1
SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION AND TUTORING (SI/T) SURVEYS
COMPUTER ACTIVITIES CENTER (CAC) SURVEY
Research plays a key role in the ongoing Program Review process, and Program Review is an essential part of accreditation process. Those responsible for the SI/T Program and the CAC chose to meet the needs of both of these processes by utilizing research in a number of ways, one of which was a student survey. To assess the services currently offered by general tutors and CIS tutors and to evaluate the efficacy of the CAC, students were asked to complete the surveys. The results of the surveys are expected to provide information to guide future planning for these two student-oriented programs.
Lorraine Mendoza, a level IV math tutor who also is highly skilled in assisting students with study skills, William Simmons, a level IV math and CIS tutor and chief mentor in the SI/T Program, Josie Fennessey, the IA-III responsible for the CAC, and Liz Gersten, the SI/T Coordinator, began meeting in April, 2004, to develop the surveys. First a goal or purpose was determined for each survey, and then objectives were written to determine what content was desired for each survey. These can be found with the respective survey in the appendix.
How the surveys were to be distributed, to whom it would be distributed, when during the semester they would be done, and how they would be collected were all decided before the items were written. Tutors hand the surveys to their students at the end of a tutoring session and ask that the students complete them and place them in a box at the Front Desk in the Academic Commons. The tutor leaves the student, usually to work with another student, enabling the tutored student to complete the survey without pressure or embarrassment. No student was asked to complete more than one survey at a time. A plan was developed to distribute ten surveys from 8 A.M. to 6:45 P.M., each day from Monday through Friday, during the target weeks to provide fifty surveys of each type. After a year’s practice and keeping notes about possible improvements, the surveys and process will be reviewed again, and any changes will be made at that time. Increasing the number of surveys to one hundred during each week is one of the changes planned from the beginning of the project, because the more data available, the more accurate are the conclusions drawn from that data.
Thinking that students view the value of tutoring differently early in the semester as opposed to later in the semester, the decision was made to collect surveys after the first third of the semester when the difficulties with finding classes, buying books, and organizing time had abated. A second collection period was planned for five weeks before the semester was over, thus avoiding anxiety associated with exams, term papers, and other assignments due at the end of the semester. Once these details were decided, planning the actual survey began.
A format for the survey was designed, revised, and finally formalized. A Scantron scoring system was desirable for ease in scoring and rapid results. With three different surveys involved, of course no one format was found to be effective for all three. A Likert scale with four options was the preferred format for the Students’ Appraisal of Tutors survey. The four-choice format was selected because it did not permit students to make a middle-of-the-road decision about any item. Demographic information did not fit into the Likert scale format; therefore, a section for it was placed at the end of the survey. Because the number of items for this survey required more than one page, a decision whether to use two pages or two sides of one page had to be made. People frequently do not follow directions, and, therefore, may not turn a paper over to answer items on the back, but they are more inclined to recognize the continuing questions on a second sheet. For this reason, the decision was made to use one side of two stapled sheets of paper.
The other two surveys, Student’s Appraisal of Computer Tutors and the Student’s Appraisal of the ComputerActivitiesCenter, had several different formats on one survey because the information wanted could not be obtained through any one format. Some items were statements requiring a rating of poor to excellent. Others were questions asking for simple yes-no-not applicable responses. Another format involved multiple choice questions, and the last section asked for written information. Other than the written responses, the other formats used a Scantron coding system. Because one of these surveys required two pages, the decision was made to try a two-sided form despite the earlier reasoning.
Distribution was done by the CIS tutors as they worked with students at the computers. Students were given one survey and asked to complete it and place it in the box at the Front Desk as they left the building. Again, surveys were distributed throughout the day and week.
Statements for the surveys were suggested in several brainstorming sessions and re-written a number of times before final selection. The CAC survey was based on one used several years ago by the former LearningCenter staff. A tutor survey from theLearningCenter was reviewed and the items found wanting; therefore, two totally new surveys were designed. Item content was based on the main points taught to new tutors and practiced by all tutors; these are the curriculum SLOs to be achieved in new tutor training and program SLOs for all tutors as a result of ongoing tutor training. As an example, one item asks the student to rate how well the tutor encouraged the student to write on the whiteboard or take notes. An important aspect of tutor training is assessing the student’s learning style and using it to help the student learn. Many students learn well by doing and imagining (kinesthetic learner), one of three recognized learning styles. These students learn more effectively if they write or draw the relevant information. The item reveals how well the tutor appealed to this aspect of the student’s learning process. That the tutor has learned what to do to help a kinesthetic learner meets the curriculum SLO, and the program SLO is that the tutor has applied that technique in tutoring. The student indicates, via the survey, how well the tutor performed on this item.
After the revisions within the group, a draft copy went to Mark Clair, the research guru who prepared the items in a Scantron format and returned it for approval. Mark is a gem because he offers suggestions and listens to how they work well or how they interfere with what the surveyors are trying to achieve. His suggestions about reformatting one of the surveys made an ugly duckling survey into a swan. The three surveys were returned very promptly to the writers who then distributed them to several tutors for more suggestions. These were considered, more changes were made, and the final draft went to Mark, who made the Scantron copies (they cannot be duplicated on a copy machine) and returned them in less than 48 hours. Once the surveys are completed, they were returned to Mark who provided the scores for each item. Mark also offered some thoughts on interpretation of the numerical results.
The first collection of surveys showed the value of the early planning. Tutors were not embarrassed at asking students to complete the surveys, students responded well to the surveying procedure, and the only difficulty was in collecting the number of surveys planned for each day. Having set a goal for data collection, the surveying was extended into a second week to achieve the fifty survey limit. At the end of the second week, fifty of each type of survey still had not been obtained and a decision was made to send to Mark what had been collected. The difficulty arose from younger students refusing to invest the time to complete the survey. Also, the two-sided form had only one side completed in many instances, thus affirming our original thinking.
The knowledge gained from this first survey is fueling discussion for the next one toward the end of the semester. The experience has required time and effort; however, the team has enjoyed working together and is excited about the results that will provide information for future planning.
Fennessey and Gersten 9/04