This article describes a qualitative study, and it focuses on the analysis of the dynamics surrounding tutorial action in higher education. The authors have tried to determine the specific needs of the students by identifying and examining the functions associated with tutorial action. Several action guidelines aimed at improving tutorial function are proposed.
n: Este manuscrito describe un estudio cualitativo y se enfoca en el análisis de las dinámicas que rodean la acción de tutoría en educación superior. Hemos tratado de determinar las necesidades específicas de estudiantes a través de la identificación y el examen de las funciones asociadas con la acción de tutoría. Varias líneas de acción cuyo objetivo es el de mejorar la función de tutoría se proponen.
Abrams, H., & Jernigan, L.P. (1984). Academic support services and the success of high-risk college students. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 261-274.
2.
American College Personnel Association. (1994 ). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association.
3.
Ashwin, P. (2006). Variation in academics' accounts of tutorials . Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 651-665.
4.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1998). Discourse analysis. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Burns, T., & Sinfield, S. (2004). Teaching, learning and study skills: A guide for tutors. London: Paul Chapman.
6.
Campbell, E. (2003). The ethical teacher. Maidenhead , UK: Open University Press.
7.
Caple, R.B. (1996). The learning debate: A historical perspective . Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 193-202.
8.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Sephen, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing America's undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
9.
Colom, A. (1988). Tecnología y medios educativos [Technology and educational means]. Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Pedagógicas.
10.
Daeid, N.N. (2001). The development of interactive World Wide Web based teaching material in forensic science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 105-108.
11.
Denzin, N.K. (1989). Interpretive biography. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dismukes, D., Yarbrough, S., Zenanko, M., & Zenanko, M. (2004). Technology at the Center for Two Learners. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to ImproveLearning, 48(6), 50-52.
14.
Fielden, J. (2001). Higher education staff development: Continuing mission. In Thematic debate of the follow-up to the World Conference on Higher Education. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from http://www.unesco.org
15.
Fleet, A., & Cambourne, B. (1984). The coding of naturalistic data. Research in Education, 41, 1-15.
16.
Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1988). Etnografía y diseño cualitativo en investigación educativa [Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research]. Madrid, Spain: Morata.
17.
Guskin, A.E. (1994). Reducing student cost and enhancing student learning: Part 2: Restructuring the role of faculty. Change, 26(4), 23-29.
18.
Hartley, J. (1998). Learning and studying. London : Routledge.
19.
Huber, G.L. (2003). Processes of decision-making in small learning groups. Learning and Instruction, 13(3), 255-269.
20.
Kuh, G.D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 135-148.
21.
Madden, N. (2006). Reducing the gap: Success for all and the achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 389-400.
22.
Miles, M.M., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Nevgi, A., Virtanen, P., & Niemi, H. (2006). Supporting students to develop collaborative learning skills in technology-based environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 937-947.
24.
Ng, K.C. (2007). Face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(1). Retrieved May 18, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/335/764
25.
Pelto, P., & Pelto, G. (1978). Anthropological research: The structure of inquiry . New York: Harcourt Brace.
26.
Price, R.V. (2000). PSI revisited: Designing college courses using the personalized system of instruction (PSI) model. Lubbock : Texas Tech University.
27.
Race, P. (1998). An education and training toolkit for the new millennium? Innovations in Education and Training international , 3(35), 262-271.
28.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
29.
Silen, C. (2006). The tutor's approach in base groups (PBL). Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education andEducational Planning, 51(3), 373-385.
30.
Sweeney, J., O'Donoghue, T., & Whitehead, C. (2004). Traditional face-to-face and Web-based tutorials: A study of university students' perspectives on the roles of tutorial participants . Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 311-323.
31.
VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W.B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209-249.
32.
Walker, R. (1989). Métodos de investigación para el profesorado [Methods of research for teachers]. Madrid, Spain: Morata.
33.
Woods, P. (1993). La escuela por dentro. La etnografía en la investigación educativa [Inside schools: Ethnography in educational research]. Barcelona, Spain: Paidos.
34.
Zenanko, M.A., & Zenanko, M. (1996, February). Teacher education students as tutors for a diverse K-12 population: A model tutorial program for university-school collaboration. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teachers Educators, Atlanta, GA.
