Tutor/Instructor Symbiosis:
Professionalization and Growth Through
Extended Collaboration
Amy England, University of Cincinnati
Kyle Doan, University of Cincinnati
Overview
•
•
•
•
Summary of Comp 101B
Planning
Implementation
Reflections
Summary of Comp 101B
•
•
•
•
•
Extended class time
Guaranteed computer lab time
Tutors in the classroom two hours a week
Course cap at 15 students
Nearly 100% full-time faculty instructors
Pre-Project Expectations
• Enhancement of active learning environment
for at-risk students
• More individualized attention from two
experts with different styles, experience, and
expertise
Planning
• Project approval process
– Authorization from Writing Center Coordinator
– Authorization of additional funding
• Reflection on previous classes
• Finding and selecting articles
• Designing activities
Planning (cont.)
• Scheduling
– In-class tutor participation
– Out-of-class tutor involvement
• Tutor introduction to the role of “instructor”
– New terminology
– New roles and responsibilities
– Tutor acclimation to pedagogies and theories
• Journal prompts and readings
Implementation
•
•
•
•
•
Weekly lesson plans
Pre-class communication
Shared instructional duties and authority
Guided, collaborative design of class activities
Allocated time for tutor reflection and
observation
• Post-class reflection and discussion
Team-Teaching Assessment
• Team assessment of student essays and
revisions
• Team assessment of process work
• Daily team assessment of class activities and
student progress
Essays and Revisions
• Kyle’s assessment curve
– Essay 1 – Amy reads and discusses her
assessment with Kyle.
– Essay 2 – Kyle adopts Amy’s assessment
system.
– Essay 3 – Kyle uses student essays to
develop his own assessment system.
Process Work
• Reading responses
– Periodically shared reading responses
• Class discussions
– Reflective assessment and revision based on
conversational content
• Workshops
– Reflective assessment and revision based on
student progress
Daily Assessment
• Assessment of class activities and student
progress
• “Observer” critiques “instructor” pedagogy
• Closer monitoring of individual students’ progress
• Troubleshooting potential problems
Surprises for Amy
• Compensation for extracurricular tutor activities was
more complicated than we thought.
• Instructor’s diffusion of authority was more difficult for
her than anticipated.
• Temporary disruption of established patterns in the
classroom
• Timing was off; first few classes went too short or too long
• Conscious effort to include Kyle early on
• Lesson plans and reflections written for a second person –
required more effort and time than anticipated.
Surprises for Kyle
• Amount of time required for proper class
design and pre-class preparation
• How well one-on-one tutoring translates into
the instructor’s role
• The necessity of a backup plan
• Diverging pedagogies and theories
Unexpected Bonuses
• Constant collaboration revitalized Amy’s
teaching and made Kyle want to continue and
expand his professional development.
• Collaboration enhanced reflection.
• Improved response to individual students’
needs and learning styles.
What We Would Do Differently
•
•
•
•
Arrange for more meeting time
Arrange for funding before the project started
Ask for more release time
Develop more lesson plans in advance