4.4 Article

Embedding equity: online tutor support to provide effective feedforward on assessments

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2023.2232955

关键词

tutor support; technology-enhanced feedback; feedforward; first-year experience; >

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a high demand for sustainable and innovative programs that support students in transitioning to university and improve their progress rates and retention. An institution-wide model for an online Embedded Tutor Program was established to meet this demand. The program provided support to first-year undergraduate students and proved to be effective post-pandemic. Tutors with unit-specific knowledge were assigned to 98 first-year courses, where they met with students via Zoom to provide feedback on written assessments. The program had positive outcomes, including higher assessment marks and cumulative unit marks, as well as improved confidence, overall learning, and satisfaction among students. Students with multiple equity factors benefited the most from this support.
Sustainable and innovative programs to support students in their transition to university and improve student progress rates and retention are in high demand and short supply. An institution-wide model was established for an online Embedded Tutor Program. The program supports commencing undergraduate students and is sustainable post-pandemic. Tutors with unit-specific knowledge were embedded in 98 first-year unit offerings across the university in 2022. Tutors met with students via Zoom to provide feedforward on a written assessment. Of the 1080 students who met with a tutor, assessment marks were on average 8% higher and cumulative unit marks were 15% higher, and the one-on-one tutor support improved students' perceived confidence, overall learning and satisfaction. The Embedded Tutor Program had positive outcomes for all participants; however, students with multiple equity factors benefited the most from the support.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据