjects for which I've tutored.
    Response Mean = 4.33 ; SD = .82
  11. Being a Lead Tutor got me more interested in teaching theory and practice than I was before.
    Response Mean = 3.5 ; SD = 1.35

Responses (directly quoted) to the two open-ended questions are given below in dot-point format, organised by the specific issue addressed in the responses:

  1. What do you consider to be the strengths of the Lead Tutoring program?

    Program structure
    • [makes the program] well-organised and structured each
    • lead tutor being responsible for different tutorial topics works well
    • helps lead tutors understand the subject better
    • there is a sense of "ownership" of the program

    Mentoring
    • to be able to act as a mentor to new tutors
    • provides new tutors with some guidance and peer support if they want it
    • it seemed to work like a mini-knowledge management system, where experienced tutors could pass on tips and suggestions to less experienced and new tutors
    • interaction with lecturing staff

    Recognition/Experience
    • recognition of a person's genuine skills and interest in tutoring
    • to have practical experience in the design of tutorials
    • [provides] experience and exposure to the role of subject coordinator
    • the fact that it's a small team and we are allowed & encouraged to show initiative
    • offers input into how to approach teaching material
    • experience in preparing and presenting tutorial material to peers and students


  2. What are your suggestions for improving the lead tutoring program?

    Program Structure
    • have lead tutors meet with other tutors regularly, without subject coordinator
    • higher pay rate for lead tutors
    • more interaction with coordinators
    • extend to other subjects

    Mentoring
    • perhaps lead tutors could have more of a presence in other tutors' tutes, especially early in semester
    • more active mentoring role for lead tutors
    • having lead tutors formally and actively provide peer support, mentoring and quality control

    Lead Tutor Role
    • clearer outline of duties
    • clearer role and responsibility
    • hierarchy may cause resentment in some groups of tutors
    • allow more involvement in topics of the tutorials

 

Discussion

In general, the responses to the lead tutoring questionnaire indicate a high level of satisfaction with the program. Lead tutors tended to agree that participation in the lead tutoring program provides recognition of their tutoring skill, increases their level of confidence and gives them valuable experience as well as insight into large subject coordination. There was weaker agreement, but still positive support for the ideas that the lead tutoring program developed lead tutors' leadership skills, and got them more interested in teaching theory and practice than they were previously.

These issues were reiterated in responses to the open-ended question about the strengths of the lead tutoring program. Current and former lead tutors cited the opportunities to take initiative and provide mentoring to younger tutors as positive aspects of the program. They also appreciate the recognition inherent in being chosen as a lead tutor.

Thus it appears that the second major objective for the lead tutoring program, to provide lead tutors with valuable recognition and experience, is being met. It is somewhat harder to evaluate the success of the first objective of the program, which was to provide 80 comparable, high-quality tutorials per week to 2000 students across two first year psychology subjects. In the most recent subject evaluation of PY130, performed in semester 2, 1998, the statement that "tutorials/labs were well prepared" received a mean response of 4.0 (SD=.87) on the same Likert scale used above for the lead tutors' questionnaire (where 4.0 corresponds to "agreement"). Similarly, the mean response to that statement in the most recent PY120 subject evaluation, performed in semester 1, 1998, was 3.9. In comparison, the response to that statement for the two previous years in PY120, before the lead tutor program was implemented, was 3.4 and 3.5. These data suggest that the lead tutoring program had indeed met its first major objective, by providing well prepared tutorials across an exceptionally large first year subject.

How should the program be improved? The responses to the questionnaire indicate several areas for improvement. First, it appears worthwhile to develop an explicit lead tutor job description. This would reduce the possibility that lead tutors may get stuck with all the crummy jobs, and it would also serve to specify the workload, which some lead tutor respondents held to be too high. Second, the lead tutors clearly want more of an opportunity to mentor younger tutors. This could be facilitated with formal peer review programs, brown bag tutoring lunches, or a change in the office arrangement for lead tutors: instead of sequestering them in a "special" office as a way of rewarding their work, it might be more effective to house lead tutors with the other first year tutors, in order to facilitate communication between them (this idea was suggested by one of the lead tutor questionnaire respondents).

Finally, it would be nice to be able to pay lead tutors more. That, of course, is an issue for individual departments and faculties. Finally, it is worth noting that the lead tutor respondents to the questionnaire strongly agreed that they would like to see a lead tutoring program implemented in other large subjects for which they have tutored. This paper began with a quote about how the university system does not provide teaching training to postgraduate students. One way to address that problem may be to implement hierarchical tutor structures, like the one described in this paper, more widely across the higher education system.

 

Conference home page About the conference Conference program Conference papers

TEDI Home UQ Home

 

Teaching and Educational Development Institute,
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland 4072 Australia
    Phone: +61 (7) 3365 2788
Authorised by: ACE Group, Teaching and Educational Development Institute
Modified: 8 March 2002
© 2002 The University of Queensland