Investigation in practice:

Scenario A: What might the principle of Investigation look like in practice?

In Scenario A, a new online training program for writing instructors is being launched at Burgundy University. More than twenty instructors have volunteered to learn to teach writing online, and the university estimates that eventually, it will need at least one hundred online writing instructors. However, funding is tight and, although the university is prepared to offer a small stipend to those who participate in training, the total amount offered will cover only ten participants in this round. Before providing more funding, the university wants some kind of proof that the training plan the writing program administrator, Craig, has proposed will be sufficiently efficient and effective.

Craig plans to pair individual trainees with experienced online instructors, who will be their trainers. The training experience will occur over the course of six weeks. The new trainees will not teach in the online classroom during training, but they will receive simulated student contact with their trainers and other novice online instructors and, if they meet the program's criteria for success, they will provide supplemental assistance to online students as tutors during the second half of the semester.

Because his budget dictates that only three experienced trainers can be paid for this work, Craig has decided to train only six new instructors and to implement some communicative structures that help to create association among them. He is not certain that one trainer can work effectively with more than two trainees at one time when they are also responsible for other teaching and scholarly work within their institution.  How can Craig use the principle of Investigation to examine trainer-to-trainee ratio and effectiveness in his institutional setting?

To investigate trainer-trainee ratio, in this scenario, Craig has at least two options:

• Assign two trainees to each trainer, or
• Assign one trainee to trainer A, two to trainer B, and three to trainer C.

He needs to determine which option will enable him to collect sufficient data to "prove" his training program to the university. Concurrently, he must learn whether his program works in its basic concept, whether the trainers can sufficiently mentor more than one trainee in a six week period, and how well the trainees work with both simulated students (the trainers) and actual students during the semester. His investigation might examine data from:

• Feedback to training documents -- as perceived by the trainers and trainees;
• Reported time used in training by trainers and trainees;
• Qualitative evaluation of trainee work, both during simulations and from archived teaching documents as online tutors; and
• Trainee metacognitive reflection into online instructional strategies.

We trust that readers can think of other data that might help Craig to investigate his new program, revise it to assist trainers and trainees better, and argue for the appropriate budget for training on a broader scale. With such data, the writing program administrator can begin to make claims for his online training program as one that will benefit students, online instructors, and -- of course -- the overall institution.