Student discussion groups: Can they support independent final year work

1
Student discussion groups Can they support
independent final year work?

• Siobhan Hugh-Jones Anna Madill
• Institute of Psychological Sciences
• University of Leeds

2
Background

• Focus on level 3 qualitative projects
• Why?
• Growing demand for supervision
• Some doubts about student preparedness
• Psychology at University of Leeds
• Fulfil BPS and QAA requirements
• Qualitative methods a speciality
• 30 of level 3 do qualitative project
• Yet, reported student anxiety

3
The study

• Aim Develop an effective means of utilising
  group work to complement one-to-one supervision
• Why?
• student satisfaction and performance in projects
  related to level of social support experienced
  (Swager,1997)
• group work encourages students to learn with and
  from each other (Greenbank, 2003)
• peer supervision promotes accountability and
  counters dependency (Hardcastle, 1991)
• peer work boosts morale, non-threatening
  feedback, discussion skills (Akhurst Kelly,
  2006)
• How achieved?
• establish, monitor, and evaluate group learning
  sessions facilitating peer interaction in the
  design, implementation, and analysis of
  qualitative project work

4
The set-up

• e-mail recruitment of relevant students
• 29 students agreed to participate
• allocated randomly to 1 of 4 groups
• 6 sessions (3 per semester) scheduled by the
  researchers
• handouts and evaluation forms prepared by the
  researchers for each session (54 evaluation forms
  returned)
• 10 observations made of the 3 larger groups

5
The sessions

• Research question methodologies
• Developing interview schedule
• Conceptualising interview data
• Qualitative analysis
• Initial findings
• Quality criteria

6
Analysis of Student Feedback and Group
Observations

• 1. Were students willing and able to learn from
  each other?
• Mostly yes to being willing and sometimes to
  being able
• Mean rating for enhancing understanding 4.9
  (out of 7 n54)
• They chat about the effects of the interviewer on
  what answers they might get. A couple of students
  say they dont really understand. One girl uses
  her study as an example and says she is looking
  at the role of feminism and explains how she
  might get different answers than a male
  researcher. 2, 2, 2

7
1. Were students willing and able to learn from
each other?

• Often sought clarification
• Later on, there is some discussion of the
  meanings around social constructionism. One
  female is not very clear about what this means.
  Another female summarises this very well for her.
  6, 2, 4
• Female refers back to the handout and queries
  what situating your sample means. The group
  discusses how to do this, and debate where to put
  which section of the dissertation this
  information. 6, 2, 3

8
1. Were students willing and able to learn from
each other?

• seeking feedback on their own work
• open-ended feedback on most useful session
  discussing own interview schedule (n8)
• avoidance of facts peer feedback occasionally
  practical but suggestions often based on
  anecdotal evidence
• Rather than giving constructive and/or factual
  advice such as references to reading material,
  advice was often given in the form of personal
  opinion well, if it was me I would.. or past
  experiences Ive done a study like that for
  A-level and I found Other students seemed to
  respond well to this and started asking for
  advice in those terms, e.g. do you know anyone
  who has ever or what would you do if this was
  your project 2, 2, 7
• Students seem reluctant to say for certain what
  they think. When students say things like, Im
  probably wrong but you could try,,,, or I think
  this is right but youd probably have to check
  with your supervisor. 1, 2, 5

9
1. Were students willing and able to learn from
each other?

• group as support for project management
• open ended feedback sharing ideas and
  anxieties (n12)
• There are a few humorous suggestions to handle an
  interviewee digressing but generally students are
  thinking hard about this as all express some form
  of nervousness at having to interview for the
  first time and not wanting to come across as
  inept to the interviewee. 2, 2, 2.
• The female members are openly discussing how
  vulnerable they feel at this moment in time, with
  their respective looming work pressures there
  seems to be more emphasis on the emotional
  aspects of coping with the research. 6, 2, 5
• aired complaints and uncertainties
• Session 1 Groups 2 and 3 data omitted

10
2. Can students steer group discussions to a
level at which they can participate in and
benefit from?

• in general, yes
• mean rating for perceived ability to contribute
  to discussion
• 5.6 (out of 7)
• mean rating for quality of discussion 5.4
• struggled with managing openings
• Once tables are pushed together and students
  helped themselves to session handouts in middle
  of table, quietly reading for about 3-4 minutes.
  No one speak or looks up during this time.
  1,1,1
• They seem reluctant to be the one to break the
  silence. A few nervous giggles. 1, 2, 2

11
2. Can students steer group discussions to a
level at which they can participate in and
benefit from?

• keen to benefit from the session by using
  materials
• Occasionally the conversation digressed but
  rarely onto a non-psychology topic. Group
  members were explicit in noting digressions - I
  think weve gone off the subject, I dont think
  this is relevant, shall we move on and didnt
  seem to mind doing this. 2, 2, 6.
• Conversation digresses to questionnaires they
  have recently filled in for a postgraduate
  student on dreams qualitative questionnaire.
  After approx 2 minutes one girl states I think
  weve gone off the topic a bit and then reads
  out the next example. 1, 2, 2

12
2. Can students steer group discussions to a
level at which they can participate in and
benefit from?

• steering to manage unwanted direction of
  discussion
• One girls asks the group what their research
  questions are and suggests the group might
  benefit from a picking apart session. The group
  seems reluctant to do this.a couple seem to get
  involve and start by asking her questions. Other
  members disengage and chat amongst themselves
  they seemed willing to accept moderate advice
  earlier on but not now maybe this suggestion is
  over-critical. 1,1,6
• One girl suggests they remind each other what
  they are all doing for their projects. The rest
  of the group dont seem very keen to do this and
  no one says anything in response.2, 2, 2
• One student says Can anyone be bothered doing
  this? Group goes quiet. Discuss they thought
  they session would be lecturer-led. Dont seem to
  like this arrangement. Male says he should leave
  because he has no idea what he is doing. But
  group encourage him to stay and chat move to
  discuss how to choose supervisor. 1, 3, 8

13
2. Can students steer group discussions to a
level at which they can participate in and
benefit from?

• in the unmotivated groups - exit guilt.
• start putting coats onthey decide to look at
  the session objectives. One students says
  actually that would have been quite useful if we
  had actually done these. The group laugh. 1, 3,
  10.

14
3. How do students manage group discussions that
require a disclosure of independent, personal
work?

• unequal disclosure or engagement persevered to
  engage or ignored them
• Members become disinterested in topic and strike
  up separate conversations with someone not
  speaking. Those in discussion seem to feel guilty
  that others have lost interest usually results
  in one of these students suggesting they move on
  to the next session objective. 1, 2, 8
• It is possible that the genuinely interested
  students reserved some of their knowledge since
  they didnt feel the other students deserved this
  information.knowledgeable students offered
  advice on where requested information could be
  found, but rarely offered the actual answers. 1,
  2, 9

15
3. How do students manage group discussions that
require a disclosure of independent, personal
work?

• protective (defensive) of their own research
  decisions
• She doesnt seem to want to discuss her ideas,
  just tell the group what they are. Another female
  student tries to give her advice on her
  methodology. She pauses at this and continues
  what she was saying without addressing the
  suggestion. 1,1,4
• Group offer suggestions about bias in her samples
  and how she can avoid this. She disagrees with
  all of their suggestions and all of a sudden
  seems unwilling to focus on her own study and
  tries to change the subject by reading aloud the
  third session objective. 1, 2, 3

16
4. How do they manage lack of certainty? Do they
surrender power to the experts (Ashworth, 2004)?

• very occasional group empowering
• One girl asks in the middle of this discussion,
  how do we know if the advice and answers we are
  giving each other is right? The group goes
  quiet and mutters dispiritedly that they dont
  know. One girl suggests well, there are 6 of us
  so there is a good chance one of us will know and
  if not we can reach a consensus. The girl who
  asked the question seems happy with this as do
  other group members.2, 2, 2
• The main sticking point was how to move from
  description of emerging themes to their analysis.
  The group agreed they need more time to go away
  and think about this. They decide to meet before
  the next agreed session 6, 2,7
• The group moves.to talking about the purpose of
  this group. Another responds, Were here to
  support each other, and recognise that were all
  in the same boat! F3 adds, I think its been
  useful, but it would have been nice to have
  someone come in and reassure us! However, F2
  reminds her, But the idea is that we do it for
  ourselves! 6, 2, 6

17
4. How do they manage lack of certainty? Do they
surrender power to the experts (Ashworth, 2004)?

• sometimes conceded to uncertainty
• open ended feedback difficulty in answering
  questions (n4)
• One person asks whats the difference between
  grounded theory and discourse analysis? The
  groupoffer different explanations. They conclude
  that no one has the answer since they all thought
  it was something different.1, 1, 6
• Some disagreement about being judgemental. All
  but the male join in on debate and try to put in
  context of their own projects. No consensus
  reached. One girl says maybe we could find out
  about that for next week? No one answers. They
  read the next objective.

18
4. How do they manage lack of certainty? Do they
surrender power to the experts (Ashworth, 2004)?

• often intolerant of uncertainty and used it to
  legitimise disengagement
• One girl reads out the last objective the male
  joins in saying he doesnt fully understand what
  it means. The group seem relieved and continue
  getting their coats on. 1, 2, 7
• One student says oh well, we dont really know
  the answers to these questions yet so well do it
  next time. 1, 3, 17
• very often protective / defensive of advice from
  supervisors
• loyalties shifted

19
4. How do they manage lack of certainty? Do they
surrender power to the experts (Ashworth, 2004)?

• All seem to follow supervision advice and if
  advice given from the group conflicts with that
  they seem adamant that supervisor knows best. 1,
  1, 8
• Some debate on meaning of a few qualitative ideas
  mainly due to students perceived differences in
  way their supervisors had described the theory.
  Students very rigid in their approach to this
  task. When others disagree with their
  interpretation they argue the point a little
  longervery little compromise or resolution when
  disagreements in this area occur..Well, Im not
  changing now as this is what my supervisor told
  me to do 1, 2, 4
• They will not take opposing advice from anyone
  elses supervisor. This resulted in students
  disengaging. Or chatting with someone who had
  same supervisor 1, 2, 9

20
5. Was there evidence of group management skills?

• yes - asking appropriate questions, suggesting
  directions for discussion, seeking feedback,
  leadership skills - no group addressed appointing
  a Chair.
• One of the female students reads the suggestion
  out loud from the session objectives but no one
  responds. After a few awkward seconds another
  student changes the subject and reads out the
  next session objective. The issue is not raised
  again. 1, 2, 2
• group management skills give up on
  disinterested students but avoided confronting
  loafers - gave rise to group fracturing at
  times
• Disengaged pair . one puts coat on and other
  answers her phone which has started to ring. I
  think the other two pairs have conceded they will
  never get this pair involved and have excluded
  them from any conversation..The engaged four
  seem determined to carry on regardless of the
  distraction . The four students ..seem to have
  formed a closer bond as a direct result of the
  two dissenting students. There is a distinct
  feeling of camaraderie between the four. 2, 2,
  6

21
Preliminary evidence of effect on performance

• Supervision meetings
• Some questions raised from groups, but not
  extensive
• Project work
• approx 5 mentioned the groups as part of
  reflexivity and some direct evidence of group
  discussion (e.g. on evaluating qualitative work).
• but not all students showed explicit effect
• Awaiting staff focus group and final student
  evaluation

22
Issues engagement

• openings may need help
• generally positive and engaged, especially when
  they can see the relevance to their own project
• students invest most in project work as see it as
  an authentic assessment of their true ability
  (Todd et al, 2004)
• understanding drop-out attribute to lack of
  student motivation (Taylor and Bedford, 2004) but
  not reflected in project marks
• mass production standards (Ramsden, 2002)
  producing discourse of deficit (Lawrence, 2002)
• Q does group work benefit all students equally?
  

23
Issues engagement

• most interested in what each other is doing and
  progress to date
• centrality of support in terms of project
  management time management for open task is
  challenging
• contrary to student perceptions that peer group
  work is limited due to lack of expertise (Todd et
  al, 2004)
• willing to seek peer feedback on their own work
• deploy anecdotal rather than factual
  understanding
• but reluctant to share if contributions are
  unequal
• Belbin (1993) group roles

24
Issues uncertainty

• but may disengage when faced with uncertainty
• resonates with students own perceptions
• Todd et al. (2004) uncertainty and challenge
• state of liminality (Silen,2003)
• evoked by threshold concepts (Meyer and Land,
  2003)
• both frustrated and stimulated
• they are afraid they will not learn with enough
  or the right things.In due time, they discover
  that they are capable of making their own
  decisions which results in a sense of comfort and
  pride in their own capability (p 4)
• how do we support students here?

25
Issues defensiveness

• difficulty managing unwanted suggestions or
  advice
• defensive around supervision (Nias, 1993)
• crosses personal / peer divide
• investment in decision-making with supervisor
• supervisors seen as crucial in parameter setting
  and framing the research process (Todd et al,
  2004)
• Supervisors see efforts as collaborative (Todd et
  al., 2006)
• location of decision-making unwillingness to
  rethink decisions
• reflects University novice-expert discourse
  (Read et al, 2003)
• Need to know
• How do students combined supervision with peer
  discussions?
• Does group work limit development of autonomy?