Part 3

Lessons of Experience

 3.5 Who are the support staff and what are their functions? 

The key support staff in most programmes are ‘tutors’ who play the dual role, discussed in part 1, of academic tutor and personal counsellor. In some programmes, for example the UNISA: ABET programme, these tutors need to be multilingual in order to meet the needs of learners taking an English-medium course but who have English as a second or even third language. In general, tutors are responsible for group and individual tutorials, ongoing telephonic contact with learners and for feedback on assignments. 

These tutors may be supported by regional coordinators (as in the UNISA: ABET model) who offer some ongoing support and training, often have responsibility for a particular learning area or the management of a particular learning centre, and may also be involved in arrangements for practical work, visits, etc. 

The programme secretary is often seen to be a useful source of support for information about administration matters and logistical arrangements. 

The UOFS: BML programme has a programme director, four domain coordinators/ presenters and two post-graduate volunteers one of whom offers academic/study skills support while the other is involved in ongoing research into the programme.

Altogether, the programme makes use of 26 different specialised presenters which has raised issues about developing a sense of continuity and a personal relationship which nurtures the trust needed for learners to be able to seek help, ask questions and challenge the tutor’s perspective. It seems likely that on a programme that involves such a wide range of specialist areas, learners would benefit from contact with a tutor/counsellor who is a generalist but who is accessible to the learner throughout the life of the programme.

To some extent, one of the two volunteers, the ‘facilitator’ seems to be slipping into this role as learners meet with him on a regular basis.  

The UOFS: BML programme also indicates the benefits of running one programme among many, and that is the possibility of sharing the costs of a wide range of other specialist support staff: for example, a psychologist.

 The UP: B.Cur programme indicates the need for technical support staff for technology driven programme delivery. 

Arrangements for the ongoing training and monitoring of these support staff are, in some cases, quite limited. In the ACCESSDL&T: ECD programme, for example, the wide geographical area involved in the programme makes staff support a costly item, and training and monitoring is limited to an annual workshop, ad hoc visits by national office staff and the circulation of information by post, fax and telephone. At the opposite extreme, in many ways, is the UOFS: BML programme for which staff have received training from De Paul University, the Council for Experiential Learning and SAIDE, in addition to UOFS’s own internal workshops.  

It is worth noting again that ACCESSDL&T is a private provider offering decentralised support to over 1000 learners while the UOFS is state-subsidised institution and the BML is currently limited to 48 learners who meet only at the main campus. 

As noted above, tutors are probably the key support staff and in most programmes they have a great deal of leeway in the ways in which they approach their work. Thus, SAIDE researchers were able to visit two different venues to observe contact sessions ostensibly aimed at achieving the same kind of goals and see two completely different approaches to the tutoring role. To some extent, this can be a positive phenomenon if the differing approaches emerge in response to the needs of learners. If, however, a programme is committed to ‘social learning’, cooperative and collaborative learning, or nurturing ‘independent’ learning, as several of these programmes are, then this requires a shift away from the traditional ‘teacher-centred’ model towards a more facilitative role: a role with which tutors may not be that familiar and for which they may need additional support. As one learner remarked: “differences of opinion are not encouraged, as there is no time to do so in the two hour contact sessions. This is demoralising, as there is no space to challenge the comments and marks given for the assignments. The facilitator should keep an open mind and not force her own opinion.” It would seem useful for institutions and programmes to formalise their teaching and learning philosophy (as is done on the WITS: FDE programme), and to share this with all stakeholders with a view to revision on a regular basis, and at the same line to offer some guidelines for the conducting of contact sessions (as with the ACCESSDL&T: ECD programme) to promote a degree of uniformity between centres in line with the achievement of the overall programme goals. It does not seem adequate to employ staff and simply assume that they will perform optimally. 

Walmsley (1991) offers the following guidelines on how tutors might be trained to fulfil the roles expected of them:

 In writing this paper I have utilized Murgatroyd’s three student behaviours which, he suggests, ideally should be fostered by the facilitative tutor:

·     Taking an active role in deciding what will occur in face-to-face tutorials

·     Acquiring knowledge through their own endeavours

·     Resolving conflict through discussion with peers rather than relying on the teacher’s authority.

The Training the Trainers Programme sought to foster these behaviours. Group members were encouraged to take an active part in deciding what would occur during the training, both through negotiation of expectations and through having the opportunity to practise the group facilitator role in a relatively safe context. Participants were encouraged to acquire knowledge through their own endeavours, by discussion, by reflection, and, at the end of the workshop, by pooling what they had learnt and finding ways of supporting one another. Finally, the resolution of conflict through discussion was modelled by the trainer, for example in negotiation of people’s expectations; and through setting up the opportunity for people to work in small groups to practise the role, without the interventions of the trainer.” 

For an induction programme for facilitative tutors to be successful, Walmsley suggests that the following criteria should be met: 

·     be explicit about what you are hoping to achieve

·     prepare a programme in advance, but build in the opportunity to negotiate alterations if necessary

·     allow people to experience the role of students themselves. Do not assume that because they are called ‘trainers’ or ‘tutors’ they do not have the anxieties generated by approaching new roles and situations

·     do not feel you have to provide a perfect model; do allow people the opportunity to reflect on your role as facilitator, and their roles as students

·     have confidence in people so that they can have confidence in themselves. Allow them to work in peer groups without feeling you need to be on hand

·     encourage feedback from peers if possible; this is an effective way of involving everyone in the learning process, and also boosts confidence. 

Although tutors have a key role to play, it is important to remember that anybody involved with an institution or programme contributes to the learner’s overall experience, whether this is positive or negative. It is therefore crucial to ensure that all staff are constantly made aware of their own importance to the programme and their responsibility towards the clients: thus a monitoring process is needed to ensure, for example, that technicians do not arrive late and centre coordinators are not unprofessional in their handling of assignments (see the UP: B.Cur. case study). 

In general, it is probably desirable to have an overall learner support coordinator to ensure that the various strategies employed reinforce and complement one another: and that they continue to do so as the context changes. Effective learner support requires effective management of the support processes. See 3.10, recommendation 41